 So, good morning. You are with the House Government Operations House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. We are gathering here together to have some time with Dr. Aiton Nasred and Longo, who is the co-chair of the, or the chair of the Racial Disparities Panel, advisory panel, and Dr. Nasred and Longo is going to review with us some of the takeaways of the report that was published, I believe, in December. Is that correct? That is. And so committees, if you are able to, you can go to the legislative website and find a copy of the report there. And so I would love to turn this over to you and have you share any prepared remarks. And then I will keep an eye on the participants list to see if folks have questions for you. Okay. I will, my remarks are relatively short. I had a much longer presentation, but I figured for some reason, unaccountably, I should condense everything and make this as quick as I can and leave enough time for questions or comments that people may have. As you all know, Act 54, which created the panel in 2017, got the ball rolling. It had, the panel had a rather rocky start. There was some friction between the first chairs and other members of the panel. It was awkward and we don't really need to go into it, but it became clear at a certain point that I would, I was appointed to the chair by the attorney general or to the panel, the panel voted me as the chair and it has been that way since. We are required, as you probably know, to produce a report every two years that makes recommendations more or less to the amelioration of racial disparities in both the criminal and juvenile justice systems. This took rather a while. There are a lot of criticism that we weren't moving fast enough. I kind of came on with the belief that from my sixth grade civics class that democracy is one of those things that's horrifically inefficient and really wonderful and take some great deal of time. I said, so we're going to take a great deal and there was some criticism as I say that. But what I was pleased by was the fact that we managed to produce a report that everybody on the panel voted in on, and I felt that that was really important. That we got as much buy-in as possible. I didn't expect unanimity. I was very pleased by it. And I think that part of that had to do with the fact that as David share, who is on the panel, he is the attorney general's representative said, we were making remarks from 30,000 feet, which is to stay very broad, very big. And we didn't feel that we wanted to get too specific because we also felt that that was the job of the legislature, the elected people. We would certainly make recommendations as to areas that we felt needed to be considered. And that is what we've done. We are now, just so you know, in the process of refining that of getting down to perhaps 10,000 feet and thinking about the fact that there probably will not be unanimity at that close range. And what does a report look like when we in fact do that. The big takeaways are one of the big things that act 54 asks is that the panel address a public complaint process. How to institute as it says a public complaint process to address perceived implicit bias across all systems of state government. Again, spoke about this at great length, and the simple answer the readers digest redacted version that is reduces all the new one, I should say, was that we didn't feel we should create a new body that there was no real need for that but that earlier, the Human Rights Commission would be beefed up and we felt that that was an appropriate place to house a public complaint process to in fact address a plus implicit bias across all systems of state government. We suggested that additional resources were needed to prioritize race related bias complaints and to resolve them in a timely manner. The Human Rights Commission would have to establish the infrastructure that was needed to handle and redirect to resolve these cases, and also of course maintain data related to complaints and to outcomes. We recommended of course that funding would be needed to support the Human Rights Commission's well educational outreach and certainly training, caseload coordination, mediation, etc. One of our other mandates had to do rather dramatically with race data collection. The question was whether to expand law enforcement race data collection practices to include data on non traffic stops by law enforcement. And I certainly can note at this point that Act 148 recently passed has provided a path for implementation of data collection reform, and I can certainly let you know that we have been in a lot of meetings over the last probably three weeks with various actors in IT around the state and pulling that together in such a way that we can produce a report about data that is asked for by Act 148 and we will be doing that in association with the Sentencing Commission. The report back in December spoke about the need to increase data collection that captures what we call the high impact, high discretion points that occurred during judicial processes within the state's attorney's offices, the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Defender General, and certainly of course the judiciary than other high impact, high discretion moments, administrative processes within the Department of Children and Families, and certainly within the Department of Corrections. Other moments would include charging, bail and pretrial release, plea bargaining, sentencing, and the usage of alternative justice options such as diversion. We also feel that data collection needs to be improved with respect to law enforcement by providing resources and expanding them to include information about all use of force incidents, and of course that's starting to be looked at now with S219. And we urged very strongly a commitment to staffing and other resources to collect and compile data properly using best practices given that those change. There were other issues here that I can go through. Those were perhaps the large ones that the mandate from Act 54 required. Oh no, one other, racial profiling in fact. We were asked whether and how