 This is Senate Judiciary and I apologize profusely for Bennington, but I wasn't able to get people to be here this morning that are usually here. So I'm in Bennington, you're all in Montpelier and Eric's. So, Eric Fitzpatrick is going to walk us through H546 and act relating to racial justice statistics and as a bit of an introduction. Part of this has been around before, but given the justice reinvestment to report the final report this January from the Justice Center, indicating the number of persons of color who were incarcerated in Vermont. It seems more timely than ever that we have a good understanding of justice statistics and part of what held the justice center in 2002 and the working folks from the Justice Center, who are used to going into states and delving into statistics was the lack of statistics in Vermont. We just haven't done a good job. And so that's why this I think this bill is fairly important. But we'll let Eric walk through it it's all 12 pages. And you'll free to interrupt Eric and ask questions if you have them while we're walking through. No Eric take it away. Yes, thank you Senator Sears and, and good morning everybody this is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here as Senator Sears mentioned to walk the committee through H546, which is an act relating to racial justice statistics. Pretty lengthy bill with all new language or for the most part new language regarding this topic. And as Senator Sears mentioned, this is not brand new to the committee. You may recall that this has been a topic that's been discussed several times over the last couple of years. It originated back in 2019 when the racial disparities advisory panel our DAP. The first recommended in their annual report that for the reason that Senator Sears mentioned the lack of data the lack of statistics, the creation of an entity in state government that would be responsible for collecting all this data and working with law enforcement agencies and the other players in the, in the subject of criminal justice to serve as a repository and be able to make policy recommendations based on the data that sort of thing. Then last year, so that was the 2019 report and you may recall then last year, I was discussed there might even have been I think there might have been a joint meeting between the House and Senate Judiciary committees on this last year. And, and the bill was moving along. The topic that the folks interested parties were struggling on was sort of governmentally, structurally where to house this entity. I think everyone agreed that the, that the need for the, the entity was there. The debate was, you know, sort of boiling it down to, there should it be in state as a part of state government and have the advantages of having the administrative support the logistical support the, the other other entities of state government that would work more easily with the entity, but maybe not be totally independent, or should it be a free standing body that was independent of government so that it would have the necessary independence to work without any sort of political influence in the state that was going on last year and then it as a, as a way to move the ball forward remember actually was in the miscellaneous bill last year as 97 that what you passed was some further instructions to have our depth go back and relook at that issue and come back with a recommendation this year. And so there they were tasked with. Like this is the issue that's hung everybody up power, where are we going to put this body. Go think about it some more, and, and then come back with a recommendation. And that's what they did and that's what h546 embodies what this final recommendation was as to where to put it and some of the other details of course as well although you actually, you might some of them familiar familiar some of the language of the details is is similar to the legislation that that you were looking at last year, before the issue of where to put the body, kind of slow things down a bit. So, that's the background and the, the bills I mentioned is pretty lengthy center series I think probably everybody has a copy but I could also pull up the screen if that would be easier whatever you think would would be the best way to do it. You've got a copy so I don't. Okay, why don't we just go over the bill. Okay, sounds great. So, right on the first page, the very first thing that it that is being laid out there is exactly what I was just describing which is the structure of how this entity is going to be housed and where it's going to be so the proposal that our depth came and which is in h546 is that you know the the existing executive director of racial equity that that exists now within the agency of administration. So the proposal is to have the new, what would be called the division of racial justice statistics DRJS division of racial justice statistics would be housed within a new office of racial equity alongside the existing executive director. So, the ED of racial equity which you have now would be would have some supervisory and oversight authority over this new division. And they would be a lot as I mentioned alongside each other, both within the agency of administration so they both would have the administrative support the logistical support. Hopefully, you know, we've, there's been some discussion with the administration about this, even the physical space issue, you know where to where to put the folks and that's also something that the agencies think hopefully going to help But yeah, overall. Can I have a few questions. Yes, I don't, I don't understand reading this the relationship between the executive director and the office of racial equity and the director of the racial justice statistics. I don't understand the relationship is it that there's an office of racial equity is underneath there. So is it underneath the