Thank you, Don. All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to do a quick audio check online. If somebody online can just pop in the chat that you can hear audio and then we'll get going. All right. We have audio online. All right. Good morning, everybody. My name is budge courier. I'm going to open up today's state 98 technical advisory board today is May 18. And I want to welcome everybody and first thing we're going to do is a roll call. And then we've got a couple of new members that we're going to square in. So I'll do the roll call first. Deputy Secretary Welch. Here. All right. Dr Goldman. No, if he is on he is okay. Dr Goldman are you present. If you could come off mute and say here or hi or something, that would be great. All right, we'll circle back. Chief. Hello. Hello, so my morning. All right, thank you. Director wick. Hi. Hey, good morning. All right, Erica, I see you're in the room. Thank you. Dr. Poon. Kristen Miller, I don't believe she's here. We knew she wasn't going to be here. Amitrius Sydney. Jeff a bear. Online here. Thank you. Tracy Gonzalez. Jennifer Kenton. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning, Jennifer. Aaron Riley. Jennifer Dwyer. Here. All right. And Serena Lewis. All right. So I've got. I'm only. Oh, I forgot to check one there. So I have eight. So we do have a quorum, which is good news. All right. And we have a couple of new members, one of which is is not on. So before we do that, I do want to recognize Dr Goldman. He is participating today. He has taken another position in another state. Why you'd want to leave California. We won't have that discussion right now, but he's been an inch. Really an integral part of the first couple of meetings we've had is really participated in the accessibility work group and has been willing to participate there but he's moved on to maybe greener pastures. I guess it's Washington so technically at certain times of the year, it's definitely greener. So we really thank you for his participation. We've got somebody that we're working on a replacement for that position. We'll talk about that at the August meeting. And then we have from Cal Nina. We have a new representative Amitriah Sydney, representing Cal Nina. She will be the incoming president of Cal Nina and so she's replacing gross aramos. I don't believe she could be here today. So she's a new member. And then in the room with us is Serena Lewis, who is joining us with California professional firefighters. What we're going to do is we're going to do a swearing in for Serena next on the agenda. So I've got Deputy Director, Marv Green is going to do a swearing in ceremony so Marv if you want to turn your microphone on and those participating online. Join with us please. Okay. All right. And repeat after me. I state your name. I will solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies born in domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and then I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and then I will and well faithfully discharge these duties upon which I'm about to enter and just on behalf of the director of Cal OES Nancy Ward, I want to thank you for joining the team and thank everybody for the time and effort that they're putting into obviously 98 very important for the state of California and happy to have you on the team. Thank you very much. There'll be some paperwork you'll have to sign a little bit later make it official so don't leave without seeing much. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Tracy for joining us. We've got you noted that you're present. All right. So now we have a total of nine. So welcome aboard Serena. I want to give you an opportunity just to introduce yourself. Maybe say a little bit about who you're representing and and a little background. So make sure you go off mute so we can hear you. So go for it. Make sure it's great. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate the opportunity. I am with LA County fire department. I also represent local 1014. I've been with the fire department for almost, almost eight years now. I am a 911 dispatcher. I'm also part of the peer support team. So on a daily basis, I obviously take 911 calls. I talked to the units in the field, the helicopters, the boats, anything that, you know, brush fires, anything from that to like a cat in the tree. So we also, I'm also part of the peer support team. So we basically, it's training that we do to basically like take care of our own. If any of our firefighters or members or staff or anybody are struggling with mental health or literally anything divorce, suicide, a really, really bad call. We can get called out and to assist and help and see, you know, what, what, what is needed to help our, our team out. I'm also actively trying to train my dog so he can be the first ever peer support dog in LA County dispatch. So it's going to be a minute, but it's going. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you. Welcome aboard. Really appreciate it. All right. So I think that covers agenda item number one. Hey, Amitrius. Well, Amitrius, what we will do is we will have to do her swearing in at the next meeting because Marv has exited the building, I think with Elvis. So I don't see him anymore. But we'll, we'll catch up with her at the next meeting. So thank you Amitrius for joining us. I would like to give you a moment to introduce yourself Amitrius as you're new to the group.  So go for it. Hi, I'm Amitrius Sydney and I am representing Nina. I am the second vice president. I come from San Montel County. I'm the assistant director there for the 911 center. All right. Well, thank you and welcome aboard and we'll follow up with your swearing in to make sure that you're official and part of the group. So welcome aboard. Thank you. All right. So we will move on to agenda item number two. In February, we had our meeting. It was held here in person as well as online. And at this time, I'd like to entertain any. You all should, those that were present, you should have received a copy of those minutes. I want to see if any members either online or in the room have any edits to those minutes. Okay. Hearing none. See any online. Okay. So do we have a motion to approve the February minutes. Beaver moves to approve the minutes. All right. We have a motion from Jeff. Do we have a second? All right. Do I have a second? All right. So I'll have to do a roll call vote just to make sure we do this right. So deputy secretary Welch. Yes. All right. Chief. Yes. All right. Director wick. Yes. Erica. Yes. I don't think Dr. Poon has joined us. Um, Kristen's not here. Amitrius. Yes. Jeff. Yes. Tracy. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Jennifer Kenton. Jennifer, you're still with us. Do you guys see her? All right. So Aaron Riley. I don't think it's with us. Jennifer. Why are. All right. And Serena Lewis. Yes. All right. So we have enough even without Jennifer's vote. Is it all right to move on? Yeah. All right. Okay. All right. So we will, uh, the motion passes. So we'll move on to, um, agenda item number three. So we already gave, uh, everybody a chance to introduce themselves. I kind of got, got a little bit ahead of myself on the, on the agenda. Imagine that I went off script. Shocking. Uh, so welcome aboard. One thing we will do for the new members. We will be sending out the first board meeting we had. We went over a badly keen and kind of how a board operates. Meg, our legal counsel gave us a nice overview of that. We'll send you that. It's about a 40 minute presentation, just to review that. Um, and really that's available online for anybody who kind of needs a refresher. I know we only meet once a quarter. So if you ever have any questions about, you know, who you can contact and how the board is supposed to operate. Um, so we'll send that out to you. We'll send that out to you. So welcome aboard. And we look forward to your participation. And we've got lots of work for you. Which is the good news. All right. So next, um, item number four, um, we have our legislative update. So we should have Reggie Salvador online. Reggie. Are you with us? Actually, but this is Chris and I'm ready for you today. I'm ready to do an improved Reggie. I love it. This is great. Thank you. Discount Reggie. It's more like this. Wonderful. All right, Chris. So take it away, please, sir. All right. Thanks budge. All right. Hi everyone. My name is Chris hacker. I'm in the office of legislative and external affairs at Cal OES. I'm going to run through a list of bills there. They're telecom bills, but they relate to this advisory board that we're tracking. Um, I, at this point, I'd like to let everybody know, Cal OES does not take positions on these bills, but we track them. We look at them and analyze them. For the impact to our programs. Um, so we'll get started in the assembly, AB 44. That's a clets bill. This bill requires the department of justice to grant access to the system to any tribal law enforcement agency of a federally recognized tribe. Meeting certain qualifications. Um, that bill is being heard today in the appropriations committee on the suspense file. I say heard those of you who know, how suspense works. It's being voted on today. Uh, possibly right now. Um, all right. AB 296. This bill requires Cal OES to do a 911 public education campaign. That bill is also on suspense and being heard right now. AB 415. The emergency fairgrounds communication act. That bill would provide grants to fairgrounds to update their, upgrade their communications. Um, we've gotten word this bill isn't moving forward this year. Um, we're still watching it though to see if anything changes on that front. It is a bill that's been introduced in the past. Um, so likely we'll continue to see this effort. Uh, but we've been told it's not moving this year, but we're still watching. All right. AB 5 or 456. Uh, public post-secondary education campus mental health. Hotlines. This bill requires each campus of the California state university and California community college systems without a campus mental health hotline. To establish a campus mental health hotline for students to access mental health services remotely that operates during working hours. This bill is also on the suspense and the assembly. All right. AB 988. This is a new AB 988. Not the one that passed last year that created your reason for being where you're at right now. Uh, this bill requires an entity seeking monies from the funds to also include the number of individuals who use the service and identified as veterans or active military personnel in its annual expenditure and outcome report. That's the funds that was created by last year's AB 988. Um, AB 1231. Um, AB 1231. Um, AB 1231 telecommunications universal service. This bill requires CPUC to allow lifeline telephone service subscribers to combine lifeline California lifeline and affordable connectivity program subsidies on the same service line to provide a more robust voice in broadband planned plan. All right. AB 1276 emergency response 911 call and dispatch data. I'm sure many of you are watching this bill closely. Uh, this bill requires UC Davis in collaboration with specified state agencies, including Cal OES to establish a program for the receipt and collection of 911 emergency call and dispatch data to complete a study for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. The bill also requires UC Davis to adopt uniform statewide data standards for 911 call and dispatch data and to create a data portal that catalogs the collected data aggregated on a statewide level and excluding any personally identifiable information. Now this bill had an amendment lately to clarify, um, they're talking, they're requiring it to be the personally identifiable information to be de identified, which requires some active work. Um, so that bill is currently on suspense being heard today. And we're closely tracking that. Moving over to the Senate side, SB 318211 information and referral network. Uh, this bill requires the Department of Social Services to establish, develop and administer the 211 support services grant program. That bill is in suspense in the Senate, um, being heard today. All right, SB 719 law enforcement agencies radio communications. We saw a similar bill last year that, uh, did not make it. Um, it looks like they're reintroducing this one. Uh, it would require a law enforcement agency, including CHP municipal police departments, county sheriff's departments and others to ensure access in real time to the radio communications of that agency to duly authorize media representatives or organizations. That bill is also on suspense being heard today. All right, so jumping over to the federal side of things, many of you may know, federal bills don't necessarily move along the same path and on the same timeline as state bills. So a lot of times you won't see any movement on the bill all year, but it's still there. It still exists and we're still tracking it. Uh, so this bill, HR 369, NIST wildland fire communications and information dissemination act requires NIST to publish recommendations for specified federal agencies to improve public safety communication coordination standards among wildland first responders and fire management and officials. Um, that bill is in the house committee on science, space and technology. So it's still in the