to prohibit racial profiling, including implementing any associated penalties. This was somewhat more contentious because there are members of the panel who just don't feel very positively about the idea of creating new laws. And so we didn't get perhaps as far with this as we might have, but we did do some work. One of our recommendations was to ensure that Vermont statutes track federal requirements with respect to due process for those with limited English proficiency, and that would certainly include juvenile delinquency proceedings. Supporting the use of objective and simple screening tools, by first responders to assess the need for mental health or substance abuse treatment and the involvement in this of behavioral health experts. Supporting the development and implementation of training to educate the public on their individual rights. Training should be focused on the people most affected by racial disparities and include training on where to report racially disparaging experiences. Next implementing and expanding training for officers promoted into supervisory and managerial positions to ensure that people occupying those roles will hold all officers accountable on issues of race, racial disparities, cultural competency and of course data collection. We certainly were behind continuing to enforce high standards of training for all law enforcement officers to ensure cultural competency and adequate education in relation to matters of bias. And then lastly in this section, expanding and supporting the use of community policing approaches to law enforcement. Again, those were the big areas that act 54 asks for the panel to consider. We did go a bit further. And we did so because people were thinking, I have to say, these were, it was, it's been a wonderful experience to work with this group of people. It is a platitude to speak of them as people of good conscience and I now know why that's a platitude, because there's a lot of truth in it. And these people thought very broadly, there was a lot of, there were a lot of difficult conversations. There were a lot of truly difficult conversations that I think brought forth some very interesting points. We spoke about training and outreach, needing more training in the area of racial biases, racial equity, cultural sensitivity, and understanding how these matters impact discretionary decision making points. How they entrench or how that kind of bias entrenched white supremacy in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Training that exists for actors in the system should be expanded to include members and staff of the legislature and citizens as needed. We also spoke about legislative inclusion, you may have heard the phrase, not about us without us. This is something that has come out of many minority communities. The point of this saying concerns the ways in which legislation that affects minority communities is usually created and we felt wrongly without the input of those communities. We were hoping that the legislative proposals that conceivably could impact minority communities could be vetted in some fashion that includes these often silent or ignored voices. We spoke again about home detention, the need for that, for individuals detained pre-trial, having the potential to help keep already tattered minority communities and families together, in this case while the criminal process is underway. We focused again on mental health and substance abuse disorders. Of course, that's very much in the news right now in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. We believed that there needed to be expanded support of response teams that include experts in mental health and substance abuse disorders to assist in responding to behavioral health situations. The hope is that that would avoid a necessary entry into the court system of people who really don't need to be there. And certainly reducing court involvement can reduce the impact of racially disparate outcomes. Staffing, the panel supported a move towards a more individualized approach to cases, one that is more outcome based and designed to address the specific needs of each person in the criminal justice system. This requires a reduction in current case load pressures. We spoke again in this point, it sort of goes back to legislative inclusion in a way impact upon people of color. We were concerned, are concerned with conceiving of strategies to track and document the racial impacts of policies being made in the state. The creation of such legislation shouldn't involve the input of communities of color, and that a body is likely our gap in self. We focused a bit on the matter of discretion, in fact, knowing that discretion is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system. I feel it was necessary to speak of its known benefits, but in light of racial disparity in the application of the law, it was necessary we felt to speak of the many ways in which implicit bias can make its unacknowledged way into decisions made by prosecutors, law enforcement officers and judges. It was felt that by several members of the panel, that a system of oversight of checks and balances, which does not presently insist for the aforementioned official should, and that that lack of oversight that currently insists contributes to the persistence of a problem for citizens who belong to communities of color. So the issue is sort of, that's kind of the big takeaway in here. And we, as I say, are working currently on the data issue which came up very happily in Act 148. That report is due to the legislature on the 1st of December. We're making great headway on it. Our next meeting is a week from tonight. And I think that probably covers it. At least, it's enough. Can I answer any questions for anyone. Thank you so much for for that overview and I see Senator Sears would like to ask a question. Yes. Again, I'll also thank you for the overview and thank you for the report. Very thorough. One of the places that I'm looking at is page, the bottom of page eight staffing. And I'm opening it up at the moment, Senator, it's, it's one of those wonderful moments of having one computer. I guess