executive director of racial equity. You mean it, which is which one underneath so do you have I think the overarching entity is the office of racial equity. That's the that's the big office and then underneath that office you have the director, the, the Susanna the existing director And, and this new division, and they would be alongside each other, both underneath and within this office of racial equity, but the, the director, the existing director of The same, they're on the same level the executive director. It isn't a division within there and if she's the executive director of the office. How can there be a director of the division that's on the same level that she is. All right, I'm sorry she's not the executive director of the office. I don't believe and the, oh I'm sorry yes you mean the office of racial equity right. Yeah, she's the director of the office. So you have an office with an ED and underneath that you have the division of statistics right that underneath the office and underneath the executive director. Yes, and that's why the executive director has this supervisory slash oversight you'll see in that first language there they have this, the, the ED has this ability to, or sorry, not the authority to Apply employees apply for grant funding director is trying to cut in there. Okay, Eric. Who is the director, I think that's the question. Oh, yes, that is the director of the division or the director of racial equity, racial equity. Okay, we should put that in there. Yeah, the executive director. Yes, that's what that means. That's who that's referring to. Maybe we should put that in there. Yeah, that could be and you'll see that the exists like on the first page the existing the non underlined language subsection new subsection f directors what we just use director because that's what the existing statute is but you're right because of the new sort of additional layers here, it might be clear to say the executive director so that there's no confusion. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, in the next in the next line, it says the director may appoint a place as necessary. I'm not sure if that's just boilerplate language. It sounds very expansive. Does that mean that the executive director can move people within the office, or does it mean that they can just appoint people and hire them and create new job. That's a good question. I'm not really sure and I should get segues me into a, a little bit more background about my role with this bill. It may immediately strike you that this is, you know, in many ways, government operations subject matter and that. And so the initial draft of this bill was actually done by amour in our office, but she got busy as you know with redistricting that so I've taken it over for quite a while but some of these questions. I might be able to redirect her or you could have and I'm one of your witnesses I'm sure will be the current executive director so that she might be able to provide some background as well. So as far as that, that appointment authority that you were referring to Senator Barouf. I'm not specifically sure whether that means, yeah I know the current number of later on in the bill to see that there, there are specific positions that are that are created, whether this also means the authority to create additional positions I think you have to do that in statute. But I'm wondering why that language is necessary because all, you know, commissioners and secretaries have a power to move within their employee system, but this language sounds as though appoint employees as necessary. This is though that's the kind of novel power that I have never seen before. So, that's a red flag for me. Yeah, she only has a couple of people how can she move it about. Right. But I mean, under that authority. Yeah, could she say I really need a third and fourth person. And then the legislature is obligated to follow. I think that those one and two needs to be clarified. Yes, I will. I'm noting that right now so I can follow up with amored about that and see what the original intent of that languages. Sorry, only a point what you have funding for. Right. The funding comes through the appropriations process. It sounds like she can do it but sort of like how do you pay for it. Can I ask a question of ignorance because I'm not on the appropriations committee but this says that she can apply for grant funding, because all grant funding comes through appropriations or their external source through basically goes through the joint fiscal committee. The administration applies for grants, and the grants have to be approved by joint fiscal and then if there's a question they can be held for a joint fiscal committee meeting, but I know lately there's been so many grants that we just routinely approve them, you know, the federal grants for, for example, the, the storm that created problems in Wyndham and Bennington counties, there was a grant from Homeland Security for that and we pretty much routinely approve those. The administration has to go through us or through. They send out a grant notice out. Yeah, one of the bones of contention is sometimes they spend the money before they send out the notice. I'm just looking at how that does with the previous sentence. Well, I think that I think it's okay but you know maybe it's joint fiscal should look at that. Both, both one and two e one and two. That seems to me that that they're what you're trying to say here is that they can apply for grant funding for this, and then I would assume that with a grant you're hiring a limited service employee to carry out the functions until until you need to go to the usually those. The grants are time sensitive so it's like three years or two years or whatever. And you would do a limited service position. Just don't want there to be a way to bypass the legislative process is given the power of