first chamber. Uh, that's it for my report out. I'm available for any questions. All right. Thank you, Chris. Any questions from the board for, uh, Chris relative to the legislative update. Yes, go ahead, Erica. Um, for AB 296, did I hear correctly that Cal OES is going to do 911 public education? The bill would require us to do a 911 public education campaign. Now, unfortunately, the bill does not specify the scope or scale of that campaign, nor does it make an appropriation. So those conversations need to happen. Uh, if that bill is going to move forward right now, it's on the suspense file. Okay. I just ask in case there was anything. Um, legislative that was going to support a 988 public information campaign. Yeah. Currently the bill also includes 988. Um, I know that there's discussions among stakeholders. Some folks kind of want to keep those separate. Some folks want to combine those efforts. Um, educating the public on both of those items is important how the vehicle for doing that is also important. So those conversations are going on as well. I think currently the current text of the bill does include 988. Thank you. Um, AB 296. AB 296 is the bill number on that. Yeah. And if I'm not mistaken, that bill sponsor is Cal Nina. So if you want additional information, Cal Nina would be a good resource. And it was introduced by Freddie Rodriguez, Rodriguez. Okay. Any other questions from the board? You see any hands online over there? All right. Any questions from the public on the legislative update? All right. And Chris, if I'm not mistaken, you'll send a summary that we will disseminate to the board members. Correct. Yeah, I can do that. All right. Thank you, sir. After today's suspense, after today's suspense hearing, some of these may be dead. So just for warned. Right. Just for those that aren't tracking. Um, if it does not make it out of the suspense file. And it's a two year bill, then it's over. If it's, uh, if it's in its second year, if it's in its first year, they, they could put it in suspense and bring it back next year. It just depends on where these bills are in the process as to what ultimately happens to them. But basically if you don't make it out of suspense, then if you've ever seen that schoolhouse rock, I'm just a bill and you don't make it out of committee. And that's it. You're done. That's where they end up and they just stay there and they just don't make it. So if you're not familiar with the legislative process, that schoolhouse rock video is awesome. I have used it many times to educate colleagues on, on how this legislative process works. Okay. Thank you, Chris. We appreciate that. Thank you for the update. All right. Moving on to agenda item number five. This is our working group reports for the newer members on the board. Last time we met, we established three different working groups of best practices working group. And the focus to that working group was to take a look at what's being done really around the nation, certainly within California, both at the state, county and local level relative to this new space called 988 and everything that we're working on in terms of behavioral health. Obviously it's extremely broad. And to bring some of those best practices back and see how they might inform some of the activities that this board is going to do. That the chair of that board is Tracy Gonzalez and on my team, Anita Lopez is, is helping to facilitate those meetings. I do not believe that group has had the chance to meet Tracy. I know that you're on. I want to give you a chance to provide any updates you might have. Again, we know you haven't had a chance to meet. So want to turn the floor over to you just see if you have any updates for us. Thanks, budge. Actually, yes, I do have some updates. My friend put it nicely this morning that's on this group that it's definitely been a bumpy start to this committee, unfortunately. And I apologize for that. I had some severe technical issues at the department that I was currently at in that the people that were sending me emails and that I was sending to apparently was going nowhere. When they did the upgrade to the email system to the clouds. So technology did not help me in this point. What I will say though is that the people that I did have engaged. That I have engaged with. I do have some information regarding what is going on, both locally and across the nation. So. So what I did is I pushed it from a county, kind of from the 58 counties and kind of works downward from there, at least for the California part of it. And then I will say that within the 58 counties. That at least every county is doing something and is mentioning something about 988. And obviously several of them have. Very large behavioral health programs and initiatives and you name it. All kinds of things going on and other ones. Even some of the larger ones I'm surprised to find have. Not as much going on in their counties. Several of the counties actually even said, which was a little disheartening to be on the 988 group and see this, but they actually said to not use 988. That. It was better to use their local line because most of them have already established some type of local line. You know, way well prior to 988 to actually becoming, or even the, the, the prior line, it was the, the top line. So with that being said, the 58 counties, at least everyone, at least has some type of address is addressing it somehow. And I think that's a good point to say that this is how you should contact mental health services. Most of the dispatch centers that I was able to talk to. Are doing. Some type of mental health evaluation or they have some type of mental health. Evaluation team within their departments. They have some type of mental health evaluation. They have some type of mental health evaluation. And I think one of the things that they're, they're dependent upon the times and hours and days that that person happens to be available. So like they have a met team that rotates through my own area, area E, for example. And they have someone there, but it's, you know, not after seven o'clock at night or on the weekends. And they have a lot of, a lot of different types of mental health. And they are 24 seven lines. But like in Calaveras County, it even has that they're closed on the holidays for some of these type of issues. So it definitely is. I guess you would say it kind of all over the place. But at the lowest level. A lot of agencies are. And have mental health clinicians or pet teams, who have access to, but on a limited basis. On the higher level. Obviously as we even know from some of the members on this team that are probably involved in that. And I refer to like San Mateo. And San Diego County. Those Alameda County, they have very large programs. They have a lot of programs. They have a lot of programs. You can be able to have care teams, crisis response teams, community assessment, transport teams, pilot programs where EMTs and clinicians are available seven days a week. So there's definitely a lot of counties that are very much ahead of the game as far as what they're doing. The. The county, there are some definite programs that are being shadowed and have been around for, you know, upwards of 30 years. The CAHOOTS program in Eugene, Oregon is, is one of those. And that really is, is one of the ones that I liked a lot because it speaks to what they, the dispatchers role in it and how it really truly gets down to the bottom level of 911. Because even though they have these, they have a lot of our agencies within California do have teams. One, they're limited as far as when they're even accessible. And two, you still have to go through the regular process, mostly to get to them. Obviously there's like, there's, there's LAPDs. They have the smart units and some of the response teams where, and other ways to be able to have triage occurring in the dispatch center. And so the dispatchers are able to screen and assess the caller for the most appropriate response, which is really truly, I think the goal that we want in order to have a pathway to 988 and to the best outcome and response that we want instead of police or fire response. But for the most part, the agencies within California don't haven't gotten to that point yet. The CAHOOTS, again, the CAHOOTS program in Eugene, Oregon, the dispatchers are trained. They are able to transfer directly to the program who are mental health clinicians. And several of these programs do report that are doing this efficiency effectively for many years. Eugene has the CAHOOTS program. Arizona is also one that's looked at for their recovery response centers and their model. Utah is another one. They all report that like around 85% of the people that are handled through their program are able to be helped at the phone call over the phone level through just talking on the phone. They don't need a response team, mobile crisis outreach team. 85%, their concern is resolved just by talking to those clinicians and to the call center. The Arizona model is another one that was designed to address the first 24 hours of a crisis. And one thing that I thought was interesting with that one is also that the laws have been changed and written in such a way that it enables the police officers that are still involved, when they do get involved in the system, that they can take them directly to a crisis facility without medical clearance from a hospital. And they have adopted the no-wrong entrance to a crisis center. So it doesn't matter if they're having a mental health crisis, but they also happen to be under the influence of alcohol and they're a little drunk. And so they won't be turned away from being entered into a crisis facility. And that is another way that they've been able to, Arizona specifically has been able to streamline getting people to the help that they specifically need. In reviewing all of the things that the California systems are doing, everything from the San Diego Imperial County Pert teams to all the way up to Northern California, everyone's got a kind of a mismatch. And our system is definitely more of a patchwork system. And that still in that there's definitely pieces. And a lot of people have a lot of different pieces to the system, but as far as the flow to be able to have a continuum of care to go from the crisis call center hub to the crisis mobile response and the crisis receiving and stabilization services is all kind of choppy in how we get there. LA County is doing a good job of addressing that. And agencies where they have places like Hedy Hirsch, available to them and closer to them, we're doing an even better job of addressing those services because of just really the proximity, the ones that tend to be maybe farther out or not is aware of the services and those counties seem to be a little bit less involved with their community and the program itself. So that's kind of my overall, I got a whole bunch of data and people I've spoken to and information from all these specific programs that I think is definitely worse. Looking at it, I do have specifics and if still needed, I plan on. I'm starting with my new agency next Monday. So I will have a new email address and new place to be reached out, which I will share with you. And I think I've wrapped my arms around the people that have wanted to be a part of this group and I haven't been able to reach out to, but that's what I have so far. All right, thank you, Tracy. I really appreciate that update. So I'll give opportunity for members of the board to ask any questions or maybe specifically any specific data that you would want to see. So I'm going to go ahead and do that. And I'll see you on muted. So go ahead, Stephanie. Well, you threw me a little bit because I don't have, I'm not, I'm not ready yet to have a. Something as specific as data as I'd want to see, but I just, I did want to underscore that. One of the responsibilities of Cal HHS in the policy advisory committee is. To do kind of a, a, an assessment of best practices globally in this space. So I just wanted to, I just wanted to, I just wanted to connect more with this group. And think through how we can leverage the work that you're doing and included in, in the plan that we're, we're several months off with that, but just. Also wanted to thank. Thank you for all of your hard work in, in putting all of that together. I thought it was a really pretty robust report out. And it's appreciated all of the time and effort you put into it. So thank you so much for your work on this. I really appreciate it. All right. Any other questions or comments from the board? Any board members online? You have one. All right. A public comment. Go ahead online with public comment. Go ahead and unmute. Hello, everybody. This is Matt Taylor. I have recently joined DD Hirsch as the director of the nine, eight, eight network for DD Hirsch. And I just wanted to make a comment that Tracy was noting that they have been hesitant to promote nine, eight, eight for a variety of reasons, including that they have historically promoted the talk number. If that's in reference to the old national suicide prevention lifeline number 1-800-273 talk, just so everybody knows any calls to that number, to that talk line auto, automatically route into the nine, eight, eight service here in California as well as nationwide. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that distinction. Matt, can I make a comment? Go ahead, Tracy. Yeah. Thanks, Matt. I appreciate that. I should have made again, made that distinction. But even with that being said, I think just because of some of the problems that we already know that we're working through, they actually addressed them on the, on the websites that, that not to call nine, eight, eight or that line, they did refer to what I had noted, which ones still have the old line, old line on there. And some of them don't have any mention of nine, eight, eight, which again, doesn't matter because they can still reach the same place. But because of the area code, many of them were very well informed of the area code restriction and it's best to call directly if you're here because we will be able to help you if you're in our county. And so, you know, I understand that, that concern about that technology piece of it that we are addressing. Also, if I can respond to Stephanie, I do have the, the national guidelines for behavioral health crisis care best practices toolkit up. And I was reading through that and working. Was that one of the, the documents that you would think would be very, obviously is literally a best practices toolkit. So I found that with that being something that would be something that would be of, of help in our search. Sure.  It's actually completed. And we utilize that toolkit as a base for some of the work that we did. So, so sure, you can, you can send it my way. And we can connect offline just so I just, I wasn't, I haven't tracked your work with this work group. So maybe I should be paying closer attention. I could get connected to Tracy and that's probably on me. So, no, actually it's mostly on my side. And I plan on engaging and sharing this information with, with yourself to kind of look at some of these, because I look at them, but then maybe from my standpoint, it's, it's not as, is useful as it would be for what we're trying to accomplish because there's so much information out there. So I wanted to run some of it by you as well, just to be not waste our time either. If some of these are maybe not quite in the space for the answers we're trying to reach. So thank you. All right. Dr. Goldman, go ahead. Hi everyone. And just first, thank you bud so much for those generous comments at the top of the meeting. I'm glad to still be able to participate as a member of the public. Just, but your, your question was any data. And so I just wanted to really quickly comment on that. And as so far as data pertaining specifically to 911, 988 diversion, which I think is part of the question that is, you know, it's rarely within the focus of this board. There is no research or a rigorous evidence base that I'm aware of that has specifically looked at best practices for diverting 911 calls to more of the mental health response or transfer to 988 type crisis line. There has been a little bit of work that's done looking at 988. What they call active rescue calls or high risk calls. But again, that's very preliminary and descriptive. And so I comment on that mostly that say this is a gap. And there's, I think a real opportunity with California's leadership given how large a population, how many different systems are involved and likely to be impacted by the work of this board that developing that evidence base, including having some expectations for data collection and even, you know, contributing to the scientific literature in terms of impacts of these kind of innovative practices is a real opportunity that the fields very much is in the, Yeah, thank you for that comment. And I really would encourage any member of the board. If you could frame up a research question. That is specific to something you want an evidence based outcome for. We do have collaboration with lots of academic partners.  That are looking for thesis work and doctoral work. They take time obviously to develop their outcomes. But there, there, there is a, I've been contacted many times. How can we help? And so if you can frame up a specific question. No guarantee that you'll get a, you know, an interested party to research it. But, you know, if you can come up with an idea that you'd like some evidence of, you know, work to be produced on, I think you'd find some willing partners out there across the nation. And we've got a pretty broad reach across the nation on people that are watching what we're doing. Lots of folks are watching California and how we're approaching this problem. So I think it's a really good opportunity for us. The warm lines comment. If I fail to mention it during the technology update, I think it's a really good opportunity for us. If I fail to mention it during the technology update, we do recognize that the area code routing is a severe limitation and we are incorporating any existing warm line. So warm line would be that direct dial number to the services that you know are in your county or your jurisdiction. Those will be integrated into the platform. And so they'll be able to, to come into the same environment we're building. We think that's really important, especially until we get a better routing algorithm at the national level that kind of graduates us beyond area code. Which is, we've talked about many times. It's not necessarily the best way to route these calls. Okay. Thank you for the update on that. We'll move on. Oh. All right. Lisanne, go ahead. Oh, no, I lowered my hand. I thought. All right. Well, it's good to hear you nonetheless. Thank you. My question was answered. Thank you, bud. All right. Go ahead and just read it out. Yeah. So there is the meeting minutes from the February. Meeting describes what that working group does. I don't know that we've done a document beyond that, but we do have that. And if you're interested in joining the working group, you can send an email to Carrie Johnson. Her contact information is on the bottom of the slides and also on the bottom of the agenda. And we'll link you up to the appropriate working group chair. To get you involved in those conversations. All right. So the next working group 98 and 911 interface working group. Jeff Abear is heading this up on my team. Don Jones has been helping to facilitate some of this. Jeff, I'll turn it over to you for your update. You can hear me. Okay. Yes, we can. Thank you very much. So this information is the update of the, we've had one meeting for the 98 eight nine one interface working group. The working group met online on April 13th. We had 19 total participants and various representatives from the PSAP community, mental health practitioners and mental health service providers, as well as support staff from Cal OES. So overall, the, the recap of the meeting, we spent time explaining the working groups goals and objectives. And we were able to, to clarify that because I think that this is one of the, that it kind of goes along with the, the previous conversation before you or the discussion point that you had right before you threw it to me was the, the finding each working groups roles and making sure that we're actually focusing on what we should be. And I'll talk a little bit more about that after I provide my report here. So we spent some time just explaining our goals, objectives for the meeting where we spent some time talking about what the technology looks like today and what the future technology looks like it's going to be in its impact to us. So the current processes and workflows on how 911 calls are currently routed, how calls to 98 are routed. There was an interesting point that was a, I think in education for most people, the realization, especially for those of us that work in a, a 901 center in a PSAP, the fact that 988 calls actually have a rollover process. So they literally could roll over to a 988 center that's even outside of the state of California just to ensure that call is answered in a timely manner. And then some brief discussion on text to 911 and text to 988 and how that integration between vibrant and the new call handling system for 988 is, is anticipated to roll out. And then finally, the last portion of meeting, we discussed the potential issues and areas for call handling, both between 988 and 911. So I'm going to go through my notes here as far as the, the key points that the participants identified as either current problems or potential problems. Everybody agreed that there would be great benefit for location data to be received from callers to 988, like we see with 911 and receiving automatic location to identify our information. We are aware, and this was very aware of made well aware to all the participants in the working group that this is a much bigger issue than, than just can be solved by either this board or by the state as it involves the FCC and other regulatory issues. Was already brought up a budget already brought it up, but everybody recognized that the current routing in 988 the way it's done by area code hinders service and the need for something like a location based routing needs to be examined. I'm not going to belabor that point. I think it's one of the, the, the key issues that this board has discussed at least every meeting we've had, even the few that we've had, as well as in other working groups. The participants felt there could be a need to establish dedicated transfer lines at both PSAPs and 988 centers. That way, there's a, in a way like a direct into each of the centers as opposed to having to rely on just a public number and potentially hitting a call queue or, or experiencing long wait times. And one of the issues that was brought up. And there was a great discussion about lengthy discussion that there is a need for both PSAPs and 988 centers to have an easy and quick access methodology, a tool or something like that. That allows, and this is predominantly for the 988 centers, allows them to identify appropriate jurisdiction for emergency services. So if a 988 centers on the, on the phone with a caller, they have a location and address. There is a significant gap for most of the 988 centers to be able to identify, well, which PSAP does this really need to go to. And then obviously the, the, the expanding problem or the, you know, the expanded problem with that of what if it is only a fire or medical response is needed that might be a secondary PSAP, another primary PSAP. So we discussed, and I had shared the, the tool that Nina has, the enhanced PSAP registry and census tool, or the EPRC. I was under the understanding personally that, that many 988 centers were aware of that tool that it existed out there. And nobody in the, the participating working group was aware of it. Being able to go into a GIS type tool to be able to plug in an address or location and identify quickly that, well, this is the PSAP that would handle that area because emergency services response are necessary would be of great benefit everybody felt. And as part of that discussion, they expanded with the discussion of the, maybe there could be a benefit to have a GIS tool that layers on multiple pieces of information related to this. So the areas that are covered by the 988 centers, pretty easy for us to be able to focus on because right now with it being area code routing, but PSAP jurisdictional handling as well as possibly MCRT availability or other mental health response options that are available within that given area, the idea of increasing or allowing access to a tool that allows the 988 center to be able to quickly see what resources they need to be turning to or referring to transferring to et cetera would be more efficient overall and provide a quicker and better service. There was also consensus that it would be a benefit to data sharing between 988 centers and 9-1-1 whatever that determines to be, you know, whatever data is necessary or that can either from a rule of regulation or legal perspective be shared. But, you know, the questions of if 9-1-1 call is transferred to a 988 center, would it be beneficial for the 988 center to see the alley data or that location data that comes in with the 9-1-1 call, or would it even be legal for them to be able to see it? And then what other data sources might be able to be shared, so not just the phone call, the voice phone call, but any data that might come from a public safety answering points, computer-aided dispatch system or on the reverse side the CRM in use by the 988 center. Obviously, that would have to be measured by what needs to be shared, what can be shared legally, but having the mechanism to share data would greatly enhance the interface between 988 and 9-1-1. And then lastly, the group felt that there clearly is going to be a need for initial training and continuing training for both 988 and 9-1-1 staff. Obviously, that would come after things are set into place and protocols and other criteria has already been established. The last thing we talked about was creating a survey. We were very interested in seeing what PSAPs are doing now and what they're experiencing now with receiving mental health calls and their interactions with their local 988 centers or mobile crisis response teams, et cetera. So we're going to be working up a survey to distribute two PSAPs throughout the state where we can at least start collecting that data to see if there are other problems that we, as a working group, might want to look at and address. Throughout our conversation, there were many topics that kept centering around conditions or situations that would require transferring from PSAPs to 988 or 988 to 9-1-1 and how those calls would be transferred, whether it be cold or warm transfers, what information is to be given or what's the minimal information that needs to be given to the recipient center. So that kind of leads into a few questions I want to post to the board. There was a lot of discussion about whether we should be focusing on creating standards or protocol recommendations for the board or if this should be better addressed by one of the other working groups. So I'll pose that question to the board and we can discuss that when appropriate. And if there's anything else that the board would like our working group to be looking into or addressing or covering. So with that, Bud, I'll throw it back to you. Answer any questions. Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate that report. So open it up to the board. I have a couple of comments, but I'll give members of the board an opportunity first. So any feedback from the board on or questions for Jeff? There was a lot there. So this is Erica. With that last question. Focusing on standards and protocols. It is. Part of the bill that's available right now. I understand. There's a new version, updated version that might come out after the trailer bill language is done, but. That the state technical advisory board. Is to advise on the creation of standards and protocols for when 988 centers will transfer 988 calls into the 911 public safety answering points and vice versa. So that is something to my understanding that the board is charged with and. Based on your working group information collaboration, it sounds like. You might be the most appropriate working group to do that work. As of right now. So just procedurally. This board is charged with doing that. If we want the working group to do that, we can. So we just need to make a motion for them to do it. Vote on it. And then Jeff's on the hook to deliver it to us. So this is, this is learning for me. So, but no, your point is valid so that we can have a conversation around that recommendation. If not, then we could just make a motion, second it and do the vote and Jeff will do the work. So I think. I think it would be helpful for me to understand when there's this. Level of work because there's. Standards and protocols might have a legal definition that. Not all of us have a full grasp of. So. This type of work conducted another advisory board. How has it typically been done and with what resources? Yeah, so. There's a couple of ways this can be done. So obviously. In the statute, there's certain authority given to HHS. Certain authority given to Cal OES. And then this board. Is an advisory board to help. HHS and OES. Accomplish what's in the statute. So kind of the way this works. We as a board. Are charged with making recommendations. That could be completely ignored. If they wanted to, of course, that never really happens. I mean, the whole idea of an advisory board is to get good ideas that then you can figure out the statutory and, and limitations that you might need to overcome to put a recommendation in place. So I think this board should be more focused on making a recommendation of how. To get things done. And then let the state agencies. Who are more familiar with statute have access to legal counsel. Legislative experts to figure out. If what the board is being recommended, what the board is recommending is actually possible. So that way we don't have to worry about that, Erica. So much of we, we can be a little more open in our thought process of what you want to get done. Make the recommendation to, to the appropriate agency. Whoever. Is in the lead for that. And then we'll come back and tell you what barriers we see to implement it. And it could be a resource barrier. It could be a finance barrier. It could be a statutory barrier. Could be a policy barrier, something like that. So does that, does that help Erica? Just that way you don't have to be so worried about. Is this okay to do under the law? That's kind of why I have the state agencies involved in the conversation. Is that pretty? Okay. Making sure I didn't get, you know, overruled by legal counsel. All right. So go ahead, Jeff. So, um, let me, let me help clarify the question. We, we as a working group. Can easily identify. Things that probably need to be addressed. By way of a. Standard protocols, whatever you want to call it. And maybe we can bring those identified issues to. The advisory board. And then follow the process that you just described. As opposed to us having to create them. I'm fine within the working group to do that. If that's what the board wants. But I. I think it might be better if we, we just identify where, well, clearly there'll be need to be a standard set of standards or protocols around this particular item or this particular. Function, et cetera. And maybe if we identify that as a working group, we can bring it back to the board for determination decision. That would be my recommendation. I just want to. To make sure that I'm, I'm receiving the, the, I want the input of the board determination of where we should be including that if at all within our working group. Okay. Thank you. So does that, does that help? Does anybody else on the board have any questions on that? It's basically what Jeff's saying is the working group would take a look at what's out there. Leverage the information that Tracy is doing in terms of best practices come together and make sure that we have. We, as a board, look at that. We want to accept that recommendation and push it forward. And it's up to. Yes. In this case. To put something formally down as this is the way that it would go. Yeah. Go ahead, Serene. Okay. So my question is, so. As far as the 911 center taking the. The. Psych call. Then we determine, okay, there's no medical. Okay. It meets the criteria basically to transfer, to transfer them to 988. And then at what point does 988. Determine. It needs to go back to 911 or, you know, like what, what, what are there? Triggers to say, okay, I've been either on this phone for two hours or we aren't getting nowhere or it's getting worse. You know what I mean? And then at what point do we. Has 911. Do we then, do they transfer it over and say, okay. Back to you guys, you know, so. Have that been determined yet or. I think. And Jeff, I don't know if you've had this conversation, but in other. Best practices I've looked at, regardless of where the call originated. 911 98 warm line. One of those origination points. Once it arrives in either. Entity. You've made the determination to get there. You're back in the same decision metrics. Let's say that 911. It's determined this is really 988. It goes to 988. And now threats are made against population.  This needs to go back to 911. It's the same decision tree. Once it arrives in either system, you could then potentially deescalate something that came from 988 over to 911. It deescalates. Maybe it goes back to 988. I think you'd have to have both mechanisms in the policy. Yeah. That's it. That's an excellent question. And our working group didn't get to that degree. We just recognize that there's a need for it. Whatever that criteria protocols are for both sides. But I. I mean, we talked about a lot, obviously, so we didn't have the time, but we also didn't want to dive into that. If it wasn't appropriate for us to do. I mean, clearly there's an identified there, there needs to be a need. So there's consistency. So every PSAP, for example, is using the same set of protocols and determining to transfer to 988 and vice versa 988, knowing when to engage emergency response from law enforcement, fire or EMS. All right. So I think we have already put that. You know, request on the working group to come up with those recommendations, but I'd have to go back and read the minutes from the February meeting, but we could certainly be clearer in, you know, this meeting now that we would want them to develop sort of a set of. And we'll call them considerations that need to be taken into account. Some of the questions we've been asked, by in some of our conversations on the 901 side are, what's the answer time? In other words, when I push a call over to 988 911, you know, we work in seconds. You know, 988 works in minutes. Right. Just scalable. So how long do you would you like for them to be able to answer, you know, in a perfect world? 10 seconds, 15 seconds of when you initiate that training. 10 seconds, 15 seconds of when you initiate that transfer to 98 and then vice versa. The handoff between, you know, how do you facilitate that? So I think it's those kind of things we'd like the working group to look at. I have no idea how we would word that in a recommendation, but I'm willing to entertain a motion and a second. If somebody wants to try it out, I'm looking at Erica. But I think generally we would support the working group looking at standards or protocols or recommendations on how to make the determination to move the call between 988 and 911. Any further discussion on that? But this is Tracy Gonzalez. Tracy, go ahead. So what the, again, some of the programs in the other states are doing when it comes to dispatch truly getting involved in that, like. The base screening is they use the lifeline safety assessment model for suicide. So asking the questions as far as it was like, if you have been considering or tried to decide to last three days. And if you've done it today, of course all the people in the room that are way familiar, more familiar with this, model that I am know those questions, but that there, there's a list of questions that dispatchers actually have to go through to really truly triage to know whether or not they can transfer or not, or for requires PD or fire response instead. So there are some other states that are using those models to do that already. Right. Thank you, Tracy. And I know there's some agencies that are on this board that have models in place already. So. Yeah. There's a good body of knowledge. I think the goal. And I, I know I've heard Stephanie mentioned this many times. The goal is for us to produce a policy that works for everybody. That's not overly prescriptive where you leave an agency out, but is yet. You know, Informative enough that we. Make sure that the help that somebody's seeking is available in the right way. So. I, that would be, you know, What I'm hearing from this conversation. I don't know, Jeff, beyond the original charge you've been given. Do you think you need any further guidance to continue that? Like a VF formal motion. Or do you think you've got what you need to move forward as a working group? I actually think I have enough. What I need. Just because the conversation naturally kept going to standards and protocols. I just wanted to make sure from the board's perspective that we weren't. Diving into an area that wasn't intended for us, but I'm fine with that. And then the way I see it is. Is where we identify those areas where there's a need for standards or protocols. And then there's a need. And then what they might even be, I can bring back as a recommendation from the working group to the board to do with whatever the board wants to do. Right. And ultimately we'll have to tie into the implementation plan that HHS is developing and the long-term goals. Yes. And that's kind of the role of the board. What we're looking from the working group is for you to give us those initial set of recommendations that we can then discuss and vote on. That works for me. I don't think there's a need for a motion to present to the board to be able to do that because I, like I said, it was just naturally occurring in our conversations. Okay. And then there were a couple of the things that, that Jeff mentioned, the EPRC, which is the lookup feature. That is built into the integrated platform. The ability to look at services available throughout the state. That is something that's in the technical requirements as well. And the ability to share data. Is in the technical requirements. The, how you do those different things is a whole nother question. But the technical abilities we did consider.  Those are in the current contract. All right. So public comment. Go ahead. Oh, that she's a board. Yes. Go ahead, Lisa. Thanks, budge. I think Sherry had her hand up to a public comment. I don't know. She's a board. Yes. Go ahead, Lisa. Thanks, budge. I think Sherry had her hand up to above. Before me, if that matters, but. Mine. I was mostly a comment for Jeff. Just there's already. Several, you know, a vast amount of policies and protocols. That are established for nine, eight, eight crisis centers. So just in those best practice dialogues. We might make sure we're defaulting to what already exists, or if that, if there needs to be improvement on those, but those are something that nationwide centers and statewide. That we're already following. And so it would be really easy to go down a rabbit trail that we don't need to go down possibly. I think you're right. I think we're going to be more aware of that by not looking at those first. All right, Jeff. And hopefully you've got members on your working group that are aware of that body of knowledge. And can reach out and get that information. Awesome. All right. Any other comments from the board before we open it up to public comment. Go ahead, Stephanie. I think just on that point to be very specific. I just want to make sure that you have all of the information that you have. I think that all of the members have been getting together for over two years in preparation for this. And so just maybe we could make sure that someone from that group is on this working group to, to help. Make sure that you have all of the information and thinking that that group has already done in this space. So we can help with that. If that's not happening right now. We can help with that. We can help with that. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Not that you need to participate in a, in a working group, but certainly is very looped into what's happening. Outside of this particular working group. And could really help with sharing that knowledge. I'd be happy to. I'm sure there are others who would too, but I thought I even tried to reach out to be part of that work group. So. Sign me up. Jeff. I think that's a good point. But we do have participants from D. We are dialed into that, I believe. I just, we need to be cautious of how many members of, from this advisory board participate. So we don't run into. A quorum. I think we're. How many do we have for, how many do we need for a quorum bunch? I mean, you can have up to seven members in the working group from the advisory board and not establish a quorum. Okay. So I believe we're at four or five. We'll have to double check that. So that's the only thing I would be concerned about, about additional participants from the advisory board. But I do believe we have those voices there. As part of that conversation, they were providing that data, but it was still evident that there is still. Disparity in how everybody is doing something from the 98 side, largely because of the different resources they have available. Some parts of the, the state. Have no access to mobile crisis response teams. Other have others have like almost full integration with mobile crisis response team. So there, there still are some differences between the centers is what they, my observation was in those conversations, but yes, those. I think we have the right participants right now. It's just further delving into the different areas. This is a, as everybody can, you know, tell this is a lot of information to have to address. We, we met for three hours. And I still felt like we could continue to talk. So I think it's just going to take us time to dive in. To each of those, especially not knowing right now what the, the deployment of the call handling solution and its capability. So appreciate, I appreciate you commenting on that budge. To answer some of those technology questions, because that will play a large role in our discussions. Okay. All right, any other comments from board members. Okay, so comments from the public. I think we have Sherry has a comment. So go ahead Sherry. Hi, thanks budge. Just a couple of things. So I do think that sundry is either has participated or is trying to connect and participate in this group from D. Hersh and has been obviously very involved in 988911. Collaborations on our LAPD project. So I think can really help in. Providing some insight on, you know, best practices, both nationally and locally in California. If she, if she hasn't already Jeff, I think you all have connected. She is a participant. Yeah, that's what I thought. Good. Secondly, I also just wanted to know. There's seems like, at least for me, I'm a little unclear. And I think partly going back to what Erica was asking earlier. You know, what, what exactly is going to be coming from this work group? So I, I really do appreciate that conversation that was happening earlier about, about, you know, kind of. You know, who has what authority or what's, what's going to be being produced. We've been getting, and I guess let me tell you what I mean by that. We've been getting lots of questions like from, from our counties, from local law enforcement organizations, you know, about, you know, who's sort of, who's sort of taking the lead on developing some of these policies and procedures. And, you know, they're kind of going some down some of these rabbit holes too. And we're sort of saying, well, hey, wait a minute, wait a minute. This is, this is happening in this other work group on the state level.  And we're trying to coordinate some of that. So I think it would be really helpful. You know, to kind of just state specifically what, what people can be expecting to come out of this work group. So that we can be telling people that, or you can be telling somebody can be telling people that, you know, because I think that, you know, the more we can coordinate what's happening and people can kind of be knowing what to look for, I think would be really helpful. So I just, I just wanted to underscore that. And then my last comment actually goes back to the question that I had in the chat earlier. And kind of when I was asking if there was a document to point to, and Bud you said that we could email if we wanted to get connected to any of these work groups. It's actually not for me. I know who to email, but like people are asking me all the time about these work groups and what are they and who did they contact. And I'm just wondering, is there like a flyer or a link or something that, that I don't have to explain them in my words, because I don't want to mess them up. Is there just something that I can say, Hey, here, take a look and shoot them off an email and say, this is what they are. Okay. So, yeah, I don't think that such a document does not exist now, but that's something we could probably produce. I think it would be awesome. All right. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. So for my team, those that are working directly with the working groups, just so that's Anita, Don and Marisol. As you're working with your particular working groups, draft something up on what you think they're working on, we'll put it formal and get it posted to our website. Thank you. We'll try and get that done. All right. You think 30 days is enough time to do that team. I'm looking at them. They're shaking their heads. So we'll try and get that done in the next 30 days so that, that's more publicly accessible. Okay. Sherry, that's a great recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from the public on that? All right. Moving on to the, the final working group. This is the accessibility and equal access working group. The co-chairs are Dr. Goldman who thank you for your service. We're going to find a, another person to take the charge on that and Stephanie.  Yeah, I'll, I'll start and then pass it over to Dr. Goldman. If he wants to add anything. We've had a chance to meet once as well. And the two of us have just formed. I'm going to quickly just run through and share our approach to this. We felt that it was really, we wanted to have a group of subject matter experts to start. Partly because of the complexity of the two issues. And so we did some recruiting from our kind of networks of folks that we know. And so that includes a few equity officers, one from the California department of aging, another from the department of social services. Also a deputy director from our office of health equity at our department of public health. We also did some outreach to our department and again, this is, I forgot to mention this is the accessibility and equal access work group. We did some outreach to our department of rehab. And have some two people joining us, one who's really an expert on the technology and accessibility pieces and the other who's on kind of more of the cultural issues around the disability community and making sure that things are equitable. We also did some outreach to some, some peer advocates and people who have been impacted by behavioral health prices who are leaders nationally in this space, including Charis Myrick. And on the ADA technology piece, Richard Ray, who I think was a recommendation from all of you guys who's really fantastic. And a woman by the name of Rebecca Neuster, who is out of Chicago, but it does a lot of work in this space as well. And I'm sure that there are particular people that I'm missing. I think we also had from our department of developmental services, somebody who is an autism specialist. So very large charge for this particular group. So just as a refresher, we, in our, again, we only had one meeting. I'd have to say that the meeting was really about these subject matter experts getting to know each other and to have a better understanding of their area of expertise and this large kind of bucket of work that needs to be done. So, so, excuse me, the two buckets that people are, that we're going to focus on would be first, you know, accessibility, which is really referring to ensuring that technology allows for accessibility by special populations, including individuals who are developmentally disabled or intellectually delayed, people who have physical disabilities as well. You know, this could include the use of appropriate video technology for communications, ensuring that there is a robust chat response and other accessibility issues on the equitable access piece . This is really referring to ensuring that there are protocols to address cultural barriers and concerns, including culturally relevant communications and clear protocols regarding 988 and get this 988 and 911 interoperability and communication to our cultural groups, our cultural groups so that they understand what the relationship is between 988 and 911. So we've landed on focusing on 90-minute meetings every few months, so that we can have a meeting shortly before the next meeting that we have of this group, and I think I will probably turn it over to Dr. Goldman. I was not able to participate in all of the conversation that we had in our very first meeting, but just to kind of reflect on some of the other points that have been made in terms of access to the working groups, it's not like we're trying to be exclusive by any means. I think it was partly just could we manage this many people and could we manage this many topics, just like what I've heard as an underscoring. I think the other thing with this particular work group that is work that we will do internally is think through what issues really need to be the focus, first of all, now at this very, what is the most urgent that needs to be worked on, and then second, what are the kinds of things that really should be more within the realm of the policy conversation in this space, and to be fully transparent, one of the reasons I wanted to help co-chair this particular work group is that I knew that it would be a working group that would be needed and really importantly necessary in our policy advisory group, and so I think I had mentioned this last time we were here is thinking through, you know, not now, but in the future, how can we ensure that also the work that these working groups are doing is informing the process that will kick off later this summer for the 98 policy and planning. So, Bud and I can maybe grapple with how that mechanically could work, but certainly I think at the end of even this calendar year we're going to have a core group of experts that we're all working with who interchangeably might be interacting with a variety of working groups between both the technical advisory board and then the policy advisory board. So that's all I have to share. We did land on having another or a meeting date, and so I'm happy to work with the staff to think through and also with the members of this committee on how can we make this open, I don't necessarily want to say open to the public because I think we have a lot of very specific work to do, but then we're, it's perfectly fine to be transparent. It's not like we're talking about something that we don't want to share with the public. It's just a matter of managing getting the work done in 90 minutes within a reasonable number of people on the committee. So, Dr. Goldman, I don't know if you're still on the line, but is there anything you want to share as well from the conversation? Yeah, thank you. No, I think you covered all of the key points. The one thing that I did just want to add and give a little voice to, which did come up in the latter part of our meeting, was just to acknowledge that these are two very large topics, like accessibility for all language populations for people with disabilities, including people who are deaf or blind. There's a lot in that whole area, and then there's also a whole lot under the area of equity and equitable access, especially as it relates to social justice issues, to experiences of discrimination and to known disparities with access to mental health services. And so we address that very explicitly in our conversation, given that we had just brought together this group for the very first time. And honestly, I was a little concerned that we were lumping two big topics that were maybe too large in a single group, but there was really consensus that that was okay. I think that there was acknowledgement that these issues of access largely hinge around communications and how are we really signaling to the public what these programs are, and then importantly for the purview of this board, like how is 911 actually involved with 988 and really emphasizing transparent communication as one of the key strategies to improving access. And the other point that really clearly came up was that there are many intersections between difficulty accessing mental health services among people with disabilities or who speak non-English languages as well as people who are in BIPOC communities who experience difficulty with access to services for discriminatory or other sort of structural issues that I think that the intersections between these were widely acknowledged as prominent and a potential benefit of actually having these two large topics in a single work group. So I just wanted to acknowledge that because it came up there and I think it's important for us to be explicit that this is really intentional how we're approaching this. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the report out from both of you. Any questions from the board regarding the accessibility and EGO access working group? All right. Any comments online that you're seeing? All right. We know it's a huge topic. We thank you for tackling it. We know it's a long and ongoing conversation and a lot of its result revolves around perception and public side and then obviously the ability of the technology to facilitate what you guys are seeing. So we appreciate the work you're doing there. One of the things that, and I'm probably going to kick myself later for suggesting this, but I do think that if it's helpful, we can at least put together like some minutes from when we have these working groups and make that publicly accessible and also just disseminate to all the other board members. If that's helpful to make sure that people can read kind of what the discussion was when we did meet as a working group, if that's helpful to people. I think that would be helpful from each working group. So we'll circle back with the working groups to do the flyer idea that Sherry brought up. That's a great idea. And then as you have the minutes generated, my team will be present there to kind of document that from a staffing perspective. We'll vet it through the board chair, the working group to make sure we've captured the idea right.  Hopefully before our meeting, that will be our goal, but a lot of that will be dependent when the working group gets the information to us. But ideally in a perfect world, those come to us a couple of weeks before our board meeting. Then we have the time to do the ADA compliance because accessibility to the document is a key part of what we do. And that takes time. And then we can post those on our website prior to the board. I think that would be a wonderful workflow if we could get that going. All right. So I think that that finishes up agenda item number five, which was really the bulk of our conversation. We really wanted to focus this discussion in on some of what's happening at the working group level. I'm going to move on to agenda item number six. These are the standing items. And of course, if you want to click on the screen for the slides, because then my real clicker is not working. Just click your mouse anymore. There we go. Thank you. So these are the standing items that we have. The board has requested that we ask to report out on. We will at some point have a 98 system director until that time I am the 98 system director. So I'm happy to serve in this role. I'm really excited about this topic. So a couple of these things are going to be duplicative from the last meeting. I didn't want to remove the link for the contract that we have out there. If anyone's wondering what is in these technical requirements, there are about 600 requirements that you can read through at that link. There's a lot. So if you have any questions regarding what is and is not in these technical requirements, there's a link in the description below. If you have any questions, I hope with the contract we of course can help you. We did to have a kickoff meeting. We finished the detailed site surveys at all 12 locations. And you know, we walked them through. Here's the vendor. We did a facility walk, figured out the gaps that existed. Each of the facilities did a detailed workflow analysis of all the group one sites and started that conversation with group one. So we looked at the complexity and kind of the role of each of these centers and our ability to get them on board sooner rather than later. And this is the breakdown that we came up with in terms of who's in group one, who's in group two. And really we focused on, we want success in the project. We've learned that the largest agency shouldn't necessarily go first. It's a very large and complex and we need time to learn your workflows before we jump into that, into the deep end of the pool. So this is the list that we've come up with. And my team is working on the rollout. Our goal is to try and have these centers active in by the end of the second quarter beginning of the third quarter of this year. And we're on track to do that, provided a couple of things happen. We've also established a meeting cadence with all 12 centers. We've tried to be very careful here because as Stephanie alluded to, the centers have already been meeting for a couple of years under the leadership of D. Hersh and their contract. They have with DHCS. We want to be respectful of that, but at the same time our conversations are focused on the technology and the rollout and what we need to do to implement the solution. So we're developing those, those meeting cadence. I really want to give a shout out to Kirk a lot on my team who's the project manager here. He's taken the brunt of this.  He tells me no to half of them and then implements the other half, putting his spin and direction and focus on them, which is just wonderful. And so we're making some good progress here. I want to pause at this point because I'm assuming there could be some questions and then my next slide is, is to go in some of our next steps. So I want to see if anybody has any questions for me before I move on to what we're going to be doing next in the project. Any comments from the board or any comments online? Yeah, Kurt is amazing and I will echo that. Yeah, he's in the room for those that don't know. So he's got a big smile on his face, which we will quickly suppress with more work. All right, so moving on to kind of what we're doing now. We've installed 90 equipment in our lab and we're beginning that testing. A lot of that testing is focusing on the interaction between 911 and 98 and the call flows that are there. There's some unique things we're doing from a technology perspective that aren't being done in other places. We want to test that really getting into this deep dive workflow analysis. There's been a lot of conversation about the CRM, the customer relationship management software, that piece of what data stored, how are you supporting the workflow that needs to happen? As was mentioned by Tracy, 85% of these calls that come in are just handled by the expertise of the counselor leveraging the resources they've got available to help the person that that's seeking that, you know, that assistance. So it's a big part of the tool. We understand that we've been in conversations with some of the investors to be more vibrant about the engineering and connectivity. For those of you that are technical, there might be some CIOs out there that are listening, chief information officers. So we want to meet vibrance at a location. Obviously redundant meat points, bring all the calls chats and texts into California and then route them to the centers the way they are now. validate that the software that we're providing meets their workflow. We transition that call flow to go through the unified platform. That's the goal at a high level of what we're trying to do. And so far, we've had really good conversations with Vibrant. The one piece that's missing is specific dates of when those meetpoints will be established. Really difficult for us to establish a transition plan if we don't have a firm date, we are working with them. And then we're also determining we use the term minimally viable solution where we're only going to pay, I think it's up to 80% of the monthly recurring costs because it's not the full solution. When we wrote the RFP, like I said, there's 600 things in there roughly. I think it's about that many, literally that many. Some are absolutely critical to have now and others are things we're going to build into the platform over time. What do we absolutely need to have now to support the workflow in these centers that are in group one? And what are the things that we can take a few months to develop or a couple of quarters to develop and integrate into the solution later? That's the conversation we're having right now. Every center is different. We're used to this. We have 450 PSAPs that we support on the 911 side. And there's 800 different ways that they want to do things. So we're very familiar with that mindset. We'll do our best to hit the mark. And that's really the work that Kurt and the team are doing. And so that's where we're at right now. We want to begin that activation, like I said, second, third quarters of this year. And then those group two PSAPs toward the end of this year and the beginning of next year will be the goal. There are some concerns over timelines and requirements. And we're having a difficult time determining the difference between a need to have and a must to have requirement, in other words. Do you absolutely have to be 24 seven, 365 chat, text and calls to be considered a 988 center? And if so, when? When is the state making that mandate? When is SAMHSA making that mandate? And then finding the actual authority to prescribe that level of service. I think we certainly want to get there as a goal and then determining some other things like the data that needs to be reported. We report that data. How do we make it accessible to those that need that information? And how do we report it out? I think there's some other things we're working on right now in terms of timelines. There's a lot of concern. I think we have three centers now that are taking chat and text. There's a two, it's either two or three. Yeah, in group two and obviously we want everybody there. Everybody's not there yet. So how do we make that transition? Those that want to do it now and might be in group two, should they go with vibrant first then transition to this new one? Does that make sense? We're having those conversations now. And so that's part of the work that Kurt and his team are doing. We recognize that no one wants to be trained twice, trained once and then six months later trained again. So we're trying to move our timelines forward as much as possible. So that does not happen. I think those are some of the big things that we've been tracking. Happy to pause here and entertain any questions from the board or on this. Go ahead. I'm going to take this back to a very elementary level, but when. How does this all relate to whether or not they'll be geolocation?  I hope it's not. But like, I guess it is not. It's a great question happen. And like, could you help it enlighten me? It's a great question. So initially, there is absolutely not geolocation calls are routed by area code. We will continue to deliver by area code because that's all we have. And we know that's not the best path. The one advantage the unified platform gets is once you deliver by area code, not changeable in today's environment, and it's received in the system and the help seeker either identifies where they're at or we push them a link and we know where they're at or there's some other means used to determine where they are. We can then geospatially route the call at that point anywhere within our system. So there's there's that huge advantage, which does not exist outside of the unified platform. There's no mechanism to do that in other 98 delivery platforms. So we're that's one thing we're bringing. So when we determine we know an address or we at least know which center 98 center received the call, we can geospatially route to the right 98 center at that point. If we know the address or the location, we can absolutely do it. If we ask them and they tell us and they're telling the truth, we can actually get them to the right center. Or if there's exigent circumstances to some other tools that we may have access to where we can make that location determination, we can geospatially route at that point. So ultimately, and this is something that, you know, this board could consider. If this geolocation question is that critical, the board could write a letter to the FCC to see if they want to expedite the FCC's proceedings on this. That's certainly possible for the board to write such a letter. I'm sure the FCC, it's called the next party. You write it outside of any rulemaking that they're doing and you just write them a letter and say, hey, this is critical and this is why and this is what we recommend. And so the board could do that. We could absolutely do that. It would be a little challenging to write said letter in a public way. But if that's something the board wants to do, we could certainly write a letter, pass it to the board for review at the next meeting and then send it off to the FCC. It would take time to do such a thing, but we certainly could. So long answer to a short question. Can I ask a follow-up