my question is this is something that frankly I think both judiciary committees and others in the legislature have strived for as much as possible, making the criminal justice system more individualized and the juvenile justice system as well. So that we're dealing with people's actual problems. Because oftentimes, as you know, the crime may not indicate the level of dysfunction or the level of the problem. And I, I wanted to highlight that as an area where we could use ideas, help on how to make this better because our goal has been, I think Representative grad would agree with me, our goal has been an individualized criminal justice system that looks at the person and what their needs are and whether they need to be incarcerated, how long should they be incarcerated, if they should all be and what are the alternatives to incarceration. And I realize this report is about the impact on people of color. But I think in general, this has been our goal. And I would like you to comment a little bit more about that particular section. I need to comment more sir. I'd like to know a little bit more about what went into the thinking of the panel. It is, it is sort of interesting, because in a weird way it imbricated very much with questions around mental health, you know, because in it, and I don't think I'm leaping too far logically here to speak of how mental health are so individual so singular and yet also the sorts of things that get people entree into the criminal justice system. I think we started there and then we kind of went you know, it really is a broader issue of looking at each case more specifically, because in many cases, you know we certainly have this huge overpopulation of people of color. That may have to do with a lot of things, a lot of social problems that need to be looked at so that people are directed in different directions that might then we would hope reduce their involvement with the criminal justice system. And that was where that recommendation came from. I appreciate that I feel. I think it's more than just embedding social workers in police departments. I think that's probably having having adequate information about the individual and their needs before we make a sentencing recommendation. Exactly. And I, I appreciate that I think it's important. I'm not sure how we reduced current caseload pressures, given the budgetary pressures but it's something we should strive for and one of the, one of the, frankly, one of the problems in the criminal justice system it's asked to take on people with significant mental health issues that should be dealt with in a different system. Right, right. But we were. We were acutely aware of funding issues of budgetary concerns, and there was a dialectic really involving most of our discussions that had to do with how far do we go do we really shoot for the moon do we back and off and we really in the end decided to shoot for the moon. And part of that had to do with the fact that 400 years of racism took a tremendous amount of capital to put into place. What systemic injustice looks like in 2020 took a lot of money. I'm talking about slave ships. I'm talking about the kinds of hearings that went on on the federal level to ensure the existence of gerrymandering of redlining I mean it's there was a lot of resource allocation to create systemic problems and I think once one gets to that observation shooting the moon when you come to make recommendations like this seems like a reasonable thing to do, even if money may not at that moment be there. But the fact is, if it took that much to get here. It's probably going to take a fair amount to get away from it. So far as to say that if you if one doesn't think that it would it's probably a bit naive. That doesn't get us away from the budget. But I'm just saying I think that was certainly behind a lot of our thinking when we went for the moon with our report. I will say that and you were involved with it that the effort of justice reinvestment to by spending money that we're sending out of state currently, and spending that on back in the community to try to provide alternatives for people as a step in the right direction, precisely, precisely. Thank you. Representative Colston has a question. Thank you. And I want to thank you Dr. and that's read and long go for a well written and impactful report. And, you know, I believe that white supremacy culture is the air that we all breathe. Regardless of the color of our skin, we are all impacted by this system. So my question is, was there any conversation by the panel on what does dismantling this culture look like? What does mitigating this culture look like? Because for my brothers and sisters who identify as white, you know, you don't know what you don't know. And so any specificity about what that could look like. And on the recommendations, the simple answer is no. We got very concrete. That was partly, I guess I have to take the blame for that. I was very much into, can we make concrete recommendations that actually can be worked on by the legislature. And then could be dedicated to that is certainly an area that the report is lacking in. I would defer to the people who are working on the curriculum. In fact, the people who are working on the, what are what is the term, it's not culturally sensitive it's culturally competent curriculum and I'm not presenting that in the schools that that educational approach is certainly and I'm a teacher so of course I have a bias that way. But I think that that is absolutely where this has to begin. And they are doing that. They are doing that. So I have to say no beyond the recommendations we have not gone into the areas in the ways in which you are asking. Thank you. You're welcome. So I appreciate you framing this and and really helping to challenge us to see this as a as a broader issue and also recognizing that some of the investments that we need to make in order to correct this generations of of disparity and bias are are going to be significant and that will take us time to to appropriate those resources in the right way. I think in that context we recognize here in at least in House government