All right, let's get going with who we have. This counts as a quorum. Calling the meeting to order. Welcome to the, what month is it? April, April 2023 meeting of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. As always, I'll go around my screen and name you and please introduce yourself briefly. For the record and we'll go from there. The only thing else I want to point out is as usual, I want to change the order of the agenda. I want to do the announcements and then I want our two guests to be able to speak and leave when they need to. So we'll do the approval of the minutes after Marshall Paul. But that's the only change. So, Aaron, would you like to start us off? Sure, thanks. Hi, everybody. Aaron Jacobson and I work with Charity Clark, our attorney general at the attorney general's office. I am the co-director of our office's community justice unit alongside Willa Farrell. Great, thank you. Derek. Hi, good evening. Derek Mio-Devnik, I use he, him pronouns. My position is community and restorative justice executive with the department of corrections. And so I'm the designee from DOC and having just come on board our DAP at last month's meeting for the first time. So glad to be here. Thanks. Great, thank you. Judge Morrissey. Hi, Morrissey. I'm the judiciary's representative on the committee. I currently preside. Well, actually as of last week, I now preside in LaMoyle. I transitioned from Franklin to LaMoyle. So I'm over there now. Great, thank you. Rebecca. Hi, everyone. Rebecca Turner from the defender general's office. Great, thank you. Attorney General Charity Clark. It's the attorney general. It's great to see everyone. This is my first time attending an ARDAP meeting, although I've heard a lot about the work that you've done over the years. So I'm excited to be here. Great, thank you. Tim. Tim leaders Dumont and the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs. Good to see everybody. Marshall Paul. You're muted still. Sadly, you're still muted. Why don't I go ahead and I'll come back to you. Jeff. Jeff Jones, ex from my state police, ACLU board, planker on the committee when there was only about 10 people and hanging on by my fingernails at this point with all the horsepower, but hard to make me leave good parties. Thanks, Jeff. Susanna. Hi, when I started this, Susanna Davis executive director of racial equity for the state. Great. Jennifer Furpo. Hi, everyone. Jennifer Furpo, designee for the Vermont police academy. Great. Sheila, my friend. Sheila Clinton. She, her, her pronoun panel member. Great, thank you. Rand. Yep. Okay. Grant Taylor, you're taking minutes for the group. Great, thank you.  I don't know, am I? Yes, you are. All right. Thank you. I'm glad that worked out. Rebecca gave me some quick instructions over the phone and I was able to solve that. So thank you very much, Marshall Paul from the Office of the Defender General. Thank you. Chris Loris. Yeah, Chris for Loris. I'm a research associate with crime research group and your former member and now our executive director, Monica Weber, sends her regards and full disclosure. I am also an appointee to the Vermont Criminal Justice Council not hearing that capacity. Thank you. Tyler. Good evening, everybody. My name is Tyler Allen. I'm apologize, I'm on here twice because I'm trying to get my computer up and running. So my name is Tyler Allen. I'm the adolescent services director for the Department for Children and Families and the designee from the body. Great, thank you. Wichee. Hi, everyone. Wichee Harto pronounced he, him, his. I was appointed to this advisory board through the Office of Racial Equity as a health equity and data systems consultant. Just an FYI, I'm driving up to Killington. I just parked so I could actually put my camera on. But I'm on my way to Killington so I will have to take my camera off so I'm not paying attention to the phone and also my signal might go away. Just an FYI, but I'm here. Oh, I also chair the subcommittee for the criminal justice review, criminal, sorry, community safety reviews. Thanks, Wichee. Jessica. Hi, everyone. Jessica Brown, she, her, hers. Community appointee to the panel by the previous, I see we have the current, the new attorney general joining us tonight, but the previous attorney general appointed me to the panel and I currently am an assistant professor and the associate director of the Center for Justice Reform at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Thank you. Christine Hughes. Sorry about that. Hi, Ton. Hi, everybody. Hello. It's of old friends here. Grant, good to see you. Glad you're still there. And Derek, man, I need to catch up with you. So I, a little bit of history, I was the inaugural chair appointed by T.J. Donovan when the panel first kicked off and I worked at the Community Justice Center for a number of years. I've been a resident of Burlington for really a very long time. We came here in the 70s. We were probably one of the few black families other than the Heinz in Burlington area. And I am now the director of the Richard Kemp Center in the old north end of Burlington. Hey, Sheila. Lots of friends here. Thanks, A-Ton. Absolutely. Oh, and I did want to say too that I'm going to hop off at seven, but I'm glad to be here with you guys for at least an hour. Thank you. Jennifer Pullman. Well, I'm Jennifer Pullman. I'm the director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. I'm not a voting member, but A-Ton lets me just continue to stick around and weigh in and listen to everything that I have to learn. So thank you all. And it's good to see so many familiar faces. Great. And last but not least, of course, Matthew from the Vermont Office of Child Advocate. Oh, God, it went away. Anyway, go ahead. Let me start. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? So my name is Matthew Bernstein and I am from the Office of the, and I still can't say this right, Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate, or OCYFA. So this is a new position that many of you, I'm sure are aware of. So the position is brand new. The office is brand new and I'm brand new. This is week seven or something. And it is what it sounds, but I'd be happy to tell any of you more. And we're hiring right now for our deputy advocate and also for our advisory council, which is made up of folks impacted by the child welfare system or juvenile justice. And I'm here because Sheila told me to show up. So when she tells me, then I show up. So I'm excited to be here. Thank you. Yeah, that's usually a good sign when you get there. Welcome to everyone. Okay. The announcements, all I have are that, well now Tim's here. Singh cannot make it unfortunately tonight, but she will be monitoring our progress. I think she'll look at the recording and so on in the minutes and we'll do that for tonight. And there was someone else, oh for love, I wrote it down. I don't know, maybe it was just him, but in any event Singh cannot be here this evening. As I said, I wanted to reverse somewhat the order of the agenda and allow the attorney general to speak first and then Marshall to speak and then we'll do the housekeeping stuff around the minutes. So, charity, I hand it over to you. Thank you, Aetan. I don't want to take up a lot of time, but I did want to just come to say hello and thank you for the work that you're doing, which I know is ongoing work. I don't need