All right, so Beth, what is the problem here? Well, the short of it is, and it's Elizabeth Navani for the Vermont Police Association. The language that appears in section B, A in the middle, is there a line here, B, A? It would be 12. This language, or should know, is what I want to just briefly talk to you about. So last Thursday, when I spoke to the committee by phone, if you recall, I recommended that the committee not pass anything out that day, and allow me the opportunity to work with the victim's advocates and law enforcement to bring to you language. I was not aware the committee was otherwise working on language. And so I commenced that process with Kara Cookson on Friday while I was traveling. I asked her about the issue. And she referred me to the Washington State statute, told me to use that. So I did. And on Monday, sent language out to Kara, to the chiefs, to Mike O'Neill, and to the sheriffs in an effort to try to bring you essentially language that had consensus. That was my goal, and that's what I committed I would do for the committee. I was not aware you were otherwise working on your own language. So I am aware, and I'm not sure what happened in the committee room yesterday, but I can tell you that I did email Denise to let her know that I would be delayed. And by the time I got here, you folks had finished up on the issue. So I did use Washington State's statute. Washington State's statute is pretty much this language, except for the or should know. And I want to talk about that just very quickly with you. The statute that you currently have in Title 13, section 3257, is the sexual exploitation of an inmate statute that House judiciary worked on, actually while I was at public safety years ago. And it took a few years for them to get this through. And they landed with the requisite mental state as being no's, the officer knows. And that's what they developed in 3257. The language is essentially that no correctional employee, and I'll just skip the rest of it, knows. In other words, knows is the requisite mental state. You have to have knowledge, you have to know.  So our request would be that the or should knows be stricken from this, that we stay consistent with current statute as it exists for sexual exploitation of an inmate in the custody of corrections. And we stick with knows that language, that request is supported by, well, Rick doesn't have a position, but everybody else you see here, the troopers, the chiefs, and the victim's advocates. And I was at least told on the phone yesterday that I'm not sure if anybody caught the or should knows, but that is a request that is supported by the chiefs. So that's it. Despite what we heard yesterday from the leader of the chiefs association, Chiefs and Colchester. Yeah, I think she was thinking out loud if she went through the language, but I talked to her subsequently, explained to her what is already in state statute. It happens. I don't know what else to tell you, but I was in process of trying people to bring people to the table and I did not come up with a Washington state language. I asked specifically of the victim's advocate community what language do you want me to use and I was directed to the Washington state language. And I wanna just also let you know, I talked to Auburn Water Song from the network against domestic violence and Auburn supports the request to take or should knows out. So that is supported by both of the representatives of the victim's advocate community. Okay. Thank you. So we've got Jim. So essentially you're fine with that language with the exception if we crossed off or should know. Yes. And we did have that conversation in committee and I don't know if we quite resolved what that would mean. Well, as written, if you left that in there, you could conceivably convict someone of a criminal offense who had no actual knowledge and there was consent. So the, as I said, the whole object of statutes like this which we support by the way is the notion that the person who is giving the verbal consent who may actually technically be saying I can send is in a position of not, we create a legal fiction that they really can't consent by the virtue of their age, perhaps of their status as being a vulnerable adult, perhaps by the level of their intoxication would be another example.  So when you talk about the relationship of power and control and that's what this is about, an officer has direct power and control over someone that officer is detaining or that officer has incustity or that officer is currently arresting. That's a direct power and control relationship. It's a little more attenuated when you're not that officer who is presently arresting someone, placing them in custody or arrest or detaining them. However, if you are an officer who knows that, it's a little bit more attenuated but you can arguably agree that that relationship exists. So we would support that language. But when you get into or should knows, now you're bootstrapping constructive knowledge to someone who may not actually have knowledge to consent argument where we're creating the legal fiction that there wasn't actually consent even though there was. Does that make sense? Well, the officer's not consenting, supposedly consenting. The officer's supposed to know that individual X is detained, arrested or otherwise and another officer's custody. In any case, Rob has a question followed by Dennis. We did have this conversation yesterday and my question that I think it was Jennifer was give me a scenario where somebody would be in custody and a fellow officer would not know that to the point where this would be an issue. Fair question. She couldn't give one. Well, fair question. So having been a sex crimes prosecutor for seven years, let me see if I can give you an example. The concepts of detention, arrest and custody seem relatively simple because I imagine everybody can picture someone's handcuffed in the back of a cruiser, someone's at the police station being processed for an arrest. That typically is what would come to mind. But in the law, on a day to day basis in the criminal justice system, judges are asked to determine whether a person is in custody or being detained or is under arrest under circumstances that aren't so classic. So if I'm a law enforcement officer and I respond, well, it could be a fish concert.  Huge crowd control issue, but there were incidents that would break out occasionally at this concert. So officers in trying to manage that might say, because there's a group in a kerfluffle, might say to you, for example, you wait here, I'm gonna come back to you. I've got to go manage this and then I'm gonna start to figure out what happened, but I don't want you to go anywhere.  You might be dating. You could, well, these things happen.  You could, whatever the situation is, you are technically detained by a police officer. Under the law, that is a detention. And custody can be arrived at. I think that the thinking is that we're all clear about knows. That's a specific intent we can establish at. And good investigator, good prosecutor, gonna be able to manage around that in trial. Or should know, what does that require of an officer? That the officer conduct research before deciding to enter into a consensual relationship with somebody? Are you under house arrest? Are you, that is the thinking. And I'll let you know that if we have the support of the victim's advocates, I think you can reasonably consider taking that language out without much consequence. Certainly not from their community. Well, that language that I yesterday and they testified didn't have any use of the language yesterday. I had a conversation with Karen. I'll let her speak for herself as soon as possible. Yeah. So, Karen Cookson, Vermont Center for Cognitive Services, if I could. So, I mean, our position is that we, we certainly don't object to removing this language to the extent that law enforcement feels like it's important to avoid situations that wouldn't be wrongful and consensual situations. I mean, again, it was hard for me to imagine the hypothetical scenario, but some hypothetical scenarios have been offered that I think are not unreasonable. I mean, for us, obviously we're gonna advocate and yesterday we came in to advocate for a position that's gonna be most protective to victims. That's my job in the building, but with that said, the law enforcement are a key partner for us. The intention behind this language isn't sort of a gotcha. It's really to prohibit wrongful conduct. And so we were open to the argument that the conduct described might, we could come into a situation where conduct that's not necessarily wrongful could be swept under. And so we're open to this. And again, the Washington statute does not include the constructive knowledge element, so that's a fair argument. To be honest, I mean, I wasn't focused on the mens rea aspect of it, but my real focus in looking at this is the scope of the custodial element, and we were satisfied with that as well. And it's consistent with your statute as it relates to corrections on this or so. So who we take out should know this, and we don't ever have to go back and revisit this language again this session. Right. Is that a commitment for everybody sitting in this room? Two weeks ago, I told you our organization supports this concept, and the answer, again, is yes. This was the only ask we have. Well, keeping in mind that yesterday we had agreement for everybody sitting in the room, and that lasted 24 hours. Dennis? So we found it, and other states should know. I'm comfortable leaving it. I don't know how you would prove that they knew if he says, well, even though I should have known, I didn't know. So how do you prove that? It happens all the time in criminal court. It is a standard that is part of, I give them so many number of criminal statutes, but a good investigator, a good prosecutor, prove that. It's also a standard that's used in their codes of conduct, so that's not an unusual standard, one that is proven. Daily in your criminal court, so. Well, I'd rather leave it in myself. And one. So, Beth, if somebody's sitting in handcuffs, should an officer know that they've been arrested? I think you've proven that. The officer sees somebody in handcuffs, then that's... Well, it could be somebody else's handcuffs. It could be, you know... No, I'm playing your game, so don't... Well, it's not a game, so for me to be very clear, I'm not playing a game.  But having been a prosecutor, I wouldn't... With that fact pattern, if you were a police officer and you saw a person in handcuffs in a cruiser. No, not in a cruiser. Just in handcuffs? Just in handcuffs. Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem bringing that case to a jury. I've actually spent a fair amount of time in the last 24 hours thinking about this. What we heard yesterday is that it would be very surprising to find an officer who should have known and didn't know. And the examples were used, and what was just again this morning was a person in handcuffs in handcuffs, and what was just again this morning was a fellow officer, a colleague, somebody had somebody under detention, and a fellow officer in all probability would know. But I can, I understand the example, Beth, who's a fish concert, I actually hadn't come up with that one in my own mind, but I was thinking of things like maybe an officer, a police officer from a completely different agency happened to be nearby where somebody wasn't in handcuffs. Maybe even the person that the officer said, you wait here, I'll be back within the hour at the fish concert, and there's all kinds of officers from different agencies. Regardless of how improbable we may think that should know comes into play, I believe that it exists. I believe that somebody might have known or should have known, but didn't. I have some concerns about including it, but I will go with the group. Did I, no, I did call him, yes. Yes, I already went. I don't know if this is helpful or not to start rewriting it, but when we have with a person who is the officer, would it be helpful to put, I'll say who was the officer or any other officer who was detaining and custody, you know? Could you just make it, just to say, okay, not only the officer, but other officers, if we added that line, do you know why I'm trying to get off this, see? And I think it's addressed in your line 13 there, or otherwise, or another officer, might as well be detained or arrested or otherwise held custody by another officer. But if we took that out, the second line, the second part, the part in question, and just had who the officer or another officer is detaining, arresting, or otherwise holding in custody, period. I think that blows up the business further. Yeah, because that's just whether, just in any case in which an officer, any other officer is arresting, detaining or holding in custody, it would be a cursay felony for some other officer to engage in a sexual act with that person. I think it even goes beyond the should know. So just want to remind you, you have a criminal statute that your House Judiciary Committee worked on pretty extensively for a period of at least two years. And they stuck with and they went with no's. They did not have should have known. And they actually talked about these scenarios where you could be a correction officer in another part of the state and what kind of knowledge we would require in order to convince somebody. So I think that law enforcement is simply asking that the standard they can be held to, the mens rea, the state of mind be the same for police officers as they are for correction officers. So we've got, is this the only language? Yes. What is the language that they have all figured out? No, we just delete Russian now. Okay, thank you. I got it. Yes. Jim and then Dennis. I'm fine with taken out or should know. I didn't think it makes it cleaner, easier to prove. You know, should know. I mean, a lot of things around this building, I should know and I don't. Cause sometimes I'm naive and focused on a different area. There's only so many times you can say that. I know. But it's true. That's true. That's true. I've been there for two years and it's true. There's some things you just, you're just oblivious to. You're focused on something else. So anyhow, I would be happy to take that part out. Dennis. So or should know raises the bar. As far as I'm concerned, if you've got just knows, there's an awful good chance they won't know. And I think that's pretty easy to prove that you don't know. But should know raises the bar a little bit and allows you to maybe go a little further. In the proper choosing or whatever you're trying to prove.  