operations and House judiciary. We've talked quite a bit about this that we have a few bills that are in front of us right now that are the ones that we can accomplish right now but we realize that they are but small steps in the in this more systemic process a holistic process of of really helping all of our neighbors. Educate themselves and realize how they have been impacted by systemic racism so we recognize that this is you know we're we're we're at just step one or not step one I mean we've done we've done a number of different things including setting up the the panel that that you headed up to to bring this report to us but there is definitely more that we can and need to do. And you know and there's a lot of culture change on a lot of levels that needs to happen I mean I was speaking with assistant attorney general David share the other day about the cannabis bill and that had come to my attention and sadly too late because we don't need as a panel until next week. But I kind of had a moment, you know, going thinking that if you just think of American history, the regulation of substances has, I think it's not too much to say, really contributed to the mass incarceration problem that we see nationally. So I kind of looked at that bill and had a moment of panic, going, you know, why is this on the front of the art app, you know, what do I do and that's a culture change thing that we need to figure out a better way to kind of get those bills maybe the art that maybe some other body in some way that it's, you know that there is some assessment of racial impact, certainly on a bill like that I mean that's it I must admit to a certain amount of trepidation that that is as far along and committee as it is and you know, I'm kind of like, Oh God, I wish we could have looked at that. And of course with COVID I mean everything is crazy it's 2020 nobody knows what's going on, but you know, those sorts of things culture change, you know that naturally someone would say we need to get this through to and get response from them and then we need to have a way of, you know, looking at it, coming back with concrete suggestions, comments and so on. Those kinds of things and that will take time to figure out. Well, I can speak for myself and hypothetically if I'm chair of government operations in the coming biennium. I would welcome your feedback, obviously passage of the bill is a very small part of the implementation of a tax and regulate system. So there are other opportunities for us to to hear your concerns and in the context of of tax and regulate for cannabis. We are, of course, in Maxine's committee talking about expungement of prior conviction and so would welcome Maxine to jump in for a moment and and just fill us all in on on where the expungement process bill is right now. Great, thank you so we're currently working on it as past the Senate in a larger expungement bill but we are just focusing on cannabis and and I hope to pass that in our committee. This week would be great. Ah, okay. Thank you. Thank you and I thank the Senate for their work on it. Representative Christie has this hand up. Thank you all. Great to see us all here today, working on this together. Both bodies, you know, more importantly. It's a great opportunity for collaboration. And thank you, eat on for being here today. I think your point, your points well taken about intentionality with regard to all legislation that passes through both bodies. I think that we have an opportunity, let's look at this in the positive. We have an opportunity to change the paradigm, as far as how we usually review things. So why not take this opportunity and look at how do we evaluate the effects of our work as a body on the racial and social equity directives across all, you know, establishments of state government. I mean, and the thing is that could probably be simply done. It wouldn't necessarily take a lot to do that. And what I'm getting at is creating a tool, you know, a tool that we would all use that would say, okay, did we look at this, this way. You know, instead of having to get all the way through the process and then go back and go, oh wow, we forgot this we forgot that. So if we can create a framework, you know, a new framework, it wouldn't be too difficult, I think it would just take resolve on behalf of the legislative entities involved to create that. But I think the intentionality around doing that would be a monumental step in mitigating systemic racism. So I just wanted to throw that out there to all of us collectively, but thank you all. So we have, we have only another 25 minutes or so together as as House and Senate members. And so we do want to switch gears to look at a draft of an amendment to 119. And so Barbara if your question is quick. Let's go to that now and if it's not let's see if we can hold on to it and and perhaps there'll be time at the end. Either way, whatever is best. I don't want to keep, I don't want to stop the flow. Okay, well let's let's jump to 119. I think it's valuable since the bill resides in our committee right now. It's valuable for all of us to look at this together, because this is a Senate bill that that we are hoping to bring across the line before final adjournment in September. And so let's look at the draft of an amendment to this bill, and then we can have a few minutes of Q&A and we'll come to you Barbara after that if we if we don't run out of time with the senators. Erin, thank you for being with us this morning and if you would please tell folks where they can find a copy of this bill. Sure. So good morning everybody. I'm going to start with the record brand here from Legislative Council. So on each individual committee web page there should be both a draft of the House judiciary amendment to s 119 and also a side by side comparison of s 119. That details on the left hand column, what the bill as it came out of the Senate look like, and then the right hand column, what the amendment looks like. I think that it may, since we've got the senators and the House members here together, I think it might make sense to do the walkthrough of the side by side because then I can point