to tell you how important it is. I was fortunate to work in the attorney general's office for a number of years. And with that, when the art app was created, I was also fortunate to have a very competent person from our office, David Scherer, and then of course, Aaron Jacobson, participate in this work. And so the downside of that was I wasn't as involved as I might have otherwise been if I didn't have such strong participants. So I'm looking forward to, as I continue to adjust to being the attorney general, learning about your work, I know that your priority setting, which is great. And I'll look forward to having Aaron keep me posted on the work that you're doing. I also wanted to make sure that I extended an offer of please let me know how I can be supportive, how I can be helpful. I really believe in the work that you're doing and want to make sure that you know you have a strong supporter in the attorney general's office. And of course, Aaron who's a strong supporter. So please keep that in mind as you do your work. And I know Aaron will continue to keep me posted on the priorities that you kind of settle on over the next few months. And I will look forward to getting updates from her, happy to come back and participate. Again, if there's a topic you think that I should really hear about or be a part of the conversation on, just wanted to make sure you knew that I'm in your quarter and just really grateful for the work that you're doing, especially as I see here, it is six o'clock at night, dinner hour, and you're all here. And that's just really wonderful. So thank you. Thank you. Does any, are you open to questions if anyone has? Sure. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to ask or say? I mean, comments, obviously, but I guess not. Seeing, oh no, Sheila. I always do that to you. I thought I'm so sorry. It's really funny. I love it. So I actually just wanted to ask how, how folks can actually understand what you do in layman terms. And I'm wondering if you have something that is provided sort of like, you know, eighth grade reading level of what you actually do. And is that on your website or is that something that you have to be able to give out to communities? I really appreciate that question because one of when people say, what's the hardest part of your job? I always say that people don't know what the attorney general does. And it's true because people get disappointed about things that we do. And I think, or things that we don't do. And I think, well, that's actually the commissioner of public safety who does that, not us or whatever the issue is. So I, we have information on our website, but it's really like the easiest thing I've ever done on to describe what the attorney general's office does is I did a Tik Tok. My one Tik Tok video was on this topic. And it just explains like in less than a minute what the attorney general's office does. So we do so much that you got to dig into. There's like a particular area that appeals, but that was through my campaign, not through the official channel. But I do have a video that is helpful if you're looking to just describe to people. I also can give you a short synopsis now if that's what you're looking for. All of those things. Thank you so much. That's so interesting that you, I don't do Tik Tok. Right. And maybe, like you said, there's other ways that we can access that. I'm just always wondering how to be able to get information to a variety of different types of things. That is actually accessible and digestible. And you know, a lot of the verbiage or language or how we write on these websites is very heady. And does it necessarily like you say, there's confusions of whose role is who and what you're doing. So I really appreciate that that you did that with your campaign. And yeah, if you could just give for, because this is being recorded as well. And so there may be other people who are watching this. Who might want a little synopsis of what do you actually do? Yeah. I'm happy to do that. I, since you say that there are people watching, maybe I'll just briefly say that the attorney general's office in short is the lawyer to the state. And we have 150 employees, almost a hundred are lawyers. We have lots of different divisions. Some of those divisions, like environmental, environmental, civil is the defense. So when the state gets sued, we defend the lawsuits. We have the general counsel at administrative law division, which has a client agencies, like the department of taxes or the agency of transportation. And they're giving advice about tax law or just reading contracts, things like that. We have a criminal division. And that has the internet crimes against children task force that works on the tax law.  Then we have the consumer and environmental protection or one civil rights is in with that division. Our appellate unit handles the appeals. So when a trial court level case goes to the Vermont Supreme Court or even in a federal circuit, we would support with the appeals or even handle the appeals. And we also have lawyers at the agency of human services. So we have a whole division for the agency of human services. And I am feeling like I'm forgetting someone, but no, I got them all. Thank you. So yeah. So those are all the different divisions that we have. It's a lot. And we of course support the legislature and their work. They have their own lawyers, but we provide information and support for them, especially when a specific subject matter expert exists in our office will always be over there trying to provide subject matter expertise when they need it. And importantly, the consumer assistance program is housing, the partnership with our office in UVM and most for monitors to interface with our office do so through the consumer assistance program. So they're reaching out because they want to report a scam or they have a, you know, consumer complaint. They need help resolving and we get thousands of calls and emails every year through that office. So that's actually weirdly the most common way that people will interface with our office. That is in a nutshell. It's a lot. Yeah, it's a lot. Thank anyone else. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Please feel free to say, but I also know you'd like have a life outside of your job. And it also. I have to write a speech. That's, that's my project. Right.  So again, I'll say thanks for having me tonight. It's great to see everybody. And I know Aaron will keep you posted on your work. So thanks for everything you're doing. Great. And thank you. Good night, everyone. Good night. Bye. Bye. Okay. Moving along. Thank you. Thank you. Marcia. Rebecca, do you want to introduce Marshall? Yes, of course. So. Marshall Paul is our deputy defender general. And also the head of the general division. He was last year. Oh, when was it Marshall? Was it January or December or November? It was sometime before the legislative session began. So he came on many of you may recall in the fall, like, you know, winter months to come talk with us. About. Well, I believe the same meeting that Elizabeth and Tyler shared. The materials that we're actually going to be talking about later this evening. And so it is not without coincidence that because of that topic. And also because there are some issues that are arising that Marshall came to talk to us about last fall. That is coming up in the legislature. I thought it was going to be useful for us to hear directly from him in terms of sort of a continuum of what he shared with us before. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that would basically some updates. Going on in the session. Right now. Marshall, I hope that's a fair introduction. Yeah. I mean, I think when I was here last. I sort of had just described my role, particularly my role as chief juvenile defender, which is. Well, I am deputy defender general. I'm really here today. In my role as chief juvenile defender. And that in particular. I think that is good enough for me to say. I have never had any legislation that I felt. You know, particularly. Bore on the question of racial disparities in the juvenile legal system. Because that is a, you know, The criminal legal system is pretty open and pretty transparent. And it's pretty obvious what's. You know, what's happening. legal system. The juvenile legal system is a lot less transparent, a lot more confidential, and it happens that there is a bill in the legislature right now that our office is concerned is going to have profound impacts on racial disparities in the juvenile legal system. And I'm going to try and see if it'll let me share my screen, because this is kind of a complicated bill. And so I figured it's easiest if I just make a little, oh, is there a way to, that you could allow me to share my screen? I'm sure there's a way, and I will figure it out. If anyone knows how to do that, let me know. I actually know. If you put your, if you hover over his picture, you should have three dots show up, and then you should be able to make him co-host. Okay. Thank you. I did that, and you should be able to share your screen, Michelle. So the bill that I wanted to talk about, and I will do it as quickly as I can, can everybody see that? Yes. Okay. It's S4. And S4 is to begin with, it is a fairly big bill. It does a lot of things. It changes procedure in juvenile cases. It criminalizes drug sales on property. It criminalizes permitting human trafficking in a dwelling. Prohibits the defacing of serial numbers on firearms. All kinds of stuff that I'm not here to talk about. Then it does one thing that I am here to talk about, which is it expands what we call the Big 12. And if you're not familiar with the Big 12, that's sort of the informal name that's given to a list of offenses that are in Vermont statute, 33 VSA, 5204, subsection A. And it's the list of offenses that are considered so serious that a young child, even a child as young as 12, is presumptively treated as an adult by the legal system if they are charged with one of these offenses. And what that means to be treated as an adult means no confidentiality, public proceeding, everything happens in public. You may be held in an adult jail or prison, and you're not likely to have access to age-appropriate social services because those are all generally provided through the juvenile justice system, not through the criminal system. So the Big 12 offenses are really those offenses that our state wants to treat as adult, even when it's, even when these are offenses that are committed by kids as young as 14 years old. Let me find the right clicker here. So the Big 12 expansion, some of the Big 12 expansion makes some sense. For example, this bill S4 expands the Big 12 to include aggravated murder. That makes sense because murder is already one of the Big 12 offenses. It doesn't make sense that a more serious form of murder would not be one of the Big 12 offenses. It also includes aggravated sexual assault of a child. It makes sense to include that because sexual assault of a child is included in the Big 12. Why shouldn't the more serious charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child be included in the Big 12? But those aren't the ones that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned particularly about these three additions. Human trafficking, trafficking or regulated drug and carrying a firearm while committing a felony. And this is where I think we stand to see a real change in how people are charged and particularly how black and brown kids in Vermont are charged. And before I get to why this particularly affects black and brown kids in Vermont, I want to just talk substantively about why it's wrong for all kids in Vermont for these three offenses to be on that list. And the first is that 14 year olds are just not human traffickers, period. Any 14 year old, even if they have committed all the elements of the offense of human trafficking, that just means they're another victim of human trafficking, not an offender. Human trafficking is a sophisticated offense. It's committed by sophisticated adult people. It is not committed by 14 year olds. So the idea that there's a date that there are 14 year olds out there committing human trafficking and that they should be treated as an adult because of that just does not make sense. The same is true of drug trafficking. In Vermont, we do everything that has to do with drugs by way. So possession, misdemeanor possession is possession of a very small amount. Felony possession is possession of a greater amount. Distribution is possession of even greater amount. And trafficking is you have to possess a real lot of really expensive drugs to meet the criteria for drug trafficking. And that's simply not something that 14 year old kids have control over. They don't have enough money. They don't have enough power. They don't have enough control to be truly controlling drug trafficking. So well, it's possible that there may be children who are caught with enough drugs in their possession that they qualify to be titled drug traffickers. They're not. You know, these are 14 year old kids we're talking about. These are kids who are themselves victims, kids who are themselves being used by other older, more sophisticated people. And this bill would take those kids and throw them into a category and say these should they should presumptively be treated as adults. They should be brought into adult court. They should not have the benefits of confidentiality. They should not have the benefits provided by the Department for Children and Families. Same with children carrying weapons. Children carry weapons. It's actually an interesting phenomenon. It's been studied a lot and nobody has a very clear explanation for it. But adolescents like to carry weapons. There's not even there's no real racial disparity there. There is some racial disparity in the types of weapons that children carry. But children carry weapons, white children carry weapons, black children carry weapons, brown children carry weapons, and they all do it at about the same rate. It's particularly true for children who grew up in environments where they did not feel safe. A lot of the studies on children carrying weapons have focused on children's perceptions that other children carry weapons. If children are in an environment where they perceive that their peers are armed, then they will arm themselves. Even if they don't have any plan to use a gun, they don't have any intention to use a gun. It's just simply a reaction to a feeling of unsafeness. Now, when we get to the part which is essentially why does this have a wrong button? Why does this why does this proposed change? Why is it going to have a disparate impact on black and brown kids? You don't actually need to look that hard to figure it out because law enforcement came into Senate judiciary and gave a presentation in support of this bill, and in particularly in support of expanding the Big 12 to include these additional offenses. I want to start just by framing this. What I'm going to do is I'm going to go through and I'm going to just give the same, I'm going to show you the same slides that law enforcement showed to Senate judiciary as their justification for supporting this expansion of the Big 12. But before I do that, I want to start by saying that in context, we're already a state where black children are arrested 300% more frequently than their non-black peers. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention asks for us to ask for this state to report black versus non-black as opposed to other races. I'm not sure people have explained to me why that is, and I don't have a good I can't repeat that explanation. It's never quite made sense to me, but it is the statistics we're left with. And so they gave a presentation where they walked through essentially, I believe there's 13 young people who they felt were particularly dangerous. This was all down in the Bennington area because that's the law enforcement officers who were testifying. And I'm going to go through the presentation very quickly because for a few reasons. One is that it's not my style to put people out there to use people as illustrations. I mean, these are people. My point in putting them up there is not to sort of show you these people and what they are alleged to have done, but to show you what law enforcement's target is for the expansion of the Big 12. And so it starts right out and I apologize. I was just putting this presentation together literally minutes before this meeting started. So it's kind of kind of bounced back and forth. But it starts just by recounting a number of drug-related offenses, but then it starts going individual by individual and identifying people who the Bennington law enforcement felt were illustrations of why we needed to expand the Big 12 and put more children in adult courts. And so it just goes through one after another, child after child, explaining what they're alleged to have done. I believe by the time we reached the end of this, if I have my math right, they had 13 children listed as examples of why we need to have more kids in adult court. And the amazing thing about it is that every single one of those 13 kids is black or brown in a state where less than 5% of our youth are black or brown. And that to me is the troubling part of this bill. And that's why I wanted to bring this to this committee's attention is because those charges in particular, drug trafficking, human trafficking and the commission of felony, well in possession of a firearm were the charges that were highlighted as examples of and these particular group of children, all of whom are black or brown were highlighted as the examples of why we needed to expand the Big 12 to include more to put more kids in adult court. So I don't have much more to say about it. Obviously, our office poses that expansion. I brought it to this meeting because I told you guys last time that if I saw anything that looked like it would have substantial impacts on racial disparities among youth, I would bring it to the committee's attention. So I'm happy to answer any questions about it. That would, you know, in respect of you guys's time, that was a very short sort of walkthrough of a very long and complicated bill. I'm happy to answer any questions to begin with. Tim. Yeah, and, you know, I'll just I'll just say this, I, you know, I deeply appreciate my colleague, Attorney Paul's perspective as I do with Attorney Turner. And it is, as Marshall said, I think it's a big bill that has lots of different parts also banned straw purchases and guns and prohibits individual subject to RFAs from possessing guns. There's a lot, there's a lot in the bill.  And I appreciate that summary. And I think, you know, one thing, Marshall, when you were talking, you said a presumption that these will be filed into adult criminal court. And I do want to just push back on that a little bit. And that prosecutors always have, you know, the big 12 is the transfer from the family division of the Superior Court, if you're looking at, you know, at the statute, and it allows for filing, but it doesn't demand it or command it prosecutorial discretion is, is at play. I actually disagree with that completely. The statute requires that they file an adult court, but then allows that they may not, if they don't want to, the number of prosecutors who have direct filed in as youthful offender, which is not the same as juvenile court, that's an adult status where you're still treated as an adult. But the number of prosecutors who direct file is actually very low. And most of it comes out of Chippin County. So I appreciate that, Marshall. What I'm saying is that it doesn't demand that we file in criminal court week. There's always opportunities to go different directions. As you know, whether they're, you know, it provides for the opportunity to in certain circumstances. As you've said, and I just want to just want to finish and just reading the fold section that leads up to the big 12 and also note that the committee, the Senate committee, which includes the president pro tem of the Senate, and Senator Sears did take lots of testimony from lots of different parties. And you know, I think it's a it's a big bill and it's an attempt to do something. And we have heard from some of the folks in the who we work with right in the victim community about some frustration with a case that it feels serious to them. As Marshall said, there's three, you know, the attempted issues, the VCRs that relate to the ones that are already an adult court and the ones that are very serious that Marshall mentioned. And so, you know, I don't want to sort of get in the weeds about about that. But I did just want to note that it there was quite a bit of testimony and sort of careful contemplation of the expansion from my observations of the committee, obviously, different perspectives are at play. And I was just, I felt like it was important to note that prosecutors as you've stated, whether it's in Chittenden County, and I always kind of struggled to sort of generalize about counties because I think there's lots of things that never reached the plane of a filing that sometimes are resolved beforehand, or that upon filing, there's other dispositions. And, you know, so it's hard to speak in generalizations, but I just wanted to know I appreciate this that Marshall's bringing this here. I presumed this is probably what you were going to discuss. And so I don't have a full, you know, just, you know, discussion point in response. But there are different perspectives on this. And that I do think the Senate committee did do a fairly decent job at sort of carefully expanding it. But I think there's different perspectives, and that's totally appropriate. And I absolutely respect, you know, Marshall, he and I serve on lots of committees and boards together. So I just wanted to note that and happy to talk more about it at a future meeting, because I don't want to take up too much time to I'm sorry, you time for already talking too much. Other questions. I can't I have no I have not a zoom person. I'm a team's person. So I don't know.  