a point, as necessary she decides she wants X, Y, and Z, and happens to come up with a funding source does that bypass the system. But that's Eric if you could just run this by somebody at joint fiscal. Yeah. fiscal committee. I didn't notice this all the time whenever Department of Public Safety or anybody like that applies for a grant. I get a notice that says we've applied for this grant. It's this much and it's for this purpose. Yeah. Anyway, why don't we go ahead. Yeah, F and G are just existing right existing so yeah. Yeah, and I've noted that so just that just sort of keeping in mind the concept that I've got to go help. Somebody if, if Senator Baruch could take over for a few minutes. Sure. Okay, thank you. So yes, the executive director does have this sort of general oversight authority over the over the new division that's the structure. You also see when we get to it just going to know before we get to the language that that you'll see later on that the body that's created is called the racial justice statistics advisory council. Now that's sort of patterned on structurally that would also exist right now the executive director of racial equity also works with what's known as an racial equity advisory panel. So these advisory panels, sort of work as policy recommendations they look at the data that that is forwarded to them by the body with which they're working in this case it's going to be the, the division of racial justice statistics. I know that that division is, you know, when you'll see the positions their IT positions primarily other people that are working in the information technology field. So the advisory council you'll see is set up to have a policy recommendation role and to analyze the data and sit through it that the division itself creates so just sort of forecast that for you before we get to it. I realize we're not there yet. Can you can you just clue me in on the thinking it seems at first blush it seems duplicated to have to advisory, one advisory council one advisory panel. And as I looked through it doesn't seem like the advisory council are experts. There are members of the community who would weigh in from different, different segments of the community. But if in my memory the advisory panel is the same. So, what was the thinking behind, not just using the existing advisory panel. Yeah, that certainly came up. And the, I think the ultimate where they landed was that because of the, the specific task that the racial justice statistics division has in other words that the executive director and the, and the our depth panel, and the other advisory council of course with the with the existing executive executive director excuse me, have a much broader mandate. They deal with a much broader range of topics and that it was important to have a an advisory council that was very narrowly targeted to this racial data issue as as is the division itself. And that's where they landed as far as the reason to, to have this separate body. And so it's a legitimate issue and it was the same issue was discussed and that's just where they came down. Okay, so I think that you know our conversation about the them applying for grants and the appointing people. I just zoomed ahead to the end because I couldn't stand it. I think $2 million appropriated to this division. So, just so that we know, it's 4.2. I don't know it just says 4.2 it doesn't say no. No, it's not ongoing because about half of it. If you if you want to skip we can certainly look if you want to. It's hard to sort of like reading the last chapter right you want to find out how. We really needed to know if they were going to appropriate money here because she has, I think three people in her office and she can't move them around that there's, and there's a lot of money here for programs for people, and agency of digital services which makes a lot of sense. So anyway, yes that's the, that's the one time money is the 520,000 to agency of digital services is one time because they testify that they would need that money to get the data infrastructure up and going with that it would that would be done during the first year and that after that, presumably they'd be all set and they wouldn't need it anymore. So the ongoing money is the 363,000 for the staff people and the office space that's based on a joint fiscal office. Note that Stephanie did. So that's where those numbers came from actually all the numbers are based on jfo is 3.3 million is that one time Eric, which one. The advisory council $3 million. I was going to say my God, there's got a lot of people there. Okay, I feel better. Okay, so is basically 366,360 dollars. Every year, right is every year in the 520s one time. Okay. Well, now that we've looked at page 12, 11, can we go back to page three, or wherever you were. Yes, I think page two actually. We talked about sort of where it's structured and now we move on to sub chapter two, which is a sort of again that's the statute is sort of mirroring the structure of the body sub chapter one was the executive director sub chapter two is the division. So this division, as I mentioned is created in the agency of administration subsection a creates it describes what its purpose is. So it's sort of a broad mission statement and articulation of its overall purpose. So you see in subsection a that's where says what's the, what's this division doing. It's analyzing data related to systemic racial racial bias and disparities within the criminal and juvenile justice system of that language should seem familiar to everybody that's the very similar to the language if not identical to them to the overall purpose of it that you were looking at last year. So that that hasn't really changed. So the specifics added on in subsection be about what's the purpose it's to collect and analyze this data with the intent to center racial equity, equity throughout