out specifically where the differences are between the Senate version and the House amendment as it as it currently stands. Thank you. If everybody could pull up their side by side. I'll start the walkthrough there. To start off, I just want to make something clear, which is that the draft amendment has been edited, and the side by side has not been edited so there may be minor technical differences between the two documents. But that will be fixed shortly, but since the editors didn't get a chance to look at it until this morning. They have not had time to look at the side by side. So as I mentioned, the side by side has the Senate version on the left and the House amendment on the right. I'll just start out by pointing out that the House version changes the title of the bill to an act relating to a statewide standard for law enforcement use of force. So rather than referring to this as a use of force policy, it rather sets out the standards for law enforcement use of force, and it also doesn't specifically set those standards for the use of deadly force, but rather for just more generally the use of force by law enforcement. So section one, you'll see that I've highlighted areas where the versions are different. And I'll draw your attention to those as we go through as we go through the sections of the bill. So since you don't have a whole lot of time, I'm just going to say that the subsection a is the definition section and the first four definitions, deadly force imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury law enforcement officer and prohibited restraint are the same in the Senate version and in the House amendment. So these definitions are largely the same as the version of H 808 that House government operations looked at earlier in the session so I'm not necessarily going to go through those carefully. Unless there's a specific question. Instead I'm going to turn the page to page two and look at the fifth definition which is totality of the circumstances because this definition does have some significant differences in the House amendment. So the Senate version set out the totality of the circumstances of the pretty short definition, all facts known to the law enforcement officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the words and conduct of the subject leading up to the use of deadly force, a little bit different here in the House version that it includes the words and conduct of the subject and the conduct and decisions of the law enforcement officer leading up to the deadly force. And then if you continue on to page three, it sets out some specific considerations of what the totality of the circumstances is to include. So you see all this language on page three and going on to page four which is in yellow is new language. So this, some of this language comes from the Seattle law enforcement policy for use of force. So this is an additional language regarding whether or not the subject is under the influence of the substance and factors that may indicate the presence of a mental illness. So I'm going to go through these one by one. So A is the seriousness of the crime or the suspected offense. B is the conduct of the subject being confronted as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time, and that includes two subsections here. The first is any signs of intoxication, impairment or disorder thought that's related to the use or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances or subdivision to signs of the subject is suffering the effects of a mental defect or has a physical disability that impairs the subject's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement commands. Subdivision C and at the bottom of page three now the time available to the officer to make a decision. Moving to page four D, the availability of other resources including non-lesal means to gain the compliance of the subject. These include factors regarding like the physical characteristics of the officer and the person that the officer is dealing with factors such as age, size, relative strength of the officer in the subject, the skill level and training of the officer and whether the officer or the subject are injured or exhausted. Subdivision F is environmental factors and any exigent circumstances. So all of those particular factors fall under totality of the circumstances. So any consideration of what the totality of circumstances includes is going to include this whole list of other factors. Is that clear? That's pretty important since the policy really hinges on totality of the circumstances including like you'll see objective reasonableness or the reasonable belief of the officer is throughout these standards. And all of those determinations are going to hinge on what the totality of the circumstances are. Is that clear enough for me to keep going? Jim Harrison has his hand up. Yeah, just a quick question, Brian. Adding all of these details make it more complicated in the sense that you've got to go through all these steps to see which ones you satisfy. I mean, I would think in the original language is sort of like a gut check by the officer quickly in his head. Or her head that of what they got to do. I'm just, I don't know, it seems like a lot of detail and I'm just wondering if it muddies the waters a little bit, but maybe that's just me. Well, I would, I would note that this, these factors are going to be considered by the finder of fact and any, in any case that's before a court, for example. So I wouldn't, I look at these more of as something that as what a court will look at in determining whether or not the use of force was reasonable in a particular set of circumstances, rather than something that the law officer has to consider before using force. Thank you. Representative Gannon and then Senator Benning has his actual hand up. Thank you. Most of these, you know, are fairly clear but going down to the final one environmental factors and any exigent circumstances. Can you explain that a little more what that means. So, again, this is from the Seattle law enforcement use of force policy. And because it comes last, I think that it's designed to