So I'm just physically raising my hand. I just wanted in response just to point out, prosecutors don't have discretion to charge in juvenile court that discretion to charge the big 12 as youthful offender cases. That's very, very different from juvenile court. If you're charged as a youthful offender, you are charged under an adult deferred adjudication status. You are put on probation. And if you violate your probation and have and have your probation revoked, you will be sent you will be sentenced as an adult in an adult proceeding that is public to an adult sentence that includes punishment just like it would an adult court and would not in juvenile court. I mean, I think the characterization that prosecutors can always file in juvenile court is just absolutely and flatly incorrect. The they don't prosecutors do not have the discretion to file in juvenile court. The only discretion they have is to file a case as a youthful offender case, which adds some confidentiality protections to an otherwise adult case. But it is still an adult case with an adult prison sentence hanging over the end of it. And you're titled to all the rights that you're entitled to as an adult criminal defendant, which you're not, of course, as a juvenile. No, and Marshall, that that is that just that is basically what I was trying to say that the discretion to file as a as a Y O is really that the point I wanted to make. But I appreciate that. And the description of the distinction between the Y O universe and the juvenile universe is being separately founded, drafted and intended. Absolutely. Marshall, I'm curious. Certainly, during testimony, there was pushback from you and your office about this. Can I'm curious what the responses were to it? Because on the face of it, it seems, frankly, as you put it, somewhat egregious, but I'm interested to hear what those responses were. I'm honestly the worst person to characterize those responses. Okay. If you want my characterization of the responses, the care, my characterization of the responses would be, these are very serious offenses. They have very serious impacts on people, and therefore they should be treated by the adult criminal legal system and not by the juvenile criminal legal system. Frankly, I think those responses don't give enough credit to the juvenile legal system and all that it can do. It's actually much better for youth to be in the juvenile legal. There's a great series of studies called the Pathways to Assistance Studies. It's actually, I think it's more appropriate to say it's the Pathways to Assistance dataset that's then been used in a number of studies that have looked specifically at serious juvenile offenders. So we're talking 16, 17, 18 years old, who are charged with serious violent offenses, sexual assaults, aggravated assaults, attempted murders, and they showed that when those kids were treated as juveniles, they were less likely to go on to commit further offenses in the future. If they were treated in the adult legal system, they were more likely to commit offenses in the future. So some of it's just a straight up public safety recidivism thing that I think a lot of people don't understand. There's a sense that the juvenile court system is a way for kids to sort of get off the hook easy, which it really is. In fact, I think in many, if not most cases, the juvenile court system requires a lot more out of juvenile defendants than the adult court system requires out of adult defendants. And it's sort of also based on this, I think also a myth, that there's actually a lot available within the Department of Corrections for adult defendants, you know, to provide rehabilitative services to adult defendants. So like I say, I'm the wrong person to characterize those responses, but that's that's that's the way that I would characterize them. Okay. Other questions? Rebecca? Actually, it's a clarifying question, following up on your question, Eitan, to both Marshall and Tim and anyone else who's in the committee on this. I myself also testified on behalf of the Office of Defender General on this bill, but on a different aspect of it. But my question is, what was the committee's reactions to the discussion, if there was any, as to concerns about the racially disparate outcomes that could arise specifically? Was that actually considered by the committee members? My characterization would be no. It was certainly raised, but not discussed or I mean, I think, you know, the way that big groups have a tendency that if you raise an issue of race, and there's a thousand other things to talk about, they'll talk about everything besides race. That that was my impression. Yeah. And I think I was trying to look back in my mental notes. So I know this is being recorded, which is always, you know, dangerous. But I know it was, you know, the Defender General's office has wonderful attorneys, and they testified really well on this bill and all the bills that they have testified on this session. And I know that I think it was Marshall who raised it and also brain science. You know, early on, is that correct? You did a miniature presentation on brain science at the beginning? Yeah, I started to talk about the adolescent brain development that goes behind this. And I had one of the senators tell me that they did not want to be taught and urged me to move on. So I did talk, I did get to talk about the race part. I never actually got to talk about adolescent brain development. Maybe I was just looking, remembering on what you had been posted. But but you know, I think Marshall raised those some of these issues. And Senator by health ski responded, you know, I think with some concern as well. But you know, there was a lot of discussion, I think, you know, just the just I just want to be clear for folks that haven't been able to listen into some of this, because the bill is so big that every time that's four came up and Rebecca is like nodding your head that like a lot of the discussion would sometimes be about this whole bill and said sometimes of, you know, spending a ton of time on a certain section.  I'm looking at Rebecca have received quite a bit of attention. It's actually been referred to. I'm sorry that there's cooking going on in the back. But there's actually been referred to in the process, a gun bill. And so that sometimes I think leads to the confusion about what's in this bill. But I think they tried to do careful testimony. But it's hard. I mean, I know we've all probably felt that frustration in the legislative process before when it's like, oh, you talk more about this or that or couldn't we spend a longer time talking about this? So but I will say Marshall raised some issues and Rebecca also did raise some issues as well. And I will say that our state's attorneys likely because it's such a big bill have different opinions about different sections. But there was a lot of support for some of the provisions about the gun provisions, different opinions. I think about the big 12 probably a majority of states attorneys support expanding the big 12. I can definitely say a majority do. Maybe they would have a different opinion about exactly which way to expand it. But the committee did hear from Jared Bianchi from Bennington, Eric from Arthur from Bennington from our department, as well as I think from Jen Pullman, who's on here, I think