But I think or should know, should be there. Other states are using it. And I don't know if it's been a problem or not. But I'm relieving it in, but like I said. And bottom line, if ever we've managed to get this bill over to the Senate, whichever we do leave it in or take it out. The opposite activity could happen in the Senate. We take it out, they put it in. If we leave it in, they could take it out. So why don't we take a straw vote suggested by? Good idea. Our vice chair. I didn't know whether to call him. No, we're on camera. My, my. I'm going to call him. You're going to call me? Well, something akin to the old married couple that you referred to us as. That's okay. The other part of the couple. Anyway, okay. So those of us that are okay with leaving this language as is, could you just raise a hand? I'm going to go full. Yeah, all right. Those of you who would like to, those of us who would like to take out or should know, raise a hand please. Okay. So thank you. Betsy, are you taking it out? And or should know is now history. May it remain so more than 24 hours. All right. Now the other issue that we need to deal with, hold the phone. Oh, are you not going anywhere? No. All right. The other issue that needs to be revisited and my apologies to folks who are starting to arrive for 281. We have had to dial back to what we thought we had finished at 8.30. So, sorry. And I'm sorry, I'll just need to be in all of our other three other members. That's right. In five minutes, yes, across the hall. That's right. So what's wrong with the membership of the council that we agreed to a couple hours ago? So Madam Chair, Rick Gauthier for the Criminal Justice Trading Council, I apologize for bringing this back. For some reason, I thought that the committee was just going through and verifying what they had agreed on would be taking testimony at a later stage. I would also note them as distinct disadvantage when it comes to hair on fire. We'll do stuff. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. On the subject of council membership, I'll keep it brief. When you look at expanding the council, there's a couple things you look for. You look for a unique voice. You look for representation from a significant population. And you look for decision makers with those organizations. The council itself actually visited this language as last made in March and had opposed adding the VSEA to council membership. I think I've testified, I thought I testified to that down earlier. And the, if you look at the criteria that just laid out, the VSEA doesn't meet any of those. They represent maybe 5% of law enforcement in the state. I think the law enforcement officers constitute maybe 2% of their total membership. It's not a unique voice. We have organized labor representation on the council. And as we've learned in all the processes, the VSEA rep isn't necessarily the individual who ends up making the decisions or the VSEA may not support the decisions that that rep has made in those committees. So that's it in the nutshell. Let's see if this is perfect to what you just said. Who sent the note? Me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's fine. Okay, so I do recall on behalf of the committee conversation about if we were gonna have one, we should have both as far as labor representation. And we thought adding public voices, adding. The VSEA membership, those officers are represented. Right. VSEA, but then separately. Well, the three publics. Right, but the officers that work within that work for DMV, Fish and Wildlife and Look for Control. DMV and Fish and Wildlife already have seats on the council. So the representation on decisions the council makes will affect those agencies. It's already there. John and Cindy. I understand that the agencies may have seats, but it's whether the employees have seats. And I think when, you know, the council starts taking on the decertification role, it's important that there'd be some balance between management and employees. And I mean, I think that's something you should think about. We've heard in testimony some concerns about the makeup of the council for decertification purposes. So I think we may eliminate an issue if we keep them there going down the road, but. Just an FYI on this. Yes, sir. Cindy. We're talking about the council membership. Yes, at the beginning of the day. Okay, I'm John pretty much seven, I was going to say. So Ditto. Yeah, thank you. Anybody else from the committee? Marsha. Having a soft spot for the Department of Looker Control, I would hate to see the 15 or 17 officers that were under that department not have any representation on this council. I guess, I guess I'm curious as to what the idea of representation on the council is going to tell. That we're not at the council. Well, we've added Fish and Wildlife. DMV will have someone. Looker Control has been totally left out of the conversation. Looker Control has never petitioned or seated on the council as an entity. That's the type of there. And I'm not aware that they ever have. I don't know that they've ever, I've never moved back up. The last time I talked to the director of enforcement, the previous one, Bill Dawkins, didn't indicate any desire to either be on the council. And we talked more specifically about the LEAB. Didn't indicate any desire for that. Maybe there's been a philosophical change in the organization since then. Wow, there is new leadership. Right. So that might be in. Could be. Remember, it's going back to the Senate in some century. I know. Likewise, I stated anything else from committee members on this topic. Committee, I'm not hearing anybody. Well, our drafters left the room. But she's, these folks had to head over to appropriations for the pay act presentation over there. As I understand it, we're leaving things as is unless somebody speaks up from the committee otherwise. All righty. We'll have to fight another day. Okay. Good, thank you. John, what was that? No, no, no, no. Oh, okay. I was not speaking to John. Oh, okay. Mr. Gonzalez. All right, so the next, you were doing a whatever. So we're next taking up this bill and its appendages tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. For two hours, another joyful two hours. What could we possibly have left that's going to take you a while? Thank you. Well, look, we haven't even touched the dispatch section. How long have you been waiting for this, then? Oh, he's a funny man. You know, how many times can we dial back? You take the phone. Two steps forward, one step back. Bye, Trevor, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Rob is just not an only person. We're just an only person. I'm going to turn this page. S281, S28, and now somebody's car alarm's gone off. Oh, that happened one day.  I wonder if someone from law enforcement could go take care of that. Yeah, send that out. Maybe they could meet and come to consensus. We're going to have that council meeting, so I heard. Darn systemic racism, mitigation thereof. All right, now, John, our IT person left us. I don't want to be looking at that sexual exploitation business, it's much longer. Well, it'll go black on its own. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. Do you ever come to a vote, right? Yes. And is it posted? Yes. On our web page. Oh, look at that, that water coming in. Folks, the screen saver there, okay. So, yeah, we go to our web page. Is that a brim? What's this today? We're doing today's. Oh, dad, now that I can't, I can't even get my own pass. Is that a brim? Is that the draft? Draft 1.1. Yes, yes, yes. Okay, so, let me catch up with you folks. Where did our IT person go? He's over in appropriations. Jessica asked that he go over with her and this is being her first time. Okay, are we looking at a particular section here? No, just start, why don't we start from the top? So, no, I mean. But just one moment, please. For the good of the order. Oh, and this is being recorded also. It's important that people, I know we understand this in this room, but people from out there who have been sending us all kinds of messages about this bill, we need to help them understand that this bill has, it does not have a nexus with any change in the Vermont Constitution. And the prohibition on slavery that we've been, we have been getting messages saying pass S281 so as to prohibit slavery in the state. We're one of the first states too. Well, in Article 1 of our Constitution, it does prohibit slavery once you've attained the age of 21. It's inferred that until you hit 21, slavery is okay. It is inferred. But this bill is not the way to deal with that.  I gather from one piece of information, I saw that the Senate has somewhere over there the appropriate legislative approach to starting the amendment to the Constitution process. That's over there. But it's not part of 281, okay? Is that next year that the Senate can start constitutional amendments? I'm not even going there. It's not part of 281. That's our responsibility, 281, okay? So if we could, everybody's got, oh, and it's up there on the screen. All right, so John, could you talk to us about this work that you've been doing? This is my amendment to S281. I've been working at it for a couple weeks, talking with some of the stakeholders with respect to 281, you know, within our own house, Representative Gonzales, Christie, and Morris, with respect to the administration, Beth Festi, and also on the Senate side with Senator White to try to get, you know, some language that most everybody could live with, if not be excited about. And so that's what this draft amendment that I put together proposes to do is, you know, is take some of the language that was in the earlier version of this bill and take some of it out and move some of it around. So just to summarize what the key changes are, the key change with respect to the structure is that the panel, right now it's called a racial equity panel, but that, working on the amendment, I was not focused on the name. That can, you know, change. There is a lot of testimony about what the name should be and don't really have a big position on what the name should be. So with respect to that. So the structure would be, there would be a panel. It would be the same panel appointed by the same individuals as in the original bill, which is, you know, appointment by a number of people, including the Chief Justice, the Governor, Human Rights Commission, and I think the House and Senate. So that would be the makeup. They would recommend three names to the governor for the Chief Officer. And then the governor could choose from those three names to appoint somebody as Chief Officer. The Chief Officer would be in the administration. They would not be independent. They would not be part of the cabinet. There's some language in the original bill that was, I think, a little confusing about whether they're cabinet level or not cabinet level. So that language has been made, you know, eliminated or downplayed. And so they would report to the governor. And they would collaborate with the various state agencies, with the Human Rights Commission, you know, to develop policies and practices to help eliminate systemic racism in state government. Do you know, is that? Yeah, this is the draft that's up there. I'm just. That's this one? Yeah. So I'm just going through and over a highlight of what's in the thing, in the bill. And then we can do a walkthrough. But so that's the significant change. Another big significant change is Pina Power is eliminated from the bill. Because there's definitely a conflict in the original version of the bill between whether this was a collaborative effort with state agencies or was an investigative unit that was going to conduct investigations. Now, if you looked at what the human rights statute did, normally did the Human Rights Commission have Pina Power, but then it had the ability to take certain types of enforcement actions against people who had discriminated. So that language is all out. The goal for this is that the chief officer, you know, would collaborate with the governor and the state agencies to address systemic racism through a number of different ways. And we can go through that in detail when we do a walkthrough of the bill. So that would be the focus there. The panel itself would be advisory in nature. It's called the Racial Equity Advisory Panel. And we'd advise the governor with respect to how to address these issues. So those are pretty significant changes with where the bill started. I should also know that we have eliminated one of the issues that the Attorney General's Office had with respect to the quota. And there's no longer a requirement that there be three members of color that's been eliminated. So I think that takes care of that issue. And so those are basically the highlights with respect to the bill. Certain appropriation here, John. OK, so the appropriation that there is, and this came from the original, there's an appropriation of $75,000. That's in section six. One section that's in the current amendment that will be eliminated based on a conversation I had yesterday with Beth Fistegi is that section, we don't need section five anymore because this will be part of the administration. That language came from the creation of the ethics commission and the director of the ethics. And because that was going to be a totally independent commission and an independent director, that language was in there. She believes that this language is no longer needed. So that's one thing I propose eliminating from this draft. But other than that, I think everything here is what I was proposing. The only thing is I do not spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the name of either the chief officer or the panel should be. I mean, we hear a lot of testimony on that. And I think we can. But you took out civil rights, which everybody needs to do. We took out civil rights because no one likes civil rights. I can tell you the administration doesn't like we not want the term systemic racism in the title for either the panel or the officer. So I think those two titles would probably not be good. So racial equity is just something that we quickly came up with. I could also see racial justice. I mean, one of the concerns the administration has is that, well, the initial focus for this panel and for this officer should be on racism. At some time, it should focus on other isms. And I'll just give one example of sexism. At some point, there should be an expansion of responsibilities. But the primary focus for the panel and the officer right now should be on racism. And this was what the administration said. The administration was concerned about that issue. But the other stakeholders were very focused on ensuring that we start with racism. And then if we move one move into other areas, that that can be done. And I could see that when this sun sets in 2024, or if we want to make that sooner, that's something that could be considered as part of the sunsetting process is, you know, should we expand the focus of this panel and this officer to other areas? Depending on what the situation is then. Depending on what the situation is then, yeah. Depending on how much success we've had dealing with racism. So first, I just want to say thank you very much for trying to do your darnedest with all these different players and coming forward to the committee with this. So we've got to line up for questions. We've got Marcia, Rob, Jim that I'm aware of for the month. Okay. So mine is maybe more of a point of clarification to Jim's question about the appropriation. My understanding is that the 75,000 is really a six month appropriation. Is that correct? That is correct. That's my question. Rob. And I don't know if it's addressed for the inability of John, but I'm curious to know the relationship between the executive director and this panel. Cause it looks like the panel just gets created just to put forward three names for the governor, but what's the intent of the relationship after that?  