sort of be a catch all what else is going on at the time. I read exigent circumstances to mean any other sort of pressing environmental factors that are going on around the situation. I do think I agree that it's sort of a broader, a broader factor to consider and I do think it's intended to be a catch all. Yeah, it's huge. I mean, could throw anything in there. I mean, are these known to the officer or just general. So, to me it that reads as generally what is going on at the time because exigent circumstances really means any pressing circumstances at the time I think that you could extrapolate to the officer, but it doesn't specify that. Thank you. Senator Benning. Thank you madam chair, Brent, I'm assuming that these factors have been incorporated into the training of law enforcement officers in Seattle. Do you have any information that they have not been. No, they are required to receive training on this policy. I'm not, I don't know. For sure what that with the amount of training is. Okay, and just to follow up, are you aware of any court cases where this has been used to defend an officer who's been accused of violating the policy. There are court cases, I would, I'm not able to summarize those at this time, but I can certainly send you some if you'd like. If you have links, I'd love to read them. Thank you. And representative again if I might just follow up on your question. I would just correct myself that the definition of totality of the circumstances is all facts known to the law enforcement officer at the time. And those are to include that long list of specific factors. So any environmental factors and exigent circumstances would need to be known by the law enforcement officer at the time. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hooper and then Senator Sears. Sorry, I was just rolling my finger over that but since it did catch. This is been intended for criminal type evaluation of an officer's behavior does delineating all this stuff have a civil impact also. So, as we get a little bit further into these standards, we can talk about how these standards are likely to be evaluated. I don't think necessarily this would be have a criminal impact. Because you do set forth an affirmative right in this amendment or in the bill. I do think that it creates a civil cause of action, but I think that it's an open question whether or not it would have any impact on a criminal proceeding gets a law enforcement officer. Senator Sears. I just wanted to suggest given that this is still in House committees that we review this and and hopefully finish it by noon time and many of us have to leave. So understanding that at some point the House and Senator going to have to reconcile any differences that are still there. And hopefully we'll be able to use a process that perhaps avoids a conference committee but if necessary that's what we would take so I, I just kind of urge us to look at this as the House proposal of amendment and see where you end up. Before we start to pick it up. Yes, and let's see if we can jog through this in the next 10 minutes, since I know the senators do need to leave. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to pick it up again then. So I'm on page four about halfway down the page subsection be use of force. So just generally I would describe the changes in this section are to set forth standards that apply to the use of force by law enforcement generally as opposed to the use of deadly force. And we'll get into the use the standards for the use of deadly force in the next subsection C. So you'll see the one is the same B2 sets out the standard for law enforcement use the force generally. So again that general use of force standard provides that law enforcement shall only use the force that's objectively reasonable, necessary and proportional to affect an arrest to prevent escape or to overcome resistance of a person the officer has reasonable cause to believe is committed to crime, while protecting the life and safety of all persons. So again, that general use of force standard provides that use force has to be necessary has to be reasonable and has to be proportional. And you're going to the standards here are going to get into what those words mean necessary, reasonable and proportional in terms of this subdivision, a little lower down. And I'll point those out as we go. And I just also want to point out you see that subdivision to in the Senate version that language is doesn't appear here in the house version, except for it does a similar language is set forth in C2 of the House Judiciary amendment, which is in the use of deadly force section of the standards. So you do see something similar there that language doesn't go away completely. So I'm going to move on to page six now subdivision for this language has been reworded slightly to turn the evaluation on whether it was objectively reasonable, whether the decision by law enforcement to use force was objectively reasonable is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation based on the totality of the circumstances, which we described earlier on the definition section. I highlighted the language and subdivision five in the Senate version there. You see it doesn't appear here in the house version, but you can find that language or modified version of that language in subdivision to a subsection be so that language also from the Senate version doesn't disappear completely. Now that's a little confusing. Let me know if you need clarification there. Otherwise I'm going to move on to subdivision five. So this is language that also comes from the Seattle policy and this describes what the word necessary means in the use of force standard that we went through in subdivision to. So provides the use forces necessary if no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appears to exist. And the amount of force used is reasonable to affect the lawful purpose intended and whether using forces necessary again is based on the totality of the circumstances at the time that the force was used. So that sets out with that word necessary means and when it's appropriate to use force. Subdivision