testified as well. And yeah, it's just such a big bill. I'm sorry to drone on, but Marshall definitely raised those issues. And I can't recall how much it was dealt into. Excuse me, E 10. I'm sorry. Yes. Do you got me? Yeah. Yeah. I haven't done enough homework on this. What is the definition of weapons? There's a lot of room for that. Having been a trooper, I know how much room there is in the definition of a weapon between a baseball bat with a black kid going to play an epistle or a rifle somebody going to duck hunt. And to be clear, this one is limited to firearms. So it uses the federal definition of firearms, which includes most of what we would think of as firearms, but excludes a few things that you would think of as firearms. Like muzzle loaders, like the muzzle loader. People go to hunt with. Yeah, muzzle loader is not a firearm under a federal definition. OK. Tyler. I just thought I'm almost hesitant to even dive into this. It was the it was a little bit taking us back to the conversation that attorney Paul and and and Tim were were talking about with the entry in, you know, Big 12 into the, you know, the adult the criminal justice system. And my understanding, I I'm actually putting this out there for clarification, but my understanding was that there is a little bit of differentiation depending on the age of the juvenile, whether they enter at the point of family court. I was thinking they entered if a 12 and 13 year old would enter first in family court with the option of bumping up 14 and above. I think, you know, 14 above they start in criminal with the option of stepping down into family court at some point there. I just I'm putting it out there because I think it from a values perspective, I'm really aligned with what attorney Paul is sharing that we have the potential for a 14 year old, even a 12 year old to have a big 12 offense that is being tried in an adult criminal court. And that is that is not aligned with the brain science that that went behind a raise the age initiative, which shows that naturally young folks will desist from concerning behavior. If we don't intervene in the wrong way. So I do think that we have to be able to kind of look at all that, but I do want to honor the fact that there is some flexibility that has been built in the system. A little bit of flexibility that's been built into the system from my understanding, but I could be wrong. Aaron, that's a good segue for me, Tyler. I wanted to make a point about flexibility and discretion. And, you know, I think about this in the context of restorative justice a lot, or whose case might be referred to a community justice center or diversion. And a lot of people talk about geographic disparities. And Willa and I often respond that a lot of the disparities aren't necessarily about the programming that's available, or the difference between any given organization, community based organization, but prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have so much power in determining and deciding which cases go in which direction. And then if you're going to add to the picture, not just geographic disparity, but racial disparities, I find it really troubling that we're going to rely on prosecutorial discretion to start, you know, to refer or to suggest that a kid might, instead of being, you know, presumably put in adult court, instead goes to family court. And so, you know, that's, that's my response to that notion about flexibility and discretion. It can be a really positive thing. But when we're talking about disparities, that's where we get a lot of the disparities is by the decision makers. Thank you. Marshall, I kind of have a little, a little complex of questions around, I guess, both the science and the testimony, you sort of said something that disturbed me rather enormously that someone just kind of didn't want to go, didn't want to be schooled, which I guess as an educator, I find somewhat terrifying, particularly if an expert is being cited. And so, could you say more about whether that was a general feeling on these, the committees before which you were testifying? Because that seems really important to me. I would say that my general feeling was that the committee was in a rush and had a lot of witnesses and wanted to move through them quickly. And when it came to talking about adolescent brain development science, that's where they drew the line and said, nope, that's too far in the weeds for us and we're going to move on. Okay. Thank you. I think I would just make us a comment here. This body has brought up on several occasions during my tenure, the idea that these bills that have the potential or demonstrated racial impacts should in fact be run by this body. And at a certain point, there was actual agreement, I remember, on the part of various members of the legislature that that should happen. So I guess I'm not asking a question. I'm just expressing a moment of this may that we are at we are beyond crossover. And there's been no ask for testimony from this body. There's been no ask for us to weigh in at all. And I just want to put that out there for for the entire panel to think about this is not a this is not a new issue. This is not a new issue the issue of running it before the RDAP. In fact, there are legislators who have said to me, and I think to all of us, why we should really use, you know, the R TAP shocker. I just want to put that out there because I'm just feeling a little bit of, I guess, shock. I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't.  So I am processing that presentation because that was really impactful and deep for me to experience personally. And I appreciate the presentation and the candidness to it. And and and really like the succinctness of it as well. I am what questions I have right now going off of what a ton said a little bit is when you talk about testimony and the fact that RDAP hasn't or wasn't contacted with regards to this. Was there testimony from BIPOC from BIPOC communities? What who gave testimony? Was it? Was it people in the community? Was it impacted folks? Was it people of color? What did those like? How many testimonies and what did that look like from who's in what's communities? I'm curious about. It also sounds like from what you were saying, Tim, and what you say, Marshall, is that there's a I heard you say, Tim, there's a different of perspective. And so it sounds like there is varying perspectives as there is. But I'm, you know, we can dot the eyes and cross the T's and kind of understand a little bit more what that means or at least I can. And but I'm also curious not to make assumptions on that what I'm hearing is that. We don't want to hear certain information when it doesn't benefit us such as brain science. But when it does benefit what I think is white youth, we're going to use that brain science. And what I also think I'm hearing is is that when when this disproportionately affects black and brown kids or completely only affects black and brown kids by the data that's being shown that it's OK to have them be charged as adults. So that's what I learned from that presentation. So I appreciate that. And it's very it's the 300 percent also is really devastating. And it's just really alarming. And so I don't have a lot to say, but I'm curious about the different perspective. And I'm also curious about the testimony of BIPOC. Yeah, so I