the efforts. So to keep that as your overriding purpose is racial equity while you're collecting this data. So the purpose again is explained further to create promote and advance a system and structure that provides access to appropriate data and information, ensuring that privacy interests interests are protected and principles of transparency and accountability are clearly expressed in the purpose which is important is that the David are to be used to inform policy decisions. So the idea is that this data isn't just sort of collected and left alone it's to inform policy decisions that work toward the amelioration of racial disparities across various systems in the state government. So, that's as I say a broad statement of the mission and the overall purpose of the division. That's in section 511 so then you move on to five section five questions first. Yeah, please do. What does it mean to center racial equality. Should it be centralized or what does that mean with the intent to center racial equity throughout these efforts. What does that mean. I will defer to some witnesses to provide you more detail about that but I will say that that is a term that is now used center to that means to. Pardon me to bring it out of the margin to the center. Yes, thank you. Exactly. It's sort of a newly developed term that sort of become more commonplace recently. Okay. I think it's a dumb term but nevertheless. And I don't think anybody reading this would have any idea what that means except an academic. Which is right well let's move right along to duty. And so, from this broad mission statement we now move to more the more specific duties being laid out. And that's in five section 512 really the most important one. You'll see right in the beginning particularly the first one. I think that the division is going to work collaboratively with collaboratively with and have the assistance of that's an important phrase right there and have the assistance of all state and local agencies and departments for purposes of collecting this data related to systemic racial bias and disparity so you'll see what that language means is that all state and local agencies are required to assist the division and required to collaborate with the division on the collection and provision of this data. I'm going to ask Bruce question before he asks it. What do we do if they don't. There is not a, a penalty or consequence mechanism in here for that. So, it is a requirement. It's important I can remember in a bill Senator Baruch put in language, or I suggested in the committee adopted the language. That there was, you know, you couldn't get state and money. If you weren't keeping proper statistics and that sort of thing so I think those who will deny and may not keep that information are not provided. There are the DPS is working really hard with all the local agencies around the collection of data, and they've all gone to use the Valkor system now so everybody is using that. And they're all collecting pretty much the same data with the same identifiers and out of 73 agencies 71 are already collecting the same data and giving it to the department so it is happening. 71 out of 73 are already doing are already compliant. Can I ask, Eric. So, it says, collecting all data related to systemic racial bias and disparities within the criminal justice systems. Is it up to the, the, the office, the executive director, can the executive director just unilaterally lay out the fields of data that people must provide, or do those have to be run through the legislative process. So, for traffic stops, we, we require data, but could the, could the director create new categories, and then this binds everyone to provide whatever that person, the director asks for. The answer to that is that, that legislation is not required, but the executive director or I should say the, the, the head of the, the division is, you'll see is referred to as the division lead. So just so I don't mix up the terms, I'll try and refer to that division as the lead, and the executive director refers to the existing executive director position. And I say that I say that is because, and we'll get to this, the specifics of how that data is solicited from the state agencies but the general approach of how it works is that the executive director, the division lead, and the advisory that I mentioned all work together to develop the list of the, of the data that these agencies are going to be required to provide, and then that once they've developed that list. Then they solicit it from the agencies and the agencies have to provide. So that's sort of the, the general description of how it would work. Now they could do it. You'll see we get to this too. The, the, the division is provided with rulemaking authority. So that the division could, and this is an interesting bit of background. The way it's phrased now, the division may adopt rules and they would have to go through the Elkar process so the legislature would have their oversight role in that respect that they did do it through the Elkar process. The discretionary, in other words, they can develop these things by rule that they, they aren't required to, and there was that was a point of discussion in the house for a while. The rulemaking was mandatory, and they for precisely in part for the reason that you mentioned Senator Baruth, and they they discussed and debated that point and just landed on the side of having the rulemaking be discretionary for the reason that there may be some things that the, because of the time consuming nature of the rulemaking process that there may be other elements of it, that the division might not want to adopt through rule. So that's just a little bit of background to sort of explain where that came from but it certainly the idea is. I'm just going to throw in this comment that we, we in government operations have done