The panel will be able to provide more expertise into systemic racism, give it a more diverse, you know, group of views with respect to the issue and be able to advise both the chief officer, state agencies and the governor on, you know, what steps, what best practices are out there with respect to, you know, systemic racism. And just to give more guidance to the chief officer and to the administration as to how to, how to come up with, you know, ways to address the problem. But I think that's the role of it. It's not going to be, you know, making determinations about what should or should not be done, but it can give some guidance. Now, how often do you envision the panel meeting? I think that needs to be determined between the administration and the chief officer, you know, should bring in the panel when it's appropriate. And I think, you know, given some of the objectives or goals of the bill with respect to what the chief officer needs to do, I think there are opportunities with respect to each of those things where, you know, the panel could give some input before, you know, steps are taken by the administration to start addressing some of the systemic racism issues within state government. I'd like to echo the chair's comments that you were very good to bring all the parties together to some type of middle ground that's not easy on many bills, as we all too well know. I think I got my question and answer. I was going to ask you, you had mentioned sunset and I was looking quickly for it and I see there is a sunset in this in 2024. Was that part of your conversations as well? No, that was in the original draft of the bill, but you know, it's something. I think it's great to have a sunset if for nothing else to revisit it is a position necessary going forward. Have we made vast improvements? I don't know what the right date is. I mean, I would think that the legislature would want to not wait till 2024 to see if this was a good use of state funds or not and whether the mission should change as you alluded to earlier. So there's a date in there and I didn't realize it was the same date on the original bill, so it may be something that we want to have a conversation about when is this reviewed again. Other questions for now? We're going to be taking this bill up with Bryn, she'll do an actual walkthrough after floor, 15 minutes after floor and we'll dig in further with questions and see where folks talk. Cindy, I just want to have a look, Jim said it, we just did this with the last bill where there was a kind of an update along the way. So that might be just something to toss around. And this is supposed to be a full-time job for the ED? Yes, it's a full-time job, only funded for six months. With benefits? Yes. Did you have something, or is there any other question, Jim? You need to put them in the pay act if we create this position. I mean, there's an appropriation, but that's with benefits. This is an appointed position, so it's not going to fall under the collective bargaining agreement. It falls under executive branch. Right, right. So do we have to create something that goes in the pay act before we're done? I didn't mean to- It's a good question. Occasionally I have- This goes into effect upon passage as stated here. We have to think that through. Let's just enter through. I've got no immediate response. Got till this afternoon to figure this out. Okay. Perhaps John already has a thought. Well, I mean, based on the testimony I heard yesterday, I mean- Oh, I'm sorry. Finish, finish, finish. Not every position in state government that's not part of the collective bargaining agreement is listed by title in the pay act. I mean, it's typically the cabinet level positions. And one of the things we try to soften in the field is that this is not a cabinet level position. Think of one near to my heart that is not that an opioid coordinator position is not listed in that in the pay act. I'm glad you say close to my heart. The drugs are. And it's, and another factor here is that it is a position that already has a potential end to it with the sunset. It's not envisioned from the get go as something that is ongoing. Yeah, I didn't mean to throw any monkey wrenches. I'm just asking the question because the miss pay act here is across the hall. Well, I have a question. And your Mr. Pay Act. And here's another miss pay act. I'm an assistant to the assistant. So yeah. You're all equal on this. We've spoken about this briefly earlier. It's possible that some of these positions that are already ingrained in state government that we're dealing with, you know, civil rights and other isms could potentially migrate to that position anyway. That's possible. Maybe just a reallocation of existing resources. As moving into the future. That's the structure. But that's not for us to deal with. No, correct. Presently. Yes, Jim. Did you have conversations with the Attorney General's office? No, I didn't. Could we hear from him? Well, I realize that he is. Oh, but he is not here. Yes, but I would be very interested. I was going to ask if either of these gentlemen had any immediate thoughts. That's the question. Have a seat. It's much more comfortable. Yes. For the record, I'm Tom Waldman, the general counsel of the Department of Human Resources. Representative Gannon, I think has expressed most of the substance of the administration's concerns and how he characterizes interactions with the commissioner. We do have some thoughts about the title. We would like to see the word diversity in the title in addition to not seeing the word systemic racism. And that, again, I think goes to the point that Representative Gannon made about the administration wanting to see this position. Yes, deal with racism, but also be broader in scope. So that's one issue. The other things we would like to see the governor's appointee to the panel have a four-year term. Other than that, I think that we are fine with this. Questions for Tom? A four-year term. It's, I think, one or two. Well, I guess the only other thing that I would add. Right? People are right. The only other thing that I would add is that the administration is working on an executive order. We're working very hard on it. We think that if the executive order that we're working on is issued by the governor, that it might completely obviate the need for this legislation. There may be no need for this in statute if the executive order that we are working on is issued. Jim and Cindy. I appreciate that clarification. However, we still have the appropriation issue. Correct. Yeah, that would be the one thing that we would need is to have the funds appropriated for the position. If you are well aware of when we play a role with money, we'd like to insert a little bit of legislative direction. So just the reality. Right. Thank you. Wouldn't it be the case that the next administration could just stop doing this? Well, that is an issue with an executive order. OK. Just checking. Thank you. Anything else? When would the administration plan to issue this order? We have a limited period of time in the session. And if we don't do this, then the order is an issue or whatever. I understand the question. And we're working very hard on the order. I wish I had a more specific answer for you. Thank you for sharing that. You're welcome. I would just want to add in from my own personal perspective that I've been understanding the different branches of government. The executive branch needs to do what it needs to do. The legislature needs to do what it needs to do. Certainly. And the point raised by Representative Weed resonates pretty strongly, at least with me. If it's not in statute, anybody in statute can be changed, granted. But if it's not in statute to start with, then it's much easier for things to disappear. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. How do you spell your last name? Waldman, W-A-L-D-M-A-M. I have it almost there. Thank you very much. Everyone in Vermont wants to turn me into a Walton. I do not do that. That's normal there. Julio, do you have thoughts? Do you have a few questions for the audience? Julio Hansen, right? Yeah, good morning. Julio Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, Director of the Attorney General Civil Rights Unit. I've only had a chance to look at this amendment this morning. So we're all in the same world, in the same playing field. And I will come back when Bryn does the walkthrough. This afternoon. This afternoon, I think, after floor. There are a couple of points that I would just raise for the committee to consider, because I don't know what the answers are and if there are issues that will come up. And in the prior version of the bill, there was a subpoena power. And I raised the issues that way. It exists with a subpoena. The issue about access to records from other branches of government that are otherwise confidential by law still exists in this version. On page one, it says the cabinet is aligned in 16 and 17. It says the cabinet shall work collaboratively and shall provide the director with access to all relevant records. So the question for me is, as a lawyer, if we are in litigation or we're doing an investigation, when we do an investigation of someone, we're entitled to the relevant, non-privileged materials. So there are lots of materials that may be relevant to your question, but are an otherwise subject to some statutory protection. So for example, if the executive director decides he or she wants to investigate whether there are racial disparities or racial bias working through foster care decisions through the Department of Children and Families. And says, we'd like the last 10 years of all your files related to adoptions or placements of children of color so that we can see if there's systemic bias there. And then the commissioner of DCF replies, there are 15 state statutes that say that we can't provide any or a lot of these records, including communications with our attorneys or legal analyses. And then what happens if the executive director says, my statute says all relevant records. So if they're relevant, I'm entitled to all of them. So I think that issue about confidentiality or privilege needs to be addressed. The second question related to that is whether the materials they're obtained from the executive director from other agencies that those materials that would otherwise be exempt from public records disclosure somehow lose their protection because they're disclosed to a different cabinet member. So you could have, I'm doing a 10-year study of DCF or say it's of agency of education, disciplinary outcomes or investigations of faculty. And there's a public records request wanting all email exchanges or notes discussing issues of faculty and concerns about all of that. Are those matters of public record or not? Those are choices that have to be made. And I don't have a recommendation on that because I'm not sure what sort of record the executive director would do. But I just know it's not addressed. And so there are, because every recipient of a public records request has to turn it over unless they can show a statute or a law that says these materials are confidential. And it's not clear to me that if something was confidential in the hands of agency education, but they turned over outside that somehow it loses the confidentiality. Could that could really affect in my world when we do civil rights investigation the likelihood of publicity really silences people? So if we talk to witnesses or what people are just acting on hunches or if you're looking at systemic wisdom, you might not have smoking done evidence, right? So people are talking about concerns about colleagues or subordinates. And the first public records request releases all that in the newspaper, my guess is that the remaining years won't be that fruitful in terms of talking with state employees or contractors about their concerns about other individuals because they may not want to be in the newspaper. So I think that's an issue that would have to be grappled with. Oh, Cindy has a question on that. Sure. We'd be interested, I would be interested anyways in hearing what you would suggest. Couldn't we put in, as far as all relevant records, couldn't we put all relevant non-privileged records? Or is that, I don't know, if that's the right terminology? Something like that, I mean, something that I'd say all records, all relevant records, not otherwise deemed confidential by law, something to that effect of a council. Some statutory reference or something.  