question? Do you have a general sense of when this decision could potentially take place? I know my update is in a moment, but I know that we have a particular administration now at the federal level as well as here here in California that's really, really supportive of this. So thinking about the fact that that 2024 is around the corner and we'll have an election year. I'm just kind of curious, wouldn't want to miss this opportunity with what we have at both the federal government and a local government who are very, very interested in this. If there's anything that we could do, it seems as if it would be really helpful for this to be in place sooner rather than later. And there's just significant federal and state investments going into 988 and mobile crisis response right now. So anyways, I guess that was maybe not a question and more of a comment. But I just have no, I would have no idea if it's like 10 years away or is it two years away? I have no idea. So the FCC did a notice of proposed rulemaking on the reliability of 988 and they started that after the outage that happened in October and they still have not made any determination. They put the report in order out. They've gathered comments. They haven't made any decisions yet. There is an upcoming FCC hearing where that's going to be a topic of discussion. I say all that to understand the process of the FCC. They haven't even started the process to look at location routing for 988. There's some organization that introduced in their comments. You can't really have an outage reporting system if you don't even know where the call is and you don't know where the call is because you're doing area code routing, which is not an accurate mechanism. So if the system's down, who do you tell it's down? You don't even know where they are, right? If I'm 916 and I'm traveling to Washington, D.C. and I need mental health support, which is a common occurrence on both occasions. Then I call, you know, when I actually call 98, I end up back in California and not with somebody locally who might have the resources to help me. So it's those kinds of questions that are being asked. So I think a letter could help expedite the process. So if the board wanted to entertain that motion, we could we could do something along those lines. Can we think about it and take it up at the next meeting? Absolutely. An action item. OK, so just if you want to agendize it for the next meeting, we would need it a couple of weeks, minimum a couple of weeks before, but by like the beginning of August. So I can get it on an agenda and make it public because the agenda has got to be published 10 days prior. So your your good idea calendar runs out on August 1st. And maybe a little before that, if I want to get it through my approval process. I don't make if you want to add to that. This is Meg Wilson, legal counsel. So I'm just thinking the best way to go about this, because we can't have a serial meeting. It all has to be done public is maybe the best way would be for Cal OES or someone on your team, but to draft a letter and then, you know, circulate that letter with the agenda. So members of the public could see it and board members could see it in advance and then go over kind of editing the letter in a public forum. So it's going to take like an extra meeting. So I just want Stephanie to be aware. So even if the motion to even do a letter doesn't come out till next board meeting, you probably couldn't even edit the letter until the prior meeting unless you had a letter rearing to go. Well, just as Jeff. Go ahead, Jeff. I think with this discussion, I agree. I think the next part of a communication with the FCC from this board is is warranted. I'd be concerned about waiting that long. And so I'd be I'd be willing to offer a motion that this board authorize Cal OES to draft a letter for us to review and vote on for the next meeting. All right, we have a motion from Jeff or Cal OES to do the next part day letter to the FCC on location 98 and location rowdy. So any discussion from any other board members? All right, do we have a second on that? I second. We have a second for America. All right, we'll go to a vote. And by the way, you can vote no. So, you know, just keep that in mind. So Deputy Secretary Welch. Yes. All right. I think I have to skip over Dr. Goldman, right? Well, he's still on this one. Yeah. All right, Dr. Goldman, are you there? I'm here. Sorry. Struggling to unmute. Yes, I vote yes. All right. Yes. Do we have to do public comment before we vote? I'm probably right. All right. Sorry, I didn't ask for members from the public. So can you read those? Because there's no way I might be able to read here. All right. So Matt Taylor is saying here's the link to the public recording about a year ago geolocation on 988. Yes, I think I have listened to that. And the FCC has received many comments and letters on this map. OK, Matt, I'm absolutely agreeing with you. Do you want to make any further comments? Yes, everyone. Again, Matt Taylor and the new director of 988 at D.D. Hirsch for the 988 network. I just it's just a comment that the FCC has been deliberating on the issue of geolocation for a number of years. And has received vigorous public comment, including from state agencies, the call centers, vibrant and even members within SAMHSA about the challenges that the lack of geolocation does create. There are obviously perhaps not a surprise to this group, but a number of concerns about privacy and a little bit different from 9-1-1. So at this point, I would go back to what was being said before, that once a call is within the system, if a person is willing to disclose their location, then yes, of course, the the call could get routed clearly to the most appropriate center where the person closest to where the person is standing. There's also the option, of course, of course, location where it's pinged off of cell towers, but not exactly the same level of information as where the person is literally standing. But right now, again, so everybody's clear when vibrant receives a 988 contact. We're speaking of calls here. The system reads first the area code and then the three digit extension, the next three digits of the phone number and routes the caller to a center, which has agreed to provide coverage for that area. And so the majority of calls do land at the centers close to where a person is, but until a strict geolocation is put into place, if that comes, we don't have an ability at the front end to manage that. So we really are relying on when callers disclose that kind of information once they're at a call center or within the future, California 988 Unified Platform. OK, thank you, Matt. I appreciate that. All right, so based on that public comment, I'm going to start the voting over. Anyone have any further discussion before we. I have a question. I'm sorry. We're asking we're asking them to expedite a rulemaking process. We are not weighing in on what the rule is correct. OK, that's what I thought, but I wanted to clarify before I voted. All right, so we'll go back to the beginning. Deputy Secretary Welch. Yes. All right, Dr. Goldman. Yes. All right, thank you. Director Ayiva. Yes. All right, Director Wick. Yes. Erica. Yes. All right. Let's see. Kristen Miller, I don't think she's here. Armichess. Yes. I'm sorry, Mitreus, my mistake on your pronunciation. Jeff. Yes. All right, Tracy Gonzalez. Yes. Right, Jennifer Kenton. She's still on. Dr. Poon. Yes. All right, thank you. And see, Aaron Riley is not on. Jennifer Dwyer. Yes. And Serena Lewis. Yes. All right, so we do have a majority and so oh, yes, we'll bring forth a letter and at the August meeting, we'll add that to the agenda and we'll review the letter. We will circulate the draft ahead of time as we cannot have a serial meeting. So please do not respond to the letter we circulate. We will have to discuss it in open meeting. And if you've never done a public editing of a document, you are in for some real fun. So that's what we have to look forward to in August. We will do our best to get it right. And we will focus on making sure that we're not seeing anything controversial that we're simply focusing on asking them to take some action sooner rather than later. OK. All right, I think I was in the middle of an update. Any other questions related to the call handling solution and the CRM solution that we're working on, we're affectionately calling the unified platform. Any other comments or questions on that? OK. The next topic on this, if you'll advance the slide for me. There we go. Thank you. Is the 901 to 98 interface. This was a standing agenda item for us. I think the working group discussed most of this. The one thing we had in here is the reasonable time. We've kind of already discussed that, and we've also heard some feedback on an IP lookup. If that be available in the platform or we're asking our vendor, this would be for a chat that comes in over a chat session, or all you've got as an IP address. Will we have an automated way within the platform to look that up? We're still in conversations with our vendor to see what that might look like. So any other questions related to items six point two nine one to nine eight eight interface and a pretty robust discussion on that. All right, seeing and hearing done. Oh, go ahead online. Sorry, it's Lee Sanab. Just one question on that IP address. Does that also give you the Internet service provider? Is that part of your workflow on that? We would love for it to be able to determine the Internet service provider and the location of the person chatting. We just don't know if it's technically possible. Yeah, yeah. I just know those are the items that are the most helpful. I think on this one and this is just me. You know, what I know in the space, there may need to be some regulation in place to support this to compel the Internet service providers under certain conditions to this location. And I'm just thinking exigent circumstances, not general. Yep, that's exactly right. Yep, and how do we document that and reference the applicable laws and prove that we're doing this? And we've got some experience in this space in the nine one side, usually the procedures are so onerous that takes you half hour, you know, to get through the process. If you've tried this and by then, you know, the exigent circumstance could have had a bad outcome by then. And so that is possible. But I will share and I share this nationally, oftentimes to we've had many a good outcome with nothing but an IP address and in really dire circumstances. And so, you know, at least if we build the capacity to do that and we have a jurisdiction who's willing to do that, it can be really effective. Yeah, I agree. And so we're in conversations with the vendor to see how this if this is possible and if so, how long to implement. So we're we're certainly looking at this. We've heard it loud and clear. And we know the limitations, but we certainly want to provide this capability. Great. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Yes, we're we're on the same side, which is wonderful. All right. The next agenda item is relative to the 988 surcharge. I left this in here. I've gone over this at previous meetings. I'll keep this in there. I guarantee no matter how many times you go over this, you're probably going to have questions when you finally try and figure out what in the world is going on. I will say this on both HHS working in partnership with their departments, DHS and others. And Cal OES have submitted separate budget change proposals to get authority to spend money that is in this surcharge 988 fee collection. We state agencies can do nothing with that money until we're given the budget authority to do it. So that's the step we're at now. If you want to see where that's progressing, Stephanie and I cannot comment on it because it's part of a legislative process, but there's open hearings and you can go see the status of these B.C.P.s. If you go to the Department of Finance's website, you will see our actual proposals there, the current versions of them. Just do a search for California D.O.F. B.C.P. Select the current budget year, which is FY23-24. That's the one that starts in July and then go to HHS. You'll see theirs. Go to Cal OES. You'll see ours. It's all public documents. The only thing we can't comment on is the outcome because we don't know yet. It's in the middle of the budget process. As soon as we get something, we will let you know and we will share. And that should be at the August board meeting. We'll know because the budget is passed by June. So that's kind of where this is. And these numbers are the money that's available in the fund and that these numbers are based on the number of access lines reported to us. So this is started to be deposited in the 98 search charge fund in January, but we, the state agencies, cannot touch it until we get budget authority to use it. So it's just being deposited in the fund. It's protected. It can only be used for 98. It's that it was very well written to protect the funds. They're not going anywhere. They're not being used for anything else. We just need authority to start our portion of this work, which we will do as soon as it's granted, whatever that outcome is. So and then next year, we, you know, repeat the cycle, submit a different BCP or whatever we want to achieve. So any