can respond briefly. I'm just I'm I'm clicking through the list of people who testified and I don't see anybody who testified from representing the BIPOC community or representing even for that matter, other communities that would be impacted by the bill. There was as attorney Reuters Dumont said, a lot of focus paid a lot of attention paid to the to the parts of the bill that addressed gun control and that kind of thing. So the parts of the bill that address juvenile, the juvenile legal system were, you know, definitely got less attention and so I forgot the second part of your question. The first part was about whether there had been any BIPOC representation of testimony. And then the second part was what about different perspectives, but I'm also curious whether youth testimonies as well. No, no youth testimony. We actually generally I tend away from that because my only source for youth testimony is my own clients and I hate to expose them like that. I mean, part of the beauty of the juvenile justice system is that it keeps people's stories confidential and testifying in the legislature, you lose that confidentiality. So it's always sort of a struggle around, you know, how to get those voices heard. But the short answer is no, there wasn't much in the way of there was, in fact, as far as I can tell, there was no testimony from anybody representing the BIPOC community. It was what I would call the usual suspects. It was, you know, the the the justice, the legal system stakeholders that testify on most bills. OK. Other questions or comments from people, witchy. Yeah, I have a question as far as the status of the bill and I, again, I ran out of reception, so I lost the beginning of it. But I was wondering if, you know, the status of this bill, if it's crossed over already, who who's going to be having it? Yeah, so those are my questions. Thanks. It has crossed over. It was voted out of the Senate recently. As far as I know, it hasn't been scheduled for any time in the House. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's been introduced in the House, but it's at least been voted out of the Senate and it'll be in House Judiciary. Probably sometime in the next couple of. Next couple of weeks. So I'm wondering if it would be advantageous to us to maybe either us go in or have a representative come in or even like to understand a little bit more of of the reasoning of why this was an examined, you know, in the way that we feel should have been examined. From the Senate Judiciary, but those are just suggestions and just throwing them at the wall and see if that sticks with anyone. I'm thinking, but Matthew. Hi, everyone. I am in trouble fully devoting my full attention because I got some caregiving obligations here in my six year olds waiting for me. But I just want to say that you know, this kind of issue is something that I think this office can hold the central work on once we're up to speed. You know, I've been mainly trying to get the office going. So I have not been following this. This discussion is quite useful. And and I will say that if any of you want to send me some stuff, partial I already sent you an email about time to meet. It's Matthew Dover in Senate Vermont dot go. But but I think, you know, I've been hearing the the calls for BIPOC youth for youth in particular and BIPOC people. And, you know, I share Marshall's concerns in terms of thrusting people with, you know, power in compromised positions of power out in front of, you know, Senate committees. But I think, you know, it is that getting getting that those voices there is something that I that this this office can certainly do going forward. So I'm sorry for my silence and I hope to be in more capacity going forward. But yeah, thanks. Thank you. We. OK, Erin, go ahead. Adding to which he's suggestion, you know, I think because this bill is only halfway through the process, there's still time if the RDAF as a group wants to weigh in. We can certainly speak with Chair Lalonde and about how the RDAF would like to add some perspective in the on the House side. And I think that's an important thing for this group to do, not just for this bill, but because we are here in part so that we can be a group of people together, including community members bringing our voice into the legislature, because as Marshall just indicated, it's generally speaking, the usual suspects and we're not all the usual suspects. Some of us are, but I think it's important for us to raise our voice as the RDAF and to continue to do it so that it's not like we're always the ones knocking on the door, but really it's for lawmakers and others to come knocking on our door, too. Right. Here, here.  As noted from Professor Brown's presentation last time about who or we represent and the different you know, voices that we try to bring to the discussion, but also sometimes are limited in doing so because they're not here listening, you know, actively and then, you know, you just try our best. And I look, I'm looking at Tyler and Derek, because I know it's sometimes that same poll.  And I think the discussion is I love having this discussion like this and a non kind of rushed manner, but there might be more gravitas to it, to, you know, a ton of you in those what I would say the majority of the group wanted to put something forward. I'm not sure that I can represent that I would even support of of getting of slowing down as for, you know, because our the majority of my department has is in favor of it. And so I just want to say that just for to be on the record about that. And also, I think the discussion maybe my first meeting back in October, I was looking back to an op ed by a former state's attorney about the idea of decision points all the way across the system. I was thinking about what you were saying, Aaron. But, you know, judges and looking at Judge Morris is on your two, you know, judges move around. She just said she moved from Franklin. We should put Judge Morris in every county just for the record as she was the first judge I appeared in front of. And she is so fantastic at teaching defense attorneys and prosecutors just how to do the basics of the job. So cheers to Judge Morris for being here and also for just being the judge that she is. But also, you know, judges move around defense attorneys. I'll just say the private sector because they're not really on here this evening.  There's decision points that way upstream, way downstream, way in the middle that impact all the stuff that we're talking about. And by the time it gets to a prosecutor or to Tyler's desk or, you know, to the criminal division and attorney general's office, there's so much that's gone wrong in our society that we are just grasping at some of that. And I'm not saying, you know, that's why we're doing this difficult work. When someone's at DOC, I mean, there's so much that's gone wrong and so much we can do upstream. But I also just want to note that the decision points, we should also be shining a magnifying glass on us, on ourselves and also as far upstream as we can look. And I was looking back at the 2019 report, not to segue to that, but I liked how much of that fell upstream and let's reduce the number of cases that are filed every year, you know, all the different things we can do because we have an overburdened overwork system. And we have states attorneys that are getting rid of as many cases as they possibly can in a way that hasn't happened historically.  