Yeah, aren't names and emails and personal information already exempt if you were referring to a public records request? So I mean, if we just reminded, no. Not necessarily. People can ask for private information from a community. Well, it depends what it is. For example, I could go to, I myself could go to Department of Education and ask them to produce all emails with the name Julio Thompson in it. And they'd have to be able to show, unless they were investigating me, or unless there were some matters that were subject to the attorney-client privilege that did not involve me personally, they would have to be. But just the notion of like emails that would say, well, we're going to redact every email, you could do that. I mean, it's a pretty broad statute. It's interpreted very generously in favor of disclosure by the Supreme Court. So I mean, I just think that's not an area of expertise I have about public records law, except to the extent that we routinely get requests from people who want to know who we're investigating or what happened and all that sort of stuff. And in areas like sexual harassment, people are very worried about losing their jobs, et cetera. So I'm just saying that the issue about public records would need to be addressed somehow. And off the top of my head, I haven't come up with a good idea. I think we're looking for data, but not necessarily who the data is attached to. Well, it doesn't say that it says all relevant records. It doesn't say de-identified data. We just need to. Great. We can tweak that. Thank you. OK. And then Rob has a question. Sure. I'm not sure how to quite phrase this, but is there, like in the federal government, you have security clearances that entitle you to see different. Yes. Type of information. Is there some sort of a designation that you could give a person in this position that would allow them to look at that type of information? Does that make sense? We don't have security level at different levels. I mean, for example, we have that notion does operate to some extent, although I don't think it applies to this particular office. For example, our civil rights unit were investigating a claim of sexual harassment. And then once we start doing our investigation, one of or more of the incidents of harassment, if they occurred would constitute sexual assault. So we want to be able to contact the police about that. Maybe have talked to a detective, initiated criminal investigation. Our confidentiality statute says information we receive in those investigations are confidential except to law enforcement. So sometimes we get information and we can share it to the Human Rights Commission because they enforce the law or the Department of Labor or, in some cases, the FBI, US Attorney's Office. So it's not like a security level, but they identify a category of individuals. We couldn't give it to you unless we had a court order or the consent of the parties. But if one of you were working in law enforcement, we could if that were necessary to continue the investigation. Would you envision this position needing that ability to do that? I don't know. I'm not really sure. I have a full understanding. I mean, the way that I tend to look at these sorts of things where panels and committees are to imagine someone showing me a Monday morning and they've got 2,000 of hours worth of work to put in in the next year. What do they do day to day? And in evaluating legislation, if that person's view about what records they need to do their job and what's necessary, is at odds with the commissioner's view, then who wins that? And so, or if there's issues about confidentiality, what's likely to happen if someone's going to knock on the attorney general's office and say, does all relevant records mean privileged or non-privileged? Because in the rest of our world, the obligation is to produce responsive, non-privileged materials and to be able to identify a public records exemption if there's going to be an exemption. It's also possible just looking down the road, and this is what I want to review this in light of. It's possible that the request, even for de-identified data that the executive director asked for, could be really burdensome. So it could be, I want the last 10 years of $10,000 files, and I want you to redact all of the people's names in it. And then people come to us and say, do we have to respond to that? That's going to cost us $20,000 in a manpower, but the executive director on the other side of the table says, it says all relevant records. And it also says, you're supposed to work collaboratively. So I don't, you know, I'm not really, I mean, it's conceivable that people will just agree to disagree about how intrusive or how burdensome the records could be. And it may all work out, but part of my evaluation legislation is, well, what if it doesn't? Who wins that fight between the Agency of Education and the equity officer? If, and it might be that the governor, because they're in the cabinet setting, that they all work it out and say, come to some reasonable compromise. That could happen, but it might not. And the question then for us would be, who do you, how, if you're going to put in a mechanism, or I don't know what this executive order, if it's going to work in tandem with this or not, would resolve that. But I'm in the dispute business, and that's an area of dispute I could see where people acting in good faith can just have different views about what's relevant and what's too burdensome or what's not too burdensome. Happens around here all the time. Well, if your scenario came to fruition here, who would you be representing? Well, that's the other issue that I'm about to get to, which is that if things were not be able to resolve, I mean, I don't know if there's a conflict between one state and state agency or not. I'm not sure how that would resolve now. It is possible that right now that there can be conflicts between agencies, let's say the Department of Public Safety and Fish and Wildlife, about their activities. And those things just tend to be worked out administratively without lawyers here. There's no statutory right for the Department of Public Safety to get all relevant records of Fish and Wildlife from vice versa. That's a right. And if there's a right, then someone, they want a lawyer to enforce that right if necessary. And the other side may have a disagreement about how far the right goes, and they would want legal representation. So I'm not sure the Human Rights Commission, they have a lawyer, the executive director is a lawyer. And she proceeds in court when she has matters against the state of Vermont. The state of Vermont lawyers in a different division or office would represent agency of education or corrections or transportation and so forth. So I'm not really sure what the mechanism is here and whether, I mean, one possibility is that sometimes when there's a conflict, that can happen between an agency and an individual. Correction's officer and the department gets sued. And the officer wants his or her own defense because maybe their account of what was, they were trained to do differs from what that department says. So there may be a conflict, and then what happens is that the officer demands and receives outside counsel, who is a lawyer from a law firm. So that comes out of the funding for Department of Corrections, I imagine. So I mean, that's a possibility. There is a mechanism for doing that. It costs money to hire those folks. We don't have people who are just kind of on the bench and a retainer get charged by the hour typically. But so that's, because those conflicts are possible, it's just to the extent you can resolve or work with the administration to identify how those conflicts would be resolved, would probably make it less expensive, less and incur less delay. I mean, you wouldn't want this executive director to be spending three months fighting over what records to get from a given agency. You know, that could be all consuming. And since there's only one person or they have some support from the agency administration, that might not be a very productive use of time. So I'm not sure I have an idea about what you want because I'm not really sure again what the person does. There is the other issue here and maybe it's not such a big issue. It won't be an issue in practice, but a lot of the prior version of the bill included hiring a consultant who could do kind of a quantitative, qualitative, you know, a social science analysis. And that's not provided here. And the question is, are some of those duties, would those fall upon the executive director? And if so, do you want to state that that would be a qualification for the, because right now it says the governor chooses among three qualified candidates. The panel decides what counts as qualified. And if they're supposed to be gathering all these records and now what do you do with those records and how do you make judgments on it, Jonathan? That requires a skill set and it's not clear to me if the panel comes up with three people who have no experience in that or who don't even believe in quantitative analysis, does the governor of the building say, send me another three names? I'm not sure that's quite permitted in the current draft. So I think because quantitative analysis, yeah, because quantitative analysis or that kind of social science research is not funded for on the outside and probably is going to be, is going to fill up those 2,000 hours. You may want to have that as part of the duty is that that person is capable of undertaking that analysis. Because there are lots of people who apply for internships or jobs in our office who say they're qualified and their view of qualified doesn't exist. Some of them don't have a lot of degrees and they're applying for assistant attorney general, for example. I mean, you know, I mean, I'm just saying that views can differ among well-meaning people. So that's something that I think you would want to look at. Last issue, and this may be a new issue now about that the reference is the systemic racism. So in my world and in Karen Richards' world, we live in the world of racial discrimination. So what you are tackling are biased actions. Training typically addresses both people's actions and their beliefs. But because we have government employees, the government can't tell people how to think. They can tell them how to do their jobs and communicate. And so we're interested in seeing what changes will be made to the, I understand when people say systemic racism, what they're really talking about is discrimination, but I can see an envision at some point if there are changes being made, someone says the government is moving me out of a position because of my First Amendment views. I have certain views about, let's say, affirmative action, which is not, and some people say that may be racist or not, and some people may say it's just poor social policy, but if there are employees who not in the discharge of their jobs are just identified or viewed by this panel or by the executive director as being part of systemic racism, that can, and something happens to those individuals, they're moved out of positions on the basis of views about affirmative action, which is political belief, then that presents a First Amendment problem. There are sometimes, always when we're dealing with government employees, we're dealing, we're dealing sometimes with competing constitutional values, the equality principle from the 14th and 5th Amendments and the First Amendment, which says people are, government employees still have some freedom to have their own viewpoints as long as it doesn't affect or interfere with the job. So that's something that, I wouldn't say it's a red flag, but it might be a yellow flag for folks to keep aware of because if you look, I think of the affirmative action, as I mentioned before, I'm our office file 3, some of the last affirmative action case, the Fisher case a couple of years ago, it's a five to four decision, well-meaning people there, who have very different views about what the constitution means or what good social policy means. And in that case, the majority of justices, you want to imagine if they were the state or federal government and someone's in the business of rooting out systemic racism, they would say these four Supreme Court justices are kind of views because when it's taking government action on the basis of someone's viewpoint, as opposed to their conduct, that's kind of First Amendment territory. Some people loosely say that's kind of thought police. And I'm not saying that racism is not an ill, it is, but there are limits to what the government can do, even with its own employees. And so we always have to be, we just have to be careful and have an understanding of when you're talking about targets and performance measures, what that actually means. We're really talking about behaviors rather than underlying beliefs, because I'm sure all of you, for example, have your own views about attorneys, let's say, but your conduct so far has been great. A shame. That's a shame. So that's just something that we sometimes run into because we do investigations of, say, city employees. And people use social media, right? So people's viewpoints might be known outside the workplace. And if bad things start happening to those people where they're speaking as citizens about matters of public interest, and then there are First Amendment issues that come in. It's the whole Bill of Rights that applies on the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, so. So those are the eight areas, I think. Questions to follow up with Hikulian. Raul? No, I don't think he pointed out. Jim? No, I very much appreciate your comments. And if you read through it further, I for one would be very interested in any suggestions you might have to make this work. I'm not sure, quite frankly, that we want to get too prescriptive on the qualifications for the executive director. That's just my opinion. I think there's a board that's going to, that's going to prevent names, and I think that's part of their process of trying to figure out what it is they want to see in the director. And I would think when they interview candidates, they're going to have to have done some of that beforehand. That's just me. John, any wrong? I just wanted to, I did remove the consultant from the bill, and the reason I did that, it was my own decision, was because it was not a funded position. I just feel terrible about putting things in bills that are unfunded, and so it's like the King Water Act, you know, the fact that we passed that without figuring out how to fund it. Well, and as part of the administration, there's no reason why the administration can't allocate, reallocate resources, whether it's staff or otherwise to do some of that. But that was the reason I did that. I mean, I do understand that some of this is data analysis, and that might be a qualification for the chief officer here. And I'm not having, our office doesn't have a fee about whether you should have a consultant or not. And it is true that other agencies have in-house people who do quantitative analysis. But what one loses, I mean, at least potentially loses, is if that individual doesn't have that skill set that won their own review, their independent review, might be weaker than if somebody had the experience, or they might rely more heavily upon people who might already have kind of an institutional bias toward what they already do, right? That they might, an agency just to wake bureaucracies work anywhere is that individuals might do the quantitative analysis and see the data or present the data in a way which defends, let's say, the status quo, where someone who's not part of that agency might, and he's savvy with data analysis, might say, yeah, but you're not accounting or you're not controlling for this factor or that factor. And a consultant generally would be in a position to do that, but without a consultant, then it would basically be the executive director or the panel, and at least right now there's no indication that any of them would have, you know, would have those qualifications. So I just raised that as a potential issue to chew on, that's all. If you could have Rob's question, and then any other questions on this till after floor, Julio's gonna be back, by quarter of, we need to deal with the Montpelier Charter Amendment and then have the stuff from ag coming up. I can defer my question, because it's kind of a jump ball question anyway. It's a what? A jump ball question that... Ooh, I don't know what that means. I'll wait till later. Okay. Thank you. Because you're gonna be back this afternoon after the floor anyway. One o'clock or one o'clock? Well, we go on the floor at once. Oh, so on the floor after? On the floor after. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay, give it a stuff that we can work with. Thank you. Okay, folks, so be jotting down your subsequent questions. We'll have Bryn with us after floor and we can continue working off the proposed amendment. And thank you again for John and John. I noticed that you were taking all your notes, so. Okay. And John's still speaking to John. You have the proposed amendment from Montpelier's Charter. Yeah, I think I said it wrong. You did it wrong. We have it on our webpage again. It's really complicated. By email it is. It's especially tough. We've had a tendency to make. Yeah, after a hundred years, my force speech and everything. You know how to change it? Ooh. What was that? It was a call. Yeah, it was a committee. No, he said in committee, he was fine the way it was written. I'll be right back. I don't remember even discussing this. We talked about it in committee. Yes. Yes, he did. You were taken on that. Well, I tuned it up. I do not see it. It's in an email. It's in an email. Email, email, email, it's in an email. Oh, it's in an email. So it's not in here. So it's not on it, but it's on it. It's on it. Yeah, it's for me. Naturally. Where do you email from, Tucker? What's the date? There. Today. Yes, that is. Today? Today.  Please? It is. Oh, it's good. I've been recording all this while. We know. Thank goodness. All right. There it is. So we've got a new draft that we're about to go through. Oh, wait a minute. Not right off, Bryn. Oh, thank you for raising your hand. Well, thank you for delaying the vote. I wanted to have a conversation with our assistant attorney general. And I missed on that opportunity. Amendment to the Montpelier Charter. Remember, we held the vote till after. Oh, God, how could I forget? All right, traumatic. I bet it was. It would have been traumatic for me had I missed the vote. So we all know what we're voting on. The amendment proposed by our colleague from Wilmington so that Montpelier doesn't lose a day in between shifts. We'll hold it open for Patty, but we can get the rest of this done. How's that? OK, we're going to call the roll. I need you to rest. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Harrison. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We. Yes. Council. Yes. Which one are we doing? Montpelier amendment. We're voting on Dr. Orange Montpelier amendment. Lewis. Ladies. OK. OK. John could report. So the count is 10-0-1. And Patty, you are reporting the underlying bill. Are you also going to report the amendment? What did you folks work out? We did talk. We did it before I thought you were going to do it. Yeah, I'm fine with that. All right, so Patty is reporting both the amendment and the underlying bill. So do we have a plain copy of the amendment? It sounds to me. This one still says down. Because we're going to do it. We're going to do it at the committee? Sure. You're going to report it? Yes. So we need to take this. Tucker. OK. So would you please send a note down to Tucker, asking him to change it to a committee bill and to send a copy to Denise and to Patty. OK. How's that? Yep, please. Does that sound good, Patty? That's fine. And then you can take that down to the clerk's office so we'll get that in the meeting. OK. And then you can take that down to the clerk's office so we'll get that in the calendar. Calendar, thank you. Reporting amendment. And I want to talk about the bill. Oh, my God. Sorry, can you make a note on the amendment? Yeah. I didn't see anything in the shape. Where's the document? OK, amendment. 9, 0, 2, 1. And do you have a look over there or something? Yeah, fine. But that's important. All right, I'm going to move. So I do believe that, are you all set for that? I am. OK. Oh, you're going to need to get the copy of the amendment as it comes up. Yeah. She just want to cross this out and write to me. OK. OK. OK. I'm going to show you, I didn't have to cross anything yet. Oh. Yes, today. Bryn, I think now we're Bryn. Bryn. Thank you for your patience. This is Bryn. Do you want to write to me? Indeed. Please. So good afternoon, committee. I'm here for the record. Bryn here from Legislative Council. Here to walk you through draft 1.2, which is the draft I put together based on a conversation with Representative Gannon. Which followed up on the conversation these committee had this morning. OK. And I explained the discrepancy about this morning. So no changes to section one, the legislative intent section. So what I did is I highlighted everything that I changed between this draft and the passed by the Senate version. And the way I do it, I'm not sure if your other legislative counsel do this, but I do strike through of language that was in the former version, but is not in this one. So you'll see some areas that are underlined and strike through, struck through. That just means you're taking it out even if it was in the original version. OK. Great. Just so we're clear. So section two, this is the powers and duties of the governor's cabinet. So the only change here. Is that we've changed the name of the position from chief officer, chief civil rights officer to executive director of racial equity. So you'll see that throughout. So section three, this is the position that creates the new position of the executive director. And you'll see throughout, we've struck any reference to the position as being a position that's independent of the administration. So now it's just a position that's within the administration. And it directs that position to work collaboratively with and act as a liaison between the governor's workforce equity and diversity council, the human rights commission and the governor's cabinet. And takes out that language about operating independently of the cabinet. And similarly, section C is struck because it removes all language about the director being an independent position. So the next section is the, this creates the advisory panel. And we've just changed the title to racial equity advisory panel. And you can see that we've struck out some language that requires the panel to consult with the workforce, the governor's workforce on equity and diversity and the human rights commission. Now it's the director who's charged with working with those entities rather than the panel. Okay. We're good. I'm just going to cruise along. Okay. So sub B, I'm on page three now. This just changes. If you remember, this was originally, it's originally said that the members should not be an existing senator or representative. We just changed that to legislator. No sneaky, no sneaky moves allowed. And then sub two, this was the language that would have required three members to be people of color and we've changed that language to, instead, members should be drawn from diverse backgrounds to represent the interests of communities of color throughout the state. And that's language that's drawn from act 54. So the next change you can find in. Oh, I'm sorry. Great. John was trying to help me. Going back to that, shall be drawn from diverse backgrounds. Does that result the concern that was raised about the potentially three members of color issues? Does that provide enough language and get perhaps at the same place? It doesn't do. It doesn't even require racial diversity. So I would say it addresses it thoroughly. Okay. Thank you. So the next section, this is the section about how the members elect the chair. And so we've just added some language here that provides that the appointments to the panel have to occur by September. And then the duties of the panel. I'm sorry. And then the terms officially begin in January. So that gives some time to establish the panel and elect the chair. Okay. So the next section is subsection C. This is the duties and responsibilities of the panel. This subsection has changed a lot. So it's no longer the duty of the panel to appoint the director. So we've taken that out. They're also not going to conduct any oversight of the director. And in addition to advising the director, they are also tasked with advising the governor on strategies for remediating the Senate racism. And then we get rid of subdivision four there. That removes the report requirement. So now the panel doesn't report to the general assembly, but instead you'll see that the director is tasked with an annual report. And then sub D is out. That's the provision that the panel, the panel can remove the director. So that's gone. Right. So just, oh wait a minute. I'm thinking of a piece of this. I'll wait for you to get further ahead, which will tie back to this dismissal business. Okay. Yes. Okay. This says each member of the panel shall be entitled per diem pursuant to 32 vsa 1010. That's the, is that the one for citizens out there? $50 a day. So that's legislators aren't going to get their normal per diem. No legislators on the panel. That's right. Forgot that small piece. You know that legislators on the panel. Right. The ones that are appointed specifically says who shall not be. Right. Legislators appoint. Yeah. So not you. No. No. No. No. No. No. Sure. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So now we get into the duties. Are we good to keep on? Thanks. Now we get into the duties of the executive director. If I could change anything. Okay. I'm going to raise the organizational review to be conducted by an outside vendor. And then. It doesn't. No, it does not. Okay. Doesn't explicitly to refer to it. Authorize it. So subdivision to hear this changes the requirement from overseeing the statewide collection of race based data. To creating a strategy for implementing a centralized and correlation and public dissemination of such data. And then three, subdivision three there is a new subdivision and it tasks the director with developing a model fairness and diversity policy and make recommendations regarding the existing policies that are held by state agencies and departments, okay? And then it adds some language to that duty under subdivision B there that the director's tasked with working collaboratively with the state government and also tasks with developing best practices for remediating systemic racism throughout state government. Move on to subdivision D. This is the part about working with human resources to develop trainings and it just adds some language there to specify that those trainings should be on the nature and scope of systemic racism and the institutionalized nature of race-based bias. Subdivision E. So this is the annual reporting requirement. This is a new requirement. So it requires the director to report annually beginning in 2020 to demonstrate the state's progress towards remediating systemic bias, okay? Sub E, this is the authority, this is the peanut power authority. We've taken that out. No more, it's peanut power, okay? And this is a 504 as a new section and this is the section that directs the panel to advance three names to the governor for the governor to select to appoint the director. So A provides that the panel shall consider applications for the position and as many candidates as it is qualified, Sub B provides that the panel has to submit three names to the governor of the people it deems most qualified for the role and then C, that the governor makes the appointment from that list of candidates put forward by the panel. And it provides that the names of the candidates both submitted to the governor and not submitted to the governor shall remain confidential. And then the next section in the version that's passed by the Senate was the section that funded the position with the surcharge on the human resources fund. So you'll see that funding section is has been eliminated from this amendment. And instead, we authorized the position in section four create an appropriation, unchanged appropriation in section five that don't do any more directives about funding. And that only covers half the year, is that right? This does, yep. And then a few changes to section six. This is the sort of timeline of the rollout of all of this. The first change is in subdivision C this provides that the panel has to submit the names to the governor by January one. And the governor has to appoint the director on February one. And then the director has to report back to the general assembly on May 1st. And so we give them an additional month later. Oftentimes, gubernatorial appointments need to also be approved by the Senate. Would that apply in this case? It's not required that they be approved by the Senate. Sometimes they are. Not how I drafted it. And that's fine. I just didn't know. And I'm not, I mean, it's already going through a panel and going through a name. Suggesting we added, I'm just asking. Yeah. You do, it is sometimes appointments that require Senate approval. To me, that just, it will, in this case, will draw the process longer. So. And that's it. Those are, that's the extent of the changes to the Senate past version. First, I just wanted to say thank you because I've been in and out because I'm going to see my mom. And I, this is so much better.  