six. I'm on the following page page seven now this talks about what the word proportional means. And with respect to that use of force standard. The forces proportional if the level of force applied reflects the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and immediacy of any threats posed to the law enforcement officer or others. Proportional force doesn't require officers to use the same type or amount of force as as is used by the subject. And then you'll see this is sort of a broader statement. The next statement is a broader statement that the more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious bodily injury so essentially the more serious the threat and the more immediate it is. The greater level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable and necessary to counter it. And again that's all language that appears in the Seattle use of force policy. I'm on subdivision seven now I know I'm rolling through this I will listen for the chair if you interrupt me for questions. Bottom of page seven subdivision seven is a new section. And this language really describes proactive steps. The law enforcement should take if feasible prior to using force. This language is essentially describing de escalation tactics and techniques. And it comes from the justice and policing act from the congressional House of Representatives. So prior to using force law enforcement, if feasible she'll take proactive actions to stabilize the situation. So that more time options and resources are available to gain a person's voluntary compliance or reduce or eliminate the need to use force at all. And those would include verbal persuasion warnings tactical techniques slowing down the pace of an incident waiting out a subject, creating distance between the officer and the threat and requesting additional additional resources to resolve the incident. I'm going to move on to the next subdivision now subdivision see. So this sets out the standard for law enforcement use of deadly force. Subdivision one languages largely the same law enforcement is justified and using deadly force upon another person only when based on the totality of the circumstances, such forces objectively reasonable and necessary to do one of the following. Subdivision three is the same as defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury imminent debt threat of death or serious bodily injury is defined or apprehended fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury. If the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another, unless that person is immediately apprehended that language same as the Senate version. Subdivision two, this language is new. This is a description of what the word necessary means in context for this for the standard for use of deadly force by law enforcement. So the use of deadly force is necessary when given the totality of the circumstances and objectively reasonable law enforcement officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent serious bodily injury or death to the law enforcement officer or to another person. And when feasible law enforcement officer shall employ all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of deadly force. And that sort of reiterates that language that you saw in subdivision B seven about deescalation tactics being required. I'm going to move on to subdivision three. I'm on the top of page 10 now. This is also new language law enforcement officer shall cease the use of deadly force as soon as the subject surrenders or no longer poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. That language also comes from the Seattle policy. The remaining language on pages 1011 that details the policy for the use of deadly force by law enforcement is the same. There's no difference there until you turn to page 12. And we get to subdivision seven and this is the language that relates to prohibited restraints. So you can see, if everyone's with me on page 12. I'm going to move on to prohibited law enforcement from using a prohibited restraint as it's defined in the bill for any reason. And the house version here provides that law enforcement officers may use prohibited restraints, but only in a situation where the use of deadly force is justified, and no other intervention is available to law enforcement to defend against an imminent serious bodily injury. Again, that's a defined term to the officer or to another person. Some additional language there that provides law enforcement is not justified and continuing to use a prohibited restraint, when there's no longer an objectively reasonable belief that the suspect continues to pose an immediate threat of either death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. And lastly, that subdivision eight is the same language that appears in the Senate requiring officers to intervene. If they observe another officer using a prohibited restraint on person. So representative Lalonde briefly before our Senate colleagues need to go to their next meeting. I wondered if you would frame up a little bit about where this came from. Well, I'd be happy to. So this came from really looking at a lot of different sources, looking at various policies on Seattle policy has been mentioned. I was kind of pointed to that after discussion with Julio and David share at Attorney General's office about where to go with this bill. I mentioned that Seattle has one of the best policies in the country you mentioned a few others, but I knew this one would be close to representative bird its heart. So I looked at that one particularly but there are there are policies in Vermont, including in South Burlington which is very similar to the policy that's in in Seattle so so it wasn't just looking at Seattle I looked at several policies around the state of Vermont also spoke with some states attorneys who gave some input on this spoke with a professor who was written about this and looked at a number of law reviews and are in cases etc to come up with with some proposed language which I'm sure will go through the ringer with testimony over the next week and a half but just wanted to let you know where where these ideas