a lot around collecting law enforcement agencies collecting data and what they're supposed to be collecting. And there is a list of that they're supposed to be collecting and the, they were very clear and we might hear it here too, but you don't want that list to be defined in legislation, because legislation takes so long, so that if you, if there's a list that they say, oh my God, we, we didn't get this in the bill and we, this is something we really need to be collecting. It's better not to put the specific piece of data that they're supposed to be collecting in the legislation. You can see that, but I'm thinking about it from another angle. Suppose the, you know, the new list comes out when we pass this, and it's extremely expensive, like 100 data points that need to be collected that have never been collected. Just to pick an example, they might suddenly find themselves complaining, we can't do that in the way that I'm thinking about in the committee. And one piece of data that has to be reported, you get complaints all down the line because it's, it's intensifying their bureaucratic performance for Montpelier. And I'm just wondering if this office has the power to unilaterally generate the list. Well, as well as in this draft, the power to appoint as many people as necessary. It seems like it is moving toward a very expansive view, and maybe having Elkar involved or someone else isn't a bad idea before those are made mandatory agencies. But I just flag it, because there are a number of things about this set of that seem to me, as though they were left at a large sort of slightly shapeless form and then there's going to be a little bit of tightening that seems like there are two or three areas where we might tighten without doing anything to prevent what they're trying to accomplish. Can I suggest that we move along? Sure. We're only on page three and we've got about 20 minutes left. If we don't make it through the bill, we can come back to it next week, I guess. So, and I've noted a couple of the points there about the assistance from other state and local agencies that we're just been talking about, but moving on from there, you'll see some of this list is pretty straightforward. These are the duties, the specific duties that Division has moving on. Number two, collect and analyze this data that we're talking about that's related to systemic racial bias and disparities. We conduct justice information sharing gap analysis. In other words, where are their gaps, where are their holes in the sharing of this data back and forth between agencies. Number four, maintaining an inventory of justice technology assets and a data dictionary. Data dictionaries are these sort of centralized repositories of information about data. So maintain that structure as well. Develop a justice technology strategic plan you see in subdivision five and have to update that annually. So they got to have a strategic plan about justice technology. Number six, they got to develop interagency agreements and MOUs for this data sharing and publish public use files as well so the public can look at this. You'll see that transparency is an issue here. And they have the reporting couple of reporting requirements you'll see in subdivision seven. First of all, they have to do a monthly report to the advisory council that I mentioned earlier. So there's going to be this advisory council that works with them to develop policy recommendations that sort of thing so as the division itself collects the data and analyzes it and makes its own recommendations it's got to be in touch with the advisory council so it envisions this relationship. So every month they have to provide this record. Then annually you'll see that moves on the subsection be very bottom page to be annually they report to the legislature. So they report its data analysis recommendations to the legislature this committee, the judiciary and government operations committees, every January, and you'll see that the advisory council that I mentioned also has an annual reporting requirement to the legislature and we'll get to that toward the end. Those are some of the specific duties you'll see then over on page four, I mentioned the rulemaking that subsection C. See so that the that provides the division, but you'll see the terminology right now is may at one point in time it was shall. So that's a kind of goes to the part of the point that the committee's been discussing but right now as a past the house they landed on may in may adopt rules in accordance with chapter 25 that's the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act so that means the rules would have to go through the L car and the and the rulemaking process. So specific duties were regarded to collecting the data we're now getting on to well what do they do with the data the data governance rules and language about, you know what they're going to do once they have it. And you'll see a center brute this is specifically the language in response to your question is right there in subsection a so what gets collected and who decides what gets collected you'll see it says in consultation with our and the advisory council I'm sorry I miss I misspoke it was actually our depth that's also involved in this decision about what gets collected so the in consultation with our depth and the advisory council division shall establish the data to be collected to carry specific duties. So, these entities consult with each other and they decide what data, you know, necessary to understand the racial disparities in the criminal justice system which data needs to be collected, and they have to establish I'm going to skip for a second because there's a public records issue and subdivision one but just because it logically just to the next two paragraphs two and three just because or at least sub division to because it's sort of flows better from