I know everybody worked on it, so I think it's great. I, one question I have is, we had talked a bit about the Human Rights Commission and making sure that these two groups work together. And I didn't see it that we actually put that anywhere. But did we? We did. Maybe I just went through it too quick to see. Page two, nine, 11. I think it's in the section that creates the position. Yeah, we'll go. Oh yeah, here it is. Okay. Okay, great. Perfect. Thanks. Now we're going to perhaps talk, listen to the AG's office. But I'll just throw it out there for the terms of our own committee discussion. Whether or not we might want to think about the sunset date, especially if we're thinking at this point that that position and commission and may evolve into their primary responsibilities. That maybe we put it out there for, I'll throw out 2022 and that would give two full terms for our governor or potentially next governor and then maybe give the legislature an opportunity to say, okay, this is working great. Or let's tweak it or let's change the purpose or whatever. So it goes down to bottom, it's 2024. And my impression was that the way it came over from the Senate. So I'd just throw out there, maybe changing that by two years. I mean, this is three full terms of governor. I'm thinking two might be more appropriate. And give us an absolute window to see if we're making some progress. And so is that, when we do it on something like this, would that be like an author's, like when I used to work in Washington, we had to reauthorize program if we want. So that's kind of what we're doing. So last session we had to reauthorize the search and rescue council because that had sunset last year. So we went through a process that's what we'd have to do here if we put in the sunset, which we are. So yeah. We could do it the other way. Yeah, you can just say, okay, another four years. Or you can say, oh, we want to change its mission a little because we want to go beyond races. I mean, we could do one year, but that wouldn't be fair. Yeah. I would, I think it's a good idea, but I would argue for a little bit longer than 2024. I just think systemic racism is so deeply embedded and so pernicious. It's going to be slow progress. I don't think we're going to make, we're not going to change everybody's hearts and minds in a brief period of time. It's going to take a while. I agree with the sunset and let's look at it, but let's give them enough time to get more accomplished. Four years is a short period of time. It's my thought. So you're suggesting going longer than 2024. Is that what I heard you say? No, no, but Jim was suggesting 2022. I think stick with the 2024, which is just a little bit more time. Well, I, as much as I respect and appreciate the member from all clear. Yeah. The 2022 for me, partly because what I heard is that we've made a lot of progress in so many different areas already. And in some cases, this is just looking to take best practices of existing state agencies. So I have a hard time believing that it's as systemic and prevalent as some may think that it is. And I do think that the 2022 is a bit more appropriate in that this is a chance to make sure that it's doing what we want it to do. And if it does need to get tweaked, as some would say that you can do it, come down on that, I think. Cindy, I think we're all putting in our two cents. I think we should keep it the way it is. This has been going on for 100 years or something. So I think it's going to take time to get the information, get the data, decide how to implement programs, to operate programs, to get results. I just think that's a process. Jessica? I kind of agree with the representative from there. Yeah, I'm coming for very different reasons. I think that for a different reason, I think that it is systemic, it's going to take a long time. But this is brand new and we're just setting it up. And what I like about Sunsets is it gives us the opportunity to reauthorize and tweak a little where it may not be quite right. I mean, this is a brand new thing. We're trying to work this out in committee. It's gone from one committee to another committee. I just think just like everything, it needs a little time to settle. And then we could come back to it by having an earlier date and make it better. And then we could do if we needed to another four years. But, and I think we will need to, but we would have that opportunity. I mean, for example, we've only got $75,000 in there. Who knows? I mean, we've got to at least fix that. I guess we can do that in appropriations, but there may be other things by then in 2022, right? So anyhow, I think for different reasons, we should put a shorter date. Just to be clear, whatever the date is, doesn't mean that tweaking has to come along with the date, it can be just straight reauthorizing or pulling a plug. There doesn't have to be, you know. You don't have to have it. It just doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be a question. Yeah. But I will turn to the dates. Yes, take four since you're looking at it. That's the important piece. Yeah. They might bring us tweets as soon as I can. Folks, since we've just seen to zeroed in here on the date for the sunset, sunset, yes, sunset. Do we want to try and come to some sort of agreement as to whether it's 2022 or 2024? I'll just put the difference. Jim? Not to complicate things, but would it be helpful? At least it would for me. Any help is helpful to hear from the AG's office so that we can see if there's any other issues that we may want to look at. So you want to deal with all the changes at the same time? Or we'll get a full list of changes and then go one, one, you know, seriatum? We're very good at multitasking. You are. Jim, Eddie, shall we get all the changes that people want us to look at and then we'll work through them one by one by one? That's what you want to do? That's what we're all going to do. Don't be, we're in thank you. Oh, I get to ask the questions. Please, the question that I held off passing before when you were at that section where the line was crossed out about the panel being able to send the ED on his or her way. Yes. So is it inferred or is it implicit, whatever the proper terminology is in this version, that if things aren't working out with the ED, it's the governor who speaks to this person and sends him or her onto other work? It is indeed. There is a statute. I don't have the reference in my mind that provides that any governor appointment serves with the pleasure of the governor. So I can get that site to the committee if you'd like. Thanks for that presentation. All right. So Jim, you want to hear from Julio first. Julio, if you would take the seat to the company of the various departments. So you now see that you're in this draft. Any thoughts that you have, or if it's just want to be ditto on this, that or the next thing that you mentioned this morning. We're discussing it here. Good afternoon, Julio Thompson, assistant attorney general, director of civil rights unit. I didn't have any additional comments on the bill. I think there was one committee member who had a question that was going to be deferred to the afternoon and I'm here to answer any other questions in my rise when I don't hear anything else down. Given the new draft, does it change anything that you said to us this morning? So. I just want to watch it. That's exactly it. It has to do with pay, pardon me. We are taking out that. Yeah, there's section five coming up. That funding part. That's the only difference between drafts, one-to-one, one-to-one. So everything that you said this morning was also answered. There's nothing. Okay. So, you would like to ask a question? Well, and I have to say, I got my question answered by different meetings. But so thank you, I will be able to come back specifically for me if you did. I'm sorry, but. I was here to be available for any questions or if there were any drafts that changed the portion. I mean, the areas that I raised for the committee's consideration were unchanged here, so I don't have anything to add to what I've said about those points. So on our list, Jim, we'll go back to this one this morning for Julia. Now, if you wouldn't mind, the rest of us might profit from hearing your question and what the answer is. Perhaps. Okay. Well, my question was, when I phrased it as the jump ball, because I wasn't sure, is. Okay. I knew that there were some issues and concerns around some of the language. And my question was, is would it be easier to address those if this was in statute or if this was in executive order? And my information is, and I was explained that it would be easier if it was in executive order to address some of these issues. So that question now with respect is a little too vague for me to understand and to answer.  I think in executive order would create the same problem if it had the same language. So I'm not sure which language you're talking about. I don't, because the question would then become what records are exempt from access to this officer, either by executive order or by statute and the same conflict would still exist. Her question would still exist. Yeah. Hope you like that. I'm good. You're good. So if that question came up about access to records and confidentiality, who would advise either the executive director or the administration that maybe had some concerns about providing some information? Would that be your office? Not necessarily you personally, but an assistant AG assigned to that branch? In the ordinary course, if a state agency receives a records request of any sort, whether it's a public records request or subpoena, the attorney general's office represents the state of Vermont. So we would, an assistant attorney general from our office would reserve the request, make a legal determination as to whether it's legally valid, whether it raises issues of materials that should be withheld on the basis of privilege or other confidentiality requirements, whether, even if not privileged, whether production would be on duly burdensome. So that, so that's what we would normally do. This is a little unusual in that you would have one part of the administration has a, at least as right now it looks like it could be interpreted as a plenary right to all of the records that are relevant regardless of privilege or confidentiality. And if the parties, I mean sometimes agencies now have disputes and those often just get worked out in the course of business. But if they were, I'm not aware of a situation where one agency says we have the right to this information outside of the scope of an investigation. But if there is a conflict about that, usually both sides have lawyers. The only example that comes to mind would be the Human Rights Commission when it's investigating a state agency, they have the right. They have their own lawyer that's not in the attorney general's office. But so that mechanism would have to be worked out. Generally where the attorney general's office can't represent two parties to dispute that typical practice is that conflicts council, that's private council that's hired for purposes representing one side would be hired. That's done on an as needed basis. Theoretically this could be an issue that occurs more than once. If this standard is left intact it might be more likely because I think there are many agencies would probably assert that they have either state or federal confidentiality obligations in the follow up. And I can appreciate that. I mean for example, this office may wanna find out about access to Medicaid. And who's been denied coverage or... For educational records. Yeah. And I can see that agency saying time out. There's some confidential information here that we don't wanna share. We can't share. So if I could, this I think according to my own notes is item number one of concern when you spoke with us this morning. And I know John is next on the list than Dennis. John were you gonna raise this, were you gonna start walking through the list of concerns or was your point on something else? It was on the first concern about this whole access to records thing. So I had a question with respect to FERC, Julio and that. So I mean, how many times has the AGE got involved with agency to agency request for documents? Other than what involves an investigation which is a whole other matter as far as I'm concerned. I don't know but I'm also not aware of a statute that says that agency A has a legal right to all relevant materials from agency B. Okay. I'm not aware of that. It could be, but it's not something I'd encounter. Yes. So mine had to do with the six concerns you've had people protection and separation of powers. The state's obligation to work with the panel, the subpoena power, there's no provision for confidentiality, the collection and managing of that. No, no. The first time to discuss. It's the first priorities. That was the original bill. This is the original bill. No, it's been changed. I realize it's been changed, but I didn't know how many of the same concerns you still had. I know some of them have gone away, I understand that. So I think the first question about an equal protection issue regarding the selection of the panel, I think has been muted by the separation of powers concerns because the governor makes a selection of the cabinet officer and retains the right to remove the officer. I don't think that issue is present any longer. There is no subpoena power under here, although there's a lingering question of whether the shelf of all records is a functional equivalent that a letter would be a legally enforceable demand for records. So that's what we were just discussing. It's not strictly speaking of subpoena, but it's if the letter saying under this statute, you shall provide that, that might be enforceable in court. And was it that this morning you suggested, or perhaps I imagine that you suggested perhaps adding words of non-privileged, might cure that situation. Right, or some equivalent, something that isn't deemed