 So, so I guess Dr. Nasreddin Longo, please. Whoops, you're muted. Yeah, suddenly dawned on me. Thank you. First off, thank you to everyone who doesn't agree about any of this, but is absolutely committed to the overarching project which is the I say erasure of racial disparity not only in our state, but let's get broad and say for the world. I'm glad we're even disagreeing it means there's something to discuss. I, of course, need to take this back to the panel. Have not done that. This as coach notes this is all discussion at this point. The panel has historically, you know, since the start being discussed about a year ago, been resistant to the idea of being advisory in any way. Now, having said that, I can't predict what it will feel about these administrative supports that are being proposed and I would surmise that that would change the conversation dramatically. Because one of the issues that did come up when this discussion was first had was that there was no way that that body was staffed well enough to do this kind of work. Simply, I mean people already have other jobs, the five community members are not even state government actors. And that that would be an absolute requirement before any discussion would happen. This is taking listen to account. The other thing that I like about it. Again, at fairly much first glance is the the bringing together of disparate bodies I like the collaboration idea. I like the idea of taking what we have and making it work more efficiently. Wonderful. Having said that I would direct everyone's attention and I can't pull it up because I have about 25 windows open on my laptop right now. But that report that the Rdap submitted in December of last year. You will note that early on in the report there are tables, one table that describes data that exists. There's a table that describes high impact, high discretion moments in an engagement with the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and another table that talked about, I believe, the data that do not exist. This was prepared by Robin Joy in crime research group. What I want to make is first off, there's a lot on that table that doesn't exist. That the Rdap field should exist. The collaboration that this amendment proposes would seem to be built on the idea that that data is here somewhere. And I think what the report was really quite clear about is, it's not. So that coupled with a reduction in the number of staff that this amendment proposes is a bit concerning. Only in so far as we've got a huge job in terms of just not only defining the data, but making it. The report, as I just said, makes clear a lot of it doesn't exist and is needful is absolutely something we need. And if we're going to reduce this entire initiative by two full time information technology data analysts, those two facts together, give me pause. I would say that that is something a major issue that I would bring up to the panel. And I don't know, again, I'm not a mind reader, I, but I, I know that that would certainly be something that a large number of members on the panel would find concerning. The other issue would be the two proposed new members of the RDAP, I would wonder are they members of the RDA, I may have gotten this wrong. It's early, I have a migraine I'm doing the best I can. If this is, if they're members of the RDAP are more specifically of the subcommittee that is proposed to be the advisory body. I, I personally would have different feelings about it, depending on where they would be. And I think the panel would as well. Those, those are the big things that pop out at me immediately. There may be more and again, I hope everyone knows I am simply doing the best I can to respond to very good faith, very warmly meant efforts by everyone who's involved in this. I think I'm just going to stop there. You're welcome. I think one of the things and that's the good thing about a discussion, you know, is you get a lot of thoughts and needless to say, it's a draft to so that being said. And then your question about, you know, getting support, you know, from the panel itself. Thinking in terms of the possibility of an a special meeting, let's not call it an emergency. Let's call it special. I'm very careful about some of my words, but calling a special meeting of RDAP to have that discussion as well. So that we can really fine tune, you know, the, the thoughts and the thinking. So as we make the formal presentation to the committee and to the body. You know, you know, we, we know we've nailed it down. So, right. So that's taking into account. I noticed that attorney Turner is here with us. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to join this discussion this morning. I know we're not taking testimony, but for the record, attorney Rebecca Turner from the office of the defender general and member of the racial disparities panel advisory panel. And so representative Christie, I really appreciate hearing you describe the latest draft proposal and hearing Patrick talk about it. I particularly appreciate that that was an effective nod of appreciation and recognition of the work that RDAP has been doing. And I want to stress that last word again. It's been enormous work and a ton. Dr. Ness read in Longo stress this as well in terms of anticipating the reaction certainly was my initial reaction, which was, my goodness, that subcommittee work, which I was on that subcommittee to get that data report forward to the main panel was an incredible effort. It felt and we can we can come we can go back as a useful measure of how much work was involved with just that effort by tracking the number of hours and being met and how often to get a sense, not to say that I'm not opposed to the concept at all. In fact, I think it's a great idea. It's certainly not just as a moment of appreciation I and that was, I think RDAP will be happy and to hear that recognition of the work we've been doing. But more importantly that that there is this acknowledgement that was on the policy side of this data collection idea that it should be fundamentally made up of people with experience in the criminal juvenile court systems and when I say experience. I don't just mean the professional work experience but that is fundamental that was lacking and I made comments and before the House Judiciary Committee on that so I appreciate that. Again, people who've been working in these systems for a long time. The government panel members, the general's representative but also community members who provide such invaluable input so I appreciate that. And I think that my, my initial reaction joins with Dr. Nezra and Longos which is the capacity making sure there is, there is, if this is where the legislature wants to go, certainly for an interim measure, because this is a huge project. And I appreciate and I think to that's, you know, how long it took us to get to this idea presentation stage. Suddenly there's a need across the board, as we heard from Senator White about data collection, but this could use as a great model and our sub that subcommittee or the interim, turning to a subcommittee of members within the RDAP is a great possibility. But again the proposal of a specific funding of positions, I think is not sufficient. Again, speaking from my experience as a subcommittee member, and then carrying coming into it with a full time position at