what we're just talking about so they work. So we'll go to the top of page five subdivision to we just talked about how all right division has to work with our depth and the advisory council to identify what data gets collected. All right, subdivision two says well next step is division then has to identify which agencies and departments have the necessary data. That's the first sense, so that they do this identification who's got the data. And then the next sense is all right what if an agency is identified. So they're on that list that the that the division comes up with hey, you're the you know this part of public safety this Sheriff's Association local police department whatever it is on that list. If they're identified the agency has to provide the division with any data that the division determines is relevant to its purpose. You'll see that's in the second sentence, if you're identified upon request you have to provide them with data that the division determines is relevant to its purpose. The purpose being there's a cross reference there because that's what we went over in the very beginning with their general purpose was. Now there's an exception there you'll see for the office of the defender general. That's that's a specific specific specifically there and statute to address the fact that the defender general has unique attorney client relationships that could be impacted by a requirement that they devolved data that could inadvertently compromise the attorney client relationship and their requirements to keep the information confidential so there's a specific exemption provided. So this public records that issue for records that if and that cross reference exemption and title one is for any records that if made public would cause the custodian to violate ethical standards for any profession regulated by the state. So the the DG requested that exemption and we've worked on a language to make to have it cross reference the correct piece of the public records act. And that's why that's there. Any questions. Please. On to it says the division shall identify which state agencies or departments possess the data. But it doesn't anything about which local agencies or departments might possess the data. And isn't that in conflict with page three where it says all state and local departments have to comply. So shouldn't that read all identified state and local agencies and departments. Yeah, I think that's the intent. So so you're right. Yes. It is that the intent so if it's not being made clear it should be right. Senator White. Thank you. And it doesn't it also doesn't say here which that they will identify local departments or agencies and state local entities that might have the information required doesn't address them at all here. Well I would added the word local. Right. Yeah. Yes I've jotted that down right there so that's right that's that's really intense so it should be should be local as well. And on page three say identified agencies instead of all state agencies and local departments. Well I thought page three did say local. You mean subdivision. It does but it says all state and local departments. And then on page five it says those who are are identified. Oh right on page three would say all all identified state and local entities. Oh I see what you're right. Yeah. I might even want to say identified pursuant to you know and then cross reference that statute. Yeah. Yeah that's good. Yeah. Yes thank you. Good point. Yes the last I'm back on the page five that very last sentence to also we were talking about state local there's also a state a sense about non state entities. So if they can enter into an MOU or an agreement with a non state entity then they can access the non state entities data as well. So there's not a legal requirement that the non state entity. They only do so if they want to final finalize an MOU. Yes I think that's right. There's there can't necessarily require them to do that unless you impose some kind of statutory penalty. Well we do have a penalty now for if if a state law if a local law enforcement entity does not follow state policy or they don't do if they don't do what they're supposed to do they can't have acts they can't apply for grants from public safety and they can't participate in the functions of the Academy which means they can't send any of their officers to be trained at the Academy which means they're out of luck. They so if they don't comply with this if this is a state policy they won't be able to access the Academy or apply for grants with that's already in law. Okay. Where are we. So just jump back for a moment to page for just that last piece I skip for a second. So this this now has to do with the public records effect of this data being transmitted to the division by the state and local agencies. So the general principle here is that because there was this is another issue that was discussed you know how how does that impact the Public Records Act. So where it landed and I worked with Tucker who's our public records attorney quite a bit about this to get the language right. And the first sense basically says if if. And this is the policy they landed on if any records that are transmitted because you think about what's going to happen the division is going to be asking local state and local agencies for data and and records. So if the data or records are exempt from the Public Records Act in the first place. In other words if that if what they're asking for is exempt then they remain exempt and shall be kept confidential to the extent required by law. So in other words the transfer of them from this from the local agent the state or local agency to the division doesn't change their stats that they were that they were confidential before the comp they remain confidential. So the question becomes all right well who what if somebody request them how do you