confidential by law. That's right, that would provide a lot of it. In terms of the issue about collection of data, I'm not really sure what, it's hard to project it. What it still could be even if you have a request for non-confidential data, just as a practical working concern, disputes could still arise where they want all the documents and they say, well, then just black out the names, which is something that might arise in litigation or it might arise in a public records request if it's otherwise subject to disclosure. And so one could imagine there might be conflicts where they say, is there, you know, might say, that's, there might get dispute where they say, that's gonna cost this agency X thousands of dollars and X weeks or months of resources to respond to that. And so we don't wanna do it. And I don't know whether in practice, that's something that gets resolved within the administration, but if it doesn't, then the question is, well, how would you address that dispute and that's not addressed here at all. It's not at all uncommon for a party that asserts a legal right to records like in a lawsuit to say, well, then just black out, just redact the confidential information. And then the other side might appeal to a judge and say the value of what you're seeking is substantially outweighed by the cost of producing it or that there might be alternative means to obtain the same information rather than blacking out thousands of documents. So there are mechanisms for that sort of thing. And that would be true not only in court, but say the Human Rights Commission could have that same sort of issue of fated dispute about looking at personnel records or emails. They would be a mechanism to go to court if there's a dispute about that. And in this situation also, is there not, if I understand correctly the answer which Bryn gave to my last question to her, say something's going on and the governor loses patience with the executive director for what we call in this person, executive director for racial equity has had it with the way in which said executive director is conducting him or herself in terms of the task at hand. The governor can always say, I'm happy to receive your resignation tomorrow morning. And that's the end of that dispute. Maybe, if it's a state employee, they would, you know, there's, I can't say that an employment dispute, even for an at-well employee, would just end up then. There are lots of employees who might seek legal recourse. So I don't know. He would have been- So someone appointed by the governor to either her position can say, okay, I heard what you said. What I'm saying is that if there are disputes, if there's disagreement about the conduct, there may be disagreement about what these, whether the stated motives for termination and employment, this is a daily issue. There are disputes about whether the stated grounds for termination are the actual grounds for termination. So I'm just, so I don't know that the, that the concern about being removed would prevent the executive director- I apologize for getting IE passed. I interrupt the dentist's list. I guess the other issue, I mean, I don't think this bill really addresses it. It's just a matter of policy, which it doesn't really identify what areas would happen in what years, criminal justice in what, and so institutional or systemic racism, which aren't really courtroom words, they're more like political discourse words. So that's pretty broad, it could mean quite a bit. And so my point when I initially testified on two prior versions of the bill was that if the committee or the legislature had a preference about whether there would be a phased focus schools one year, corrections another year or something, or you wanna make sure that schools are covered some point within that X period of time, then this would be your opportunity to do that because otherwise it's essentially left up to the executive director or the panel to focus on whatever they want. And that may be what you want to do, but typically if you're giving someone a four year, five year mission to address, it would almost be like if you passed the bill a support analogy, it's only when I could think of on the fly saying address crime over the next five years and we're not, we don't know whether that's crimes against the person or criminal fraud or drugs et cetera, that's why you have a lot more specific cause. So that's your call, but this would be the place to put it because otherwise it's going to be decided by the panel and or maybe the selection process with the governor who might discuss what those priorities are. And from the AG's perspective, would it be wrong to leave it to the panel and be- We don't have a position on it, it's just whether you wanna exercise that level of direction over a position that you're one of the three. That's all, so that one right at the bottom, that's the state's obligation to work with the panel. And that was one of your concerns there and that's still in there. On the bottom that you're showing- Michelle worked heavily with the director. Right, that's the issue I raised at the start of my remarks today, which is that there's a right to access to all relevant records. And I think there was discussion a moment or two about unless otherwise confidential by law, that sort. So it's the definition of the records as opposed to the working collaboratively that's the problem? I think when you say shall provide access to all relevant records. Right now that could be read to me without regard to confidentiality. That's how I interpreted it, it sounded as if there was a problem with the working collaboratively part also. No, but I don't think, no I wasn't saying there's a concern with that language. I mean, collaboration's generally good, although in my experience people collaborate but they can agree with this degree and that's usually where there's some sort of conflict resolution that occurs and that can occur a number of ways of my point. My broader point was just there isn't anyway specified here, so I don't know that you can predict how it would happen. So does that work or do we want to be changing it then? Does what work then? That's right there. I'm hearing it could work or we should be a little bit more narrow. That's where we need to put in the not something akin to non-privileged and part of those all relevant non-privileged. Non-privileged, non-confidential. Non-confidential, whatever the proper terminology is. That's where we go? Yes, I mean after would be access to some description of the records that would include confidentiality, because there are probably scores of confidentiality statutes that you've enacted and I don't think the intent is I understand the Senate and the House here and intent is not to repeal all of those with respect to one's space. I do not imagine. Right, so that's why I'm talking about it. So we're going to be doing the major hall. Jim? Yeah, just to say one, I think it could be fixed with a couple words at the end of that sentence, except for those that are, I don't know, prevented by existing law regarding confidentiality or. Yeah, confidential is provided by law or some equivalent information. Something that I'd write the right word for it, but I think that. If the committee is willing to have us fixed there, would it be possible, Julio, for you to talk with Bryn, to lawyers talking to one another to craft that language? I'm always thrilled to talk to Julio, but I would just like to say, is it the committee's intent that any record subject to confidentiality requirements be withheld or that they be redacted to exclude confidential information? Welcome. Start weighing in, please. We've got two very different approaches to protecting the confidential information there. Rob? Bryn, could you elaborate just a little bit more on that as far as, I think I know what you're saying, but I just want to make sure I'm clear about what you're saying. So, typically it would be good access to records, like for example, nothing in this language would subject the government to turn over records that are subject to confidentiality requirements. So, typically, if a record is subject to a confidentiality requirement, for example, it has personal health information, that information would have to be redacted or stripped from the document before it could be turned over, that's just federal law. So, if you are asking for the records to be turned over, subject to confidentiality requirements, you would be asking for those documents to be redacted. But it sounds like what you, the language you want to go in, might have the practical effect of withholding those documents all together. So, I think it's just important to clarify what the committee wants. If you want those documents with health, not shared or if you want them redacted. Subject to the confidentiality laws, redacted. Jessica? It seems like almost everything you could say has some confidentialityness to it. And so, therefore, you could end up not having to give anything unless we make it more specific. I don't know. Ms. Juliel Thompson, I mean, I think de-identified or aggregate data, for example, provides a run from a database that doesn't identify student names. But if you were asking for files on student discipline cases, you would have federal confidentiality as well as state confidentiality laws. And so, the real question is what sort of gig do you envision this person? Is this person going to be looking through individual discipline files, or are they looking for 1,000-foot patterns and percentages? Because that may, what you envision that person looking at in order to do the job, may inform your decision here because it's a shallow access, not, you know, may seek access or may obtain access as permitted by law. But it sort of, it sort of, the shell gives create, that's mandatory language, which sets up a potential conflict where they say, I don't care what you think, agency of X, I think it's relevant and therefore produce it, not withstanding whatever. So, it's just, part of it is what your vision is and I don't have a full understanding of, I haven't heard the testimony about that in order to offer you a, I don't want to hear. Does it help you all to say something akin to pursuant to the statutory reference to the Public Records Act? I think Julio just gave us some good language there. I mean, so one change of the, it's changing the shell to may, may provide the director with access to all relevant records and information permitted by law. And now what you said, Julio? I wasn't proposing language, but I think that sounds like what I was saying. That wasn't a drafting proposal, I didn't know that much. Would you be okay with that? I think that it lessens, I mean, I'm not offering a view about what this officer should do. That's really your vision, something that I was prepared to talk about, but the, I think the, as provided by law, covers the attorney, client privilege and statutory privileges, state and federal. And may seems to give some grounds for working on an informal resolution about burden, which I think is a practical difficulty. So it sounds like it would address the concerns that I identified if that's how you wanted those to be resolved. Yeah. So just to sort of get a concept of what data we're looking for. As we shifted this from subpoena power and potentially conducting investigations, we were trying to take a collaborative approach, which is looking at high level data about racism in state government. So for example, we got data from the Vermont State Police, which just talked about traffic stops. And it just said, how many traffic stops have there been in 2015? How many have there been in 2016? How many involve contraband, just percentages? There was no individualized data. I mean, some of the data that's in the Act 54 report is all at a very high level. It deals with healthcare issues, but it doesn't identify any individuals. The Human Rights Commission, their responsibility is to investigate discrimination on individualized basis. I don't see this body doing that because we already have a group that's doing that. So it's kind of like the turnover in state government, too. That would be aggregate information, right? Like we have this amount of turnover. Right, there's turnover. Yeah, you might know, there's more turnover in this state agency versus this state agency. And so that would be important to look at. So you might say, hmm, maybe this agency needs a little more training than this one. Or, you know, it's literally, yeah.  