came from. Thank you to expand on that, what if anybody wants to know a little bit more. So, thank you to Senate Judiciary for for joining us in this joint hearing this morning I know that it's a short amount of time, but we do appreciate the opportunity to look at these. These proposed changes together and trust that we can work together over the coming weeks to iron out. I hope so. I, if you could get us a timeline that would also be helpful. Since two committees are working on it sometimes. It takes longer in the house and so we need to know a timeline of my understanding is we're adjourning about the 25th of September. Yes, won't give the Senate much time to react if we're not working together on this. Exactly. So, chair to chair, we'll, we'll have some conversations in short order. Thank you. Thank you. So I wanted to go back to to Barbara's question. Okay, so. Is our witness still here actually. It was a moment. Yes, he is. Okay, so. In trying to take in everything in the report. And please tell me if this doesn't feel like a fair question but I'm wondering what would success look like for you. In what we end up doing for the rest of this session. I mean, I feel like you have a really great handle on some of the parameters, but it would be sort of good to hear your vision of what would be really important to to accomplish. I have kind of an odd idea. Um, Julio Thompson, I am honored to call a friend. Me too. I am one of the things that I enjoy about Julio is, is his just sort of boundless and protean intelligence. One day we were talking about consent decrees, because he's been involved in many of them really. While we were talking, I had one of my moments and I said, why can't the legislature create a consent decree for itself. I kind of paused and he kind of went, and I'm like, I know you're going to do precedent at me, and I'm going to say I'm not a lawyer, and that I don't care. Um, because I like the idea of the body setting for itself, a timeline of saying here is the big picture, or shall we say, here is one big picture. And we're committing that at this point we're going to be able to do this and at this point we're going to do this and so on, as police departments who are under DOJ jurisdiction during the consent decree do. And what I like about that is it gets us past a problem that really arose, certainly after the murder of George Floyd, and I will admit to an extraordinary amount of personal frustration with, we need to do it now. And I reactivity I'm the son of a social worker of a psychiatric social worker who is extraordinarily wise and brilliant and she has. She's given me everything I have I think, to this day. And one of the things that I have learned from my dear mother is that reactivity is a terrible space from which to act. I felt like we were all reacting after May 25. And I feel like there's a lot of legislation that was rough around the edges. I certainly know things I brought back to various panels and commit committees that I'm on people were angry. I feel like a consent decree would make it clear. First of all, because it's not done. It would be so clear to the, to the world that Vermont is doing something really different and serious about this that we're going to put something you know it's not unprecedented in law. Not it is a legal idea, but that we're going to put something together here and we're going to use it very unconventionally, we're going to put ourselves speaking as a legislator that I'm not. We're going to put ourselves on a consent decree. We've taken testimony from community members about this. Here are some deadlines and here are some things that need to happen. And we're not going to rush it because we know that after four centuries rushing it is nothing more than lip service. That's my fantasy. So one, I'm glad to listen to your mother. Yeah, I'm a social worker so double yay. I agree about the reactivity and I just want to say two things. One is when representative Morris and I were both serving together. We started the idea of doing a racial impact statement requirement on legislation, and I've committed to trying to see that out. I have age 362 which didn't get any action this year, but I think that would help us with reactivity if we're absolutely. And the only other thing I'd say is while I appreciate reactivity, if silence feels like it would be being complicit and so I see your point about a consent decree and I'd be curious to have my colleagues, if that's binding future legislatures. You know, I don't know. Yeah, very much. You're welcome. So Mike per wiki has his hand up. Thank you madam chair and thank you a ton and absolutely reading from the readings from the other side of pot me. Oh, I appreciate the idea of a consent to grade it makes me think we're getting ready to pass a global warming Solutions Act, which I think does something very similar, which holds the state to some standards, and allows us to. I forget the term now but we can take action so I'd like to follow through on this and see what we can do with it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Committee any other questions for Dr. Nesred and long ago before we switch gears. All right, so I appreciate you. You know, framing up this urgency that we all feel and and also, you know, suggesting some restraint in terms of how we, how we act on that sense of urgency. Maxine. Yes, thank you. Thank you as well. I want to echo those those thoughts as well and look forward to, to working with you more. Thank you. So at this point, House Judiciary will, will meet separately and move on and but I want to do thank you, Sarah and your committee and everybody for for this this was helpful. And I know that tomorrow morning we will be doing another walkthrough of the amendment. So I know pretty quickly, but it was important having having a house government ops and synergy judiciary here to get through that. But we'll do that again tomorrow in our, in our committee. So, okay, thank you. So, so we leave and I guess you stay right. We'll go off live and then we will resume this on the gov ops live stream. So thank you all for joining us this morning and see you soon.