respond. And so what the next sense says all right the transmitting agency, whoever sent it, they remain the sole records custodian for purposes of dealing with these public records request that may come in. The next sense gives the division some discretion though, because you'll see that you're going to you think about there's going to be two different sets of information. The raw data that they get from your local agency and other data that the division comes up with itself or other conclusions or other other. Sorry not Rob but assimilated. The division comes up with, which is different than the raw data. So the next sentence says as well. The division remains the agency who's going to respond to this non identifying data that they come up with that they, they collate. So they would be the ones who respond to those sorts of records. So that's, that's the idea there. Okay. All right. So now we're moving back over we're getting toward the end of page five and so I think we're getting through the boat with a lot of stuff is going to be. I think move a little more quickly. So we're now subject in three of page five says the divisions well it's got to requires them to to establish and maintain a management program for its data and it does that in with the support and services provided by the archives and records administration and the agency of digital services, both of those agencies under existing statute that's cross reference there they already provide that stuff to state agencies they're required to. Making it explicit, but it's already in law. The division also has to. So now we go on to all right they've got the data, they got to analyze that subsection be. All right, what they're going to do they analyze it to some that identify the stages of the criminal and juvenile justice systems at which racial bias and disparities are most likely to occur. They recognize, sorry, organize and synthesize the data in a cohesive and logical manner. They have to send it to the advisory council. Remember I mentioned they have a monthly reporting requirement, so it has to be presented to the advisory council every month. Subsection see they have to also adopt the data governance policy or how is it governed once they have it. They have to have systems to standardize collection and retention methods to permit sharing and communication between state agencies. Evidence based practices and standards to to state and local agencies as well. So again the idea is that these are professional data people who are coming up with best practices that they can recommend. There's also a public requirement that's subsection E on page six that has to maintain a public facing website and a dashboard that maximizes transparency. So that the public and historically impacted communities can review and understand it and develop public use advisor sorry public use data files as well. So that's part of the description of what they have to do. The next section by 2014 you see now it's moving on to the advisory council that I mentioned this is the body that has this policy role. This works with the division specifically over on page seven talks about first of all who's it going to be. It's going to be seven people. I'm on subdivision one a now paid seven or seven people on this advisory council person appointed by the governor who's got to have substantive expertise expertise and community based research on racial equity. So that's the gubernatorial appointment. And then you're going to have six other people who are going to be who have to have as much as possible experience of one of those six situations sorry five situations listed there. See Roman capital Roman rules one through five. And the six appointments. And so it's going to be facing eviction violence discrimination or criminal conduct law and forth misconduct etc. There are five characteristic qualities that the person should have experienced with. And those appointments are made by six listed entities which you'll see at the bottom of page seven up on the page 12 each of those entities appoints one person. Who will fulfill as much of those characteristics as I just mentioned so the entities are the NAACP Vermont racial justice Alliance, migrant justice. Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs and outright Vermont. Oh, sorry, I missed that. And you know, my memory is failing. I could pull that up really quick. I think it's a a just, it's a hearing interpreter. Let me so. Let me follow up on that. I'm the, what I'm pulling up is not seem to be listing the actual it all says double ALB Inc. I'm not getting the full. You're muted if you're trying to speak to us. So is it confirmed by the Senate or is this confirmed by the by somebody. No, I think they're the appointments are made by the governor for one and these entities for the other and I think ALB stands for Association of Africans living in Vermont, I believe. If they don't have to be confirmed like every other board or commission. I think it's like the council for the existing council for the executive director of racial equity. And that there's no confirmation process for them. I think it's the model that it's, that it's based on. I have to say, oh, go ahead. Well, I think I need to get more testimony on this section is I don't quite. Government. We're allowing different. Private entities. That may or may not be nonprofits or whatever their charters are. The right to point people to a state council. And then there's no oversight. I will whose is selected. And they're for your terms. Yeah, which is a pretty hefty amount of time to commit. I'm, I have to say I, I remain a little confused about why we're duplicating the advisory panel, because in the case of the existing advisory council, I think it is. They're advising the, the director of racial equity on general racial equity and social justice issues. This is an office that's dealing