And if we can get that down, I think that will hopefully lessen who the others can start. Well, I mean. If I could, Rob. Well, I just, I guess the question is, is how far do you drill down in this data to find the answers to the questions? I mean, if you wanted to take that larger view of the turnover of people of color in state government, but realistically, don't you have to drill down and almost look at the individual, I guess, folks, and see why they left? And therefore, that's a very different discussion, isn't it? Well, I don't necessarily see this group doing that. I mean, if they identify a problem, then I think it's up to that state agency to work out the problem. I mean, this is not. That's right, but part of this executive director's responsibility is to help with best practices and stuff. So you have to identify with the problem before you can recommend those practices. Yeah, you can even drill down to individual incidents without identifying an individual. I mean, I think if you're getting into an issue with respect to an individual employee, we're somebody who is serviced by an agency that's really under that agency's responsibility to address that very individual issue. I mean, we're talking about one person. They're not gonna have the time to do an agency by agency look at individual issues. I don't see that. That's not what, it's not about individual discrimination. The numbers would jump in. Right, right, I get that part as far as addressing, but I'm just, again, just trying to figure out how far are they gonna be able to drill down to come up with what the solution or what the problem is. You can move on, I'll just think about it a little bit here. So where are we, folks? Change the language. But how? To may, change shall to may, and then end in for me, at the end of the sentence you would have in accordance with that law. That is corrected by law. Far has been permitted by law. Folks, are you okay with that? To be in the next draft? So, Rain, you got that? May provide the director with access to all relevant records and information as permitted by law. Sounds good to folks? Okay, what's the next thing on the list there, John? Our next issue was, but I think the next one, it was sort of tied to this one, public records need to put confidentiality clause in the bill, but that's what I, it's sort of around the same issue of gathering these records. It's really, the issue that I raised was whatever records, so you may get materials that are not legally protected from disclosing from one branch to another, but there may be work product, original work product notes, voicemails, any kind of correspondence for any state agency always have to decide whether or to what extent any of their work product or any of the materials they receive are subject to public records law. Presumptively, they all are, and if you think that some of the materials that might be received or created by the panel or the executive officer should not be presumptively produced, then this would be either this or in a companion bill to amend the public record act, you would want to address that. That's true for any, it's not unique to this position, that's true for any government position, and I don't, I mean, I'm not here to offer a view about that. It's really what you envision, because I don't know what, I mean, there's Supreme Court looked at cases about personal devices and email and all of that sort of stuff, so there's a strong presumption that everything would be disclosed and it's a statutory exemption that would restrict at this gludgering and you are the statute folks, so that's why I'm raising it for you too. So, I'm sorry to be denser in a box of rocks at this point, but is what you're saying is that the possibility would be out there once this were established, this panel, the structure, that there could be a public records request made of documents received from wherever on whatever topic. So, the way anybody can make a public records request to say the agency of education on fill in the blank. That's one example. That's the kind of thing. That's not just the kind of thing, another could be that because they have accessed information, I would expect that the executive officer the panel might talk to state employees or even perhaps to students and get information from them that's not part of a record that's produced and those individuals in my world when I investigate civil rights violations, people often say is what I'm about, or what I just told you is that confidential or is this going to end up in the newspaper? And we have a statute that says, absence of court order or your consent, it remains confidential. I don't know what the answer would be before this individual, if they were talking about, we're talking to state employees about where they see racism, those individuals may request confidentiality and I'm not sure right now whether they could give it. It could be that there's something else in the Public Records Act as I kind of disclaimed earlier, I'm not an office public records expert, but it is something that when you're looking at issues like that, you may well have individuals who are employees who might fear retaliation. So the officer, whoever it is, on day one is going to have to know whether he or she, maybe even if they accept the job as to whether they make any information from sources that would not be forthcoming they just need to know what the limits are and what they can promise or not promise if confidential sources are coming. Plus drafts, let's say they're generating drafts from word of product, is that privileged or not? It might be, I mean, it depends if the person's offering, if they're a lawyer and they're providing a legal analysis, I'm not sure. I'm just saying right now it's not addressed at all and I don't think there's a default answer in absence of one being provided on the page. That's where I was right. So, Brian, previously when we had a list from the AG's office of potential problems, you were able to provide us a workaround. Does anything come to mind that can help with regard to language that might be added into to deal with this kind of situation? Yeah, I can work on that, absolutely. I don't have anything right now that I can certainly work on. John? The Human Rights Commission does have a disclosure and confidentiality section to its authorizing section. Many agencies do. Yeah, so I mean, it's a little, it's not totally relevant to this issue because it deals with investigative files and complaints, which is just not what this group's doing, but at least it's a starting point. I think we can, I think we can come up with some language. So that can give some, it's a springboard. Right. So, committee, are we okay with Brian working, working on some sort of language to show us? And Human Rights Commission has something that can be a starting point. Jessica? And honestly, it's a great point because remember one of the very first people who testified, I remember talked about doing a report where they would interview people and then that would help to establish some initial, some of their initial work. So this will be incredibly important to have this, for them to know how far, what they can say they can keep confidential. Next? The next one was conflict between the officer and agencies. And I think we've slightly resolved this with the language with respect to the documents. But is that? I think that's right. I mean, the conflict that I was really talking about is if there's a dispute about what you shall have access to, what you can have access to. So I think, I mean, that was really the conflict that I am anticipating here. So. So, that's short. John, what's next? The next one was, it was more of a question from Julio, which is do we wanna spell out the duties of the officer? Which we, yeah, I've already mentioned that to you. Okay. Well, there are duties listed, but for example, Julio's thing should, I think it's not the duties of the officer, but the qualifications of the officer. For example, should the officer have a quantitative background, I think was the example Julio gave. To analyze data, because that's potentially one of their jobs. One of the questions I have around that is, you know, this talks about working collaboratively, but who will ultimately set the priorities here? Will it be the governor? Will it be this council? And what if there's a conflict between the two? How does that get resolved? Who resolves it? Well, the panel's advisory. It can only advise the governor. So. Are advising the governor or is it the director? No, it'd be both. Right. So it advises. So the panel doesn't have determining authority. You can only tell the governor what year or should or should not do. And the officer reports directly or indirectly to the governor. Where does it say that there only advisory? Here it is. Is it page? So it's under Dewey's, John, of the executive office. Is it page four or is it page five? Yeah, no, it's on page five, line six and seven. Page five. Line zero, zero, three. Is that the second? Page seven and seven. They're there. They're there. I had a line with, which has not changed. At the top of page five. Yes. Also it is titled, the title of the panel is an advisory panel. So it advises the director to ensure ongoing compliance with the purposes chapter and advises the governor on remediating systemic racial disparities and statewide systems in government. Okay, so on top of page five. Yeah. Section two. Yes. Got it. Okay, thank you. When we did the ethics. Ethics, that's an independent work. No, but I was just thinking, did we decide what the qualifications of the person needed to be? We didn't say it had to be. Where, what page is it that has the. Hold on if you're here. I think it continues on the top of page six. Creative strategy, develop a model. It actually starts talking about the panel on page two, at least on my version. Racial equity advisory panel on everything below. No, it establishes it on page two. Right, and then it, where's the. Then it creates. Creates. Oh, we're keeping an eye on you. Are we wed to the name as far as having racial in it? That was the suggestion was adversity earlier. Racial diversity. No. It was just plain diversity. I was looking back, some of the notes suggested was chief equity officer, chief executive director of equity. From some of the advocacy they were suggesting, I've heard mitigation, but the equity is, isn't that what it's all about? Diversity, right, but it may open the way to broaden that role in the future, if we wanted to do that. There's a whole question. I understand everybody's saying there's also a question as to how far are we going to go from the original intention of this bill, before we send it back. If the goal is to remove any reference to race, I think that that's a real problem. That's the whole point of this bill in the first place. Systemic racism. I'm not going to blow this up, but nobody has yet been able to explain to me or quantify just how pervasive and how large of a problem this is yet. We're going to find out. So we're going on a fact-finding fishing expedition. There's information in the Act 54 study. It's a great study. Are there a report from the Human Rights Commission? You may have here an example of reasonable people coming to different conclusions. Right, sure. I did read that before. One second, if I could, the thing I was trying to, I found for myself what I was trying to help get help on here. Going back to the concern about Julio raised about qualifications for the ED, page eight. The panel shall submit to the governor the names. Oh, wait a minute. From applications for the position of executive director of racial equality as many candidates as it deems qualified for the position. Julio saying qualified for the position doesn't do anything. I mean, without any further detail, you're leaving to the panelists what they consider to be qualified. And there could be disagreement about that. So if the legislature has a view that there are benefits to having someone with those skills, I'm not saying they couldn't be outweighed by other attributes. But it seemed, I mean, in prior version, there was a consultant to do that. So we had Dennis and Jim. So one of the first days we discussed this, we heard from the lady, the Human Rights Commission that they address these issues and gather a lot of information. We also heard from some agency heads, department heads, that they within their own agencies also have a person, whether it's through HR or wherever it's coming from. They also have a person that's gathering data and responding to these issues and stuff. Liaison. What's that? Liaison. Liaison, okay. So, I'm not saying we don't have a problem. I'm just not sure, but it looked like they have been aware of some issues and they've tried to deal with it within those agencies and stuff. I didn't hear any of them said that we needed more, more people spend another, you know, create another position to look into it, but I may be wrong. Some agencies are addressing. What's that? Some agencies have addressed it. Right, I mean, but we could be asking all the agencies if they're not addressing it. I would hope that they're all addressing it. Well, what we heard was that some have some really good best practices that are embedded and that's not the case across the board. Anyway, I should. Jim. Yeah, I don't want to believe of the position title, I'm very flustered. I was just reading from the suggestion that I, Chief Equity from Diana Wall, that testified before us, and, but. And what was that? She. She. That's a little bit of a brown girl, right? Yes, yes, and she said perhaps Chief Equity Officer describes it better than Chief Civil Rights Officer. Yeah. It's pretty much the same. She goes on to say that she thought while everybody might understand what Chief Civil Rights Officer but focusing on discrimination ratios as fair in other work setting, this approach is well known and sadly has all too frequently not succeeded. A highly qualified person of color is appointed and expected to solve the institution's issues. What evolves is they do not have enough backup authority and end up designing a frustration. So I just throw that out there for what it's worth. I know that we, and I, I'm not sure I could find it but I know we got a lot of emails suggesting we change the title at one point. You did, I did check. It's about real. They wanted to correct Civil Rights. Civil Rights was the original title, I'm not. Okay. Yeah, let's mitigate it. Let's mitigate it. So Julio got a question here directly from you. Sure. Yeah. Julio, what's your official title with the AG's office? I'm an Assistant Attorney General who's Director of the Civil Rights Unit. Our duties include more than, so equity tends to deal with equal protection or equal treatment but civil rights and like in my role covers issues like First Amendment which is beyond the scope of yours. So civil rights has, there are due process, search and seizure, those are issues that are not necessarily related to equal protection. So it would be your job to defend the state? Yeah. If it, no, is to prosecute? We enforce state laws and or, yes, we defend, we enforce both state and federal constitutional laws so travel bans up for our argument for us to be in court this week. We're involved in some issues. But if the state was to find themselves in the position of being a defendant in a case like this, would your office be defend them? The Attorney General's office but not the civil rights unit. We have a civil division that defends the state litigation for Human Rights Commission. We have an administrative section that deals with administrative investigations. We don't work on those cases and they don't work on it. So you would have any idea how many times the state's been involved and embroiled in a situation like this? What situation is that? And the civil rights. I don't have any numbers for that now. Thank you. Any other questions for Julio before we can let him go? He likes it here. Not that much. Thank you, Julio. Beth, while you're here right now, did you want to talk with us? Just listening. So, committee, are there other things that you want to, thank you very much, Julio. Are there other things, committee, that you want to toss in your instruction for the next draft? Oh, Beth. Tom Alden, the director, I mentioned this morning that the administration is, we are working on an executive order. He already, I thought he already mentioned that. I didn't think I needed to say it again. Okay.