the Office of the Defender General, it was just nearly a work of dedicated commitment that I was inspired by fellow subcommittee members and panel members and we got through it. And so I throw that out there. So somehow support that capacity, that's where it goes beyond just the positions outlined here. I appreciate Senator Sears' point about trying to get a proposed budget for quickly this session if possible. But I think I would urge the committee members to think about how to build in capacity financial support specifically or additional staff with that subcommittee group specifically. Secondly, the other thing that I think is lacking in this current draft is an enforcement mechanism. Senator Benning brought it up, asking, you know, what are the models out there in state government for such a body, and the restitution unit was brought up. I think that one of my strong, one of the points I feel strong is about, and I've raised repeatedly with the panel in this committee, has been to ensure that whatever entity, whatever title it has, whatever source has to be independent. As was brought up this morning, ARDAP is currently a creature found within Title III, Section 168, Chapter 7. Chapter 7 is titled, you know, essentially the duties of the Attorney General's office. If this is where even for an interim basis, the legislature seeks to go, it needs to be removed from the Attorney General's office. Certainly the panel members themselves speak to an inherent independence but the mere fact, and I react viscerally to hearing whenever ARDAP is described as under, or a suggestion under the control of the Attorney General's office. Again, we have to be careful about that and suggest looking elsewhere for perhaps another section to put that bureau. But the enforcement side is another fundamental point which I want to take off where Senator Benning was going is ensuring that wherever this lands, whatever branch of government this lands that there is the ability of this, this bureau to not just see this data collection coming in on a monthly basis, but to troubleshoot issue spot where things are getting stuck where data flow is not happening or coordination isn't happening effectively and having the ability to get enforcement of problem areas to unstick and keep things moving. And that I don't see built into the language of this current proposal. But I'll stop here. I'm trying to represent or Christie keep this into discussions and arm up but I know there's so many people present, but I'll stop here. Thank you. I noticed that attorney shares with us. And it'll be interesting to hear his thoughts. Thank you representative for the record David share with the Attorney General's office and as I've testified in front of this committee before we are also one member of the panel, and it's been our practice not to get out ahead of where the panel as a whole is we do believe in the collaborative work the panel has been doing we've been very grateful and impressed by Dr. Nassar and longos chair of the chairmanship work in that panel. I think it's been very effective and to all the panel members for really working together, collaboratively, collaboratively, even when there's disagreement. So I don't actually want to testify and get too far ahead I will say that the I will reiterate what Dr. Nassar and longos said that some of the prior. Well, let me start with the beginning which is that of course we support the recommendations of the panel which have this type of analysis system in place to measure the statistics we are, we helped draft the report as part of the panel we voted for we are strongly in favor of it, this should happen. With respect to the more bureaucratic questions about exactly how it happens that's where I do want to defer to discussions the panel that need to keep happening. We'll reiterate Dr. Nassar and longos testimony that there had been some concern among the panelists about placing it within the panel. In part because the panel felt that we are currently operating fairly effectively we believe and hope in terms of being an idea generator for the legislature and for the state of Vermont in terms of what policies need to be focused on and what needs to be approached next. And we are proud to do that work and happy to be a part of it. And we wouldn't want a more technical obligation to distract from that sort of higher level 30,000 foot. What's the direction that needs to happen next type of thinking which again I think has had a real impact on how legislation has been approached and revised. So we wouldn't want to have that tension, get in the way of the work that's been doing going well. However, again, as the chair mentioned that Dr. Nassar and longer mentioned the panel may have different thoughts when confronted with a proposal that may have some real resources involved and that may ameliorate some of that concern about getting dragged into a more not dragged into its important work but ending up being having to focus additionally on work that's much more technical and detail oriented than the sort of more vision and policy work that we've been dealing with that assistance with that concept of a subcommittee it may be that the panel has different ideas about it. As one panel member I can say that we, you know, our office would be open to that discussion and thinking about what might really be required to make it workable so that the panel could both continue in its more policy oriented 30,000 foot work, as well as potentially have a subcommittee of the panel that's focusing on this with adequate staff support. Certainly I'm open to that discussion. I think that could potentially be an avenue forward but I do want to have those thoughts within the panel and not use our privileged position of being called into the legislature to testify to get out in front of the panel. We look forward to having that discussion with the panel very open to this and grateful to Representative Christie for really pushing the ball forward on this and making sure we are having these, these conversations because they had, they have to happen to, to bring this thing to completion so thank you Representative Christie we are grateful to you for that and look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you. Thanks Madam Madam chair. It's pretty clear that, you know, this is just the beginning, you know, of, you know, the, the discussion. And we can look forward to taking into consideration the thoughts of our colleagues in the Senate. Our colleagues from our DAP. And taking those thoughts and moving with Eric to put those into play for an edited draft. We can work with our DAP to see if we can get the meeting together so that we can continue the discussion there. And taking into account everything that we've heard today, because that's, that's part of the process. And it's, it's worked well. And that's representative of the fact that our DAP is, is here. Upward and onward, I would say, Madam chair. Absolutely, I agree and, and appreciate that coach and appreciate everyone who has spoken today I'm not going to say testify because it was this conversation and yeah we'll just keep talking and coach will follow your lead. So thank you. Thank you everybody. So, given, given that, I think we will switch. But committee why don't we take just a five minute stretch break. And then, and then we will continue with S3.