in hardcore data. And I don't, I don't see how it helps to have people without experience and data advising the experts because what's going to happen is the experts will provide the data and the analysis. And the advisory panel needs to meet the advisory panel won't have a great deal to do, especially since we're filling out that office with a good number of employees. So, I, I think if there's going to be an advisory role, I don't see why our DAP would take on that advisory role in the same way that the director of racial equity, the executive director is expanding her portfolio to include this. Our DAP taking that on. Especially since the list of liaisons to this committee. It says that each entity shall make available a person to serve as a liaison. We're debating the office, the advisory panel, and then about 10 liaisons to work with the advisory panel to work with the office. It just seems like a kind of duplication along the way. And I don't think you would lose anything by. I mean, obviously if you wrote this piece of language, you're, you're attached to it, but it does seem duplicative to me. I mean, we don't usually set up consoles and the appointment, who appoints them doesn't bother me as much as that. It looks like it's just adding another layer here and, and, and they are people with expertise in collecting right or interpreting or interpreting data. So, anyway, I think we should look at that a little more. Is this something that you would talk to your committee about? It seems really like government operations. It is. I don't know why it didn't come to us at the first place. We usually deal with boards and commissions and councils. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, we can, we could look at it without taking it. We could just look at it. If you want to take it. We're happy to look at it. I think. Government office looked at it in the house as well. Just so you know, it went to the house judiciary first and then government up second. Yeah, and it needs to go to appropriations to and it has to be all three weeks. That's right. I am going to, before we look at it at all, I would make it. I'd like to see a chart, you know, how they fit together and where they are and where they come from and stuff like an organizational chart. So I'm going to try and do that with this. I'm a little nervous about setting up a data collection entity that is made up of ethical secrets. Yeah. And I noted on here when I looked at the makeup of it, I said, but there's nobody on here who actually collects data and knows what data is collected and how they collected. Whether it's easy to collect or not. And I saw that our dad was involved. I'm going to take Simone next week on the bill. I think we should be focused on what are the duties of the liaisons what are the duties of the council. And how is that all going to work to a minute. I think we all agree that the need for data collection and the need for an analysis of that data. And I think we should be focused on understanding of what we can do to as best eliminate systematic racism within the criminal and juvenile justice system. That's the goal I don't know if that gets if this bill gets us there. I have a lot of questions, but we're going to move to next week. On that. When we take it up again but I'm going to. Stephanie Barrett's aware that there's money in this bill. Yes, as I said, it was the jfo that came up with the numbers. Stephanie and Jane that this section of the bill. It was on the sheet that Mary Hoover gave us. Listed at the bottom as they already, I think accounted for the funding on there. Okay. We have one last thing centers here. Sure. Just to tie up this last point that everyone's been talking about, which is the, the, how the advisory council fits in the similar discussion was had in house gobs and you may have noticed this but the very last line of that section about the advisory council is that it's in five years and that's how that's sort of how they, they landed as one of the ways in which they sort of threaded that needle was to say, all right, let's see how it goes for a period of time. We'll put a sunset on the council, not on, not on the division collecting data, but on the oversight council. So I think it's, I think it's five years. 2027. I think other than that you covered all the grass yard, you covered the approach. I'm on page eight right at the bottom. The following entities shall each make available a person to service liaison with the council's purpose of providing consultation as needed. Number one is the Supreme Court. I don't know that we can do that with a separation of powers issue. Right. And it's similar in terms of the, even though sometimes when you set up study committees, you also require this court person to be on in a sense you're, you're, you're, you know, depending on them to participate. They, they, they could refuse and make a separation of powers argument, but you could even change that to a may if you wanted. But I think that's sort of an ongoing point that that you've identified accurately. Also a little bit of background on that just so you know that list of liaisons was originally part of this council. So the council had like 17 members and those, those 10 plus the seven. So that became perceived as too unwieldy. So rather having so many people on the council they put this group, assuming that they would sort of be involved in this whole data project anyway, as, as, as liaisons rather than official members of the council. There's one gather the data and then how you interpret interpret the data. And that's, I'm not understanding the connection here. I need, I need further information and I'm glad the government operations committee will look at this too, and quickly the makeup of the various groups. So with that said, going to take a five minute break. And then come back and do the racial covenants.