questions on that on the search charge calculation and kind of where we are, right? Seeing hearing none. Next one is 98 milestones. The work that this board is doing is actually been just amazing. So I thank you all for your participation. Thank you for the working group members and leads that are doing that effort. We're getting a lot done in a rather short period of time. The statute was not even passed and signed into law until September of 2022. So in state policy timelines, this is light speed. So we're already in our third board meeting, which is remarkable. So I really appreciate what everybody is doing. Obviously, implementing the rest of the milestones are dependent on the budget requests we put in. We're able to do this now. Call OES, because we put in a budget change proposal in 2022 that gave us the ability to do the technology. And that was really in response to the federal law that came out that implemented 98. AB 98 came later. So those activities were light on staff to execute them. Right now, our focus is on the technology implementation, which we we had a year jump start on the efforts from AB 98. If you're wondering how we're doing what we're doing. And plus we just have an amazing team really, really proud of what they're doing. At this point, Stephanie, I've given you five minutes for an update before the end of the hour. We've had a very robust conversation, but we did want to give an update, a quick update from HHS on what you're doing. So I'll turn the floor over to you. Yeah, thank you. A couple of, I think, important updates. One is, and this was not planned, but our RFP to implement our responsibilities related to AB 98 was posted today. So that's really been a major piece of work that we've been working on in anticipation that we everything will go smoothly with the budget and we will we will be given the resources that we requested in order to execute our main responsibility, at least at Health and Human Services, which is to develop a five year set of five year implementation plan set of recommendations. There are a couple of other things that we'll be looking for that we think are critical to do this work that maybe we're not specifically prescribed in AB 98. So really excited to launch in and start doing that work. The other big update that I have today and I will get this information to you, Bud, so you can share it out to whoever's on this listserv or this body.  It is it is done. It is still going through some ADA compliance issues as we refresh our website. And that website will be a place where you can not only find the plan itself and review the plan, but also any kind of information that we are posting on a state level around 98. So there are hyperlinks in that on that website that take people back to SAMHSA and other information that they're pushing out. You know, I forgot to mention it may as mental health month. This is a month in which we get a lot of typically a lot more uptake in terms of, you know, discussion around mental health, of course. And we want that discussion to happen. And and I'm noticing in in conversations around may as mental health month that people are bringing up and mentioning the importance of calling 988. So it'll be interesting to see what our main numbers are for our for our centers to see if those numbers went up, whether you're watching your local news or you might be at a I think there was a a Giants game where there was some discussion of 988. So. So it's really exciting that it's starting to kind of take off. And one of the things that we we are asked to do is to work on a kind of communication strategy for the state on 988 as part of that five year plan. And so that's going to be a significant amount of work. I would acknowledge that as part of our BCPs, both Health and Human Services, as well as two of our departments that have major roles in in realizing the the goals in a 988, our Department of Health Care Services and our Department of Managed Health Care, which regulates commercially insurer commercial insurance plans. They also ask for some for some resources to fulfill their obligations. And we're, you know, looking forward to getting started on that. I think another piece that we're is going to the process is the signing message for AB 988 by the governor directed our agency to do technical cleanup language on AB 988. We have put that trailer bill language out and have been meeting with stakeholders on, you know, what that trailer bill says and does. And look forward to wrapping up that as well so that we have real crystal clear clarity as to what we're supposed to do to realize the vision of AB 988. I think one little bit of since we're talking about successes and I really do want to lift up some of the performance issues for our crisis for our current 988 suicide and crisis call centers. And so, for example, I was looking at some data and in. It's three, it's three months. This is a three months average from last November through January. And in total, there were over seven 70,000 contacts to our centers, including calls, chats and texts. But I think the part that's really interesting and I think would be interesting for some of our stakeholders is that, you know, whether or not we've talked very much about it in this space. I know it's something that gets talked about a lot when we're thinking about 988 and that is the connection to a mobile crisis response. Did want to lift up two data points from this three month average. One would be the percentage of contacts that resulted in an emergency rescue was just around two percent. So we have a 90 percent call rate or call answer rate for our crisis call centers now, which I think is probably one of the best in the country. We also hands down have the most calls to our 988 centers. And I have some of that data, too, if people are interested. But I think we get so many calls that we pretty much take more calls than 26 states combined. So building the capacity of our crisis call centers is really critical. And we still are getting twice the amount of calls for similar sized states that are large like New York and Texas. So we're getting a lot of volume into our 988 crisis care capacity or crisis centers. So the other piece, so we've got around two percent of emergency rescues needed, but the part that's a lot more interesting is the three point five percent that are going to or getting routed to a mobile crisis outreach referral. And this is seeing some real improvement in November of last year. This was this was two point four. In January, it was four point four. The average is down to three point five. But you can see the pretty significant improvement on a monthly basis of the work that the that the. Centers and counties are doing to make sure that people who do need a mobile crisis response that is a behavioral health centered response is improving for Californian. So just wanted to share a little bit of the the the positive work that our centers are doing around the state and our counties are doing as they build out their mobile crisis teams. And I don't think I have any other exciting things to share other than the reason why the RFP is so important to to us at Health and Human Services is that it represents our ability to really dive in to the five year implementation planning process. So very hopeful that that can actually kick off probably not before our next meeting in August, but very shortly thereafter we will start hosting those meetings in and doing the outreach to find members for our policy advisory committee over the summer. So very excited to do that work. So thank you. All right. Thank you for the update. Any questions from the board for Stephanie? Any questions from board members online? All right. Public comment online. OK, go ahead. Public comment. I have a question. Thank you, Bud. I have a question for Stephanie. I'm not sure if you can answer this or not. But I know that recently, SAMHSA has released another opportunity for funding for states and territories that California has participated in the in the past. I'm wondering with AB 98 funds coming available. Will the state participate in that again? We're looking into that. I was doing it while I was also actively engaged in this meeting. Yeah, I did see that, Sherry. I don't have an answer for you, but it is something that we're revealing. Thanks. Thanks. All right. Any other public comment on agenda item number seven? All right. Seeing, hearing none, we'll move on to agenda item number eight. Most of this I've already reported on. So again, I mentioned the proposed rule making that they've got on reliable access to 98. You can reference the FCC proceedings on that. We've actually been in conversations with Vibran and their partner that they're working on that does their routing to establish a delivery point for 98 calls, chats and texts in California. And we continue to make sure that the cybersecurity requirements are addressed. This is a big part of of the considerations that we're doing. So those are some of the active work that we've been doing in this space relative to SAMHSA and the FCC and Vibran. I actually sent them an email yesterday. I'm waiting for a reply on as far as dates on meat points and trying to keep this project moving forward. So not sure if anyone from the board has any follow up questions or things they want us to do relative to these topics that we haven't already talked about. Looking for anybody. Go ahead, Erica. I think just a clarification if the technology conversation with Vibran is including all channels. It is. Yes. So do you mean all channels by calls, chats and texts? Yes. Yes. OK, great. We are including all of those in the conversation. Yeah, we'd like them all integrated in the same platform. One delivery mechanism so that you train once, migrate once and you get the ability to do what you need to support your workflow. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. OK, any other questions from board or online that you're seeing on agenda item number eight? All right, a lot of this, like I said, I had already covered. So all right, we're at the point now where we've got agenda items for future meetings. Our next meeting is August 17th. I will let you know that you're going to receive a cancellation message for that meeting. Do not freak out. We are transitioning from team from Zoom to teams. And if you've ever heard the audio taper that happens when people talk for a while, hoping that will address that technical problem, as well as some other limitations that we're seeing with the current platform. So you will get a new invite for both August and November. Removing the Zoom meetings, adding the teams meetings and we're transitioning fully over to teams. I'm tracking one additional agenda item. That's the FCC letter discussion that we need to add to the agenda. Does anybody else have any any members of the board with agenda items for future meeting? You see any members online? Raise their hand. All right, so we will add that one agenda item. And then we certainly look forward to seeing everybody or hearing everybody in August at our next meeting. We'll now transition to public comment. And so this is an opportunity for board members to comment on anything that was not on the agenda that we didn't cover. So we'll open it up first to board members. Any comments we didn't talk about? OK, members of the public for any members that weren't any items that were not on the agenda. Give a nice awkward pause to let people think about that. This is Matt Taylor again from D.D. Hirsch. I just want to comment that the last link I provided in the chat would, in my opinion, be a good read for those that are drafting the letter to the FCC specifically starting on page eight of the FCC report because it clearly outlines some of the benefits of geolocation. And I think such a letter would be would be enhanced by referencing that as well as a recognition of some of the privacy considerations that are noted there and California's view about, you know, those considerations in balance or relative to the potential benefits and upsides. Thank you, Matt. I have read that. And I'm very familiar with page eight and following of that. Oh, I was just going to say, I don't have the chat enabled. So can someone send that to us? So we can educate ourselves. Thank you. So, Kerry, can you send that link out to all the board members and just make sure they've got access to it? These are FCC comments, so they're written in a certain way. So have, yeah, have coffee. Be be well caffeinated when you begin the reading. They're written in a specific format, but once you dig into them, you can kind of see. And the way it works is the FCC will ask a series of questions. Responders respond to those questions. You have to dig through to see what everybody commented on. And then the FCC summarizes those in a report. And that's kind of what this document is. So it's a it's a process. OK, thank you for that, Matt. Any other comments from the public? All right. So this might be everybody's favorite agenda topic. Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Yes. From Stephanie. Do we have a second? I second that. All right, thanks, man. All right, we stand adjourned. My time is 12.09. So we are adjourning the meeting and thank you, everybody, for your participation and ongoing support of this. Thank you. Thank you. Bye, everyone.