But we're we're trying to move a system that is fundamentally drowning and underwater. And we feel that too. And so and we do we do try to represent the voices of victims all across the board and all that.  I probably can't represent that I'm in favor of slowing down S4. And I just wanted to state that so you didn't feel surprised later on. Thank you. What strikes me is that this goes back to the conversation we had last time about process about representation about individual versus group work. And I know that for some people who were in the room at the time, they were displeased with the fact that this group was having those conversations. But I think that this is really testament to why we needed to have those conversations. Right. Like we said last time, this is a new group than it used to be. You know, for me, the wildest thing about S4 is the fact that the bill that was introduced, that was after multiple rounds of very uncomfortable and at times tense being in opposition from our office with the people who wrote it. And this is what they ended up with after ORE went in on it. So clearly, you know, there's very, very strong support behind this measure, whether or not racial equity elements were considered. Let me rephrase that. It is unfathomable that racial inequity was not a factor during the drafting process because we were there before the drafting process. And I'll probably just leave it at that. I would absolutely support whatever the art app chose to do about this. I have noticed there have been some. Curious instances. This session where the legislature is not bringing in entities, very obvious entities on issues and bills that they should be brought in on or it's happening at the very last minute after they've already decided that they're going to go to certainly on a bill. And I think this is one of those instances where I'm shocked that this group had not been consulted meaningfully on this. And I don't think that we should let that stand. I'm not saying let's be policy arsonists, but I am saying that like a letter from us on some in some wise might be very useful at this point. As a starting point, I would imagine. I mean, does that seem reasonable? I mean, I'd like the idea of policy arsonist, but I that's probably not quite wise, but I do. I mean, I'm shocked on a number of levels. One is the actually. Oh, are you put together a really good equity impact assessment tool which some people around the state seem to know about? Some people don't. I don't know why it's been talked about rather a lot. And it doesn't sound to me as though anyone looked at that when this was drafted. And I find that somewhat alarming. No, not even somewhat very alarming. Anything else from anyone? Do we have I need to talk a bit then about time? Because if we're going to do something, we don't meet again until May. I have not read this bill in its entirety and should do so. Which means there's nothing we can do. And I can I see just by a show of hands, how many people have read this bill its entirety at this point? Voting members of the RDAP. OK. That's kind of what I assumed. I thank you. That it seems to me needs to be built in that we need to take some time to look at it. And and then come back and talk further about it. I mean, it's clear. Tim is going to be in a position that is going to be critical of a lot of what it may come forth. But that's important too. But I think we need to take time to look at the bill to think about the bill, not in the context of a two hour meeting when there's all sorts of other stuff going on. But we do need to do that. It seems to me before we think of what our next act is. That seems important to me because there's a lot of what might be called the rhetoric of slapdash going on here. And I would rather not continue that. Tyler. I was sorry about that. Yeah, I'm I'm I shouldn't speak for Tim, but I'm probably similarly positioned to Tim and that there's elements of S for that are that are definitely things that DCF would like to see advance. And I think just I think important parts of the come of the context here is that my interest is in seeing the expansion of juvenile jurisdiction happen in a way that is meaningful and fruitful and can continue past what we've already envisioned. Like I want to see a juvenile justice system that like attorney Paul has been describing is able to support the needs of youth is able to do so do so with kind of a humility with an understanding of how our movement and how our discretionary points to your point, Aaron, can lean into creating further disproportionality. I think we need to go into those things wide-eyed, but I also want to see things continue to advance. And I think one of the drivers behind this conversation is the fact that the juvenile juvenile justice system for certain youths is falling short and has been falling short because it's kind of suffering the consequence of staffing challenges within system of care, so on and so forth. And so efforts to bolster that are in are in place. And I think some elements of S4 are related to trying to support and build that up. And I think other elements of S4 are definitely worth much closer look, worth more perspective, worth more attention to it. So I guess I guess what I'm getting at is I think there's there's contextual points as we unpack that, which is probably to your point, Eitan, good to do in a smaller room where we can start saying, what was behind that? Where was this coming from? Like I'm noticing that case study is all from Bennington. I wasn't part. I had nothing to do with the development of any of that. But what is it they're looking at in Bennington that is so meaningful for presenting this forward and is that reflective of the totality of the state? I think the general point is well taken that there is opportunity in here for to to to increase disproportionality. And so we do need to speak to that. But I also don't want us to go get to the end of this conversation with saying the entirety of this bill is grounded in in that. Well, we haven't read it or some of us haven't read it. So that would that would be arrogant and sort of silly. But yeah, I I agree, Rebecca. I and I think the point of of of of having this work through the various committees and now as you've heard, it's it's presently in the house and to be determined when it will be set for hearing in House judiciary. But the point of the process is to review a bill in its pieces and it's not all or nothing. I mean, for those who who haven't been or are less familiar with the committee billmaking process, this is the time to share thoughts on particular sections so that representatives or lawmakers can make the relevant amendments. And they just wanted to pick up what you suggested. What I was hearing is suggested in terms of moving forward on this. I know from my experience that House judiciary sets their schedule Fridays for the next week or so, you know, Mondays, we should know when S4 will be taken up. I'm happy to share when I become aware because I'm one of those witnesses who will be representing the DJ's office on that bill. When I see that come on the agenda, I'm happy to share that with please wait on. And then you can reach out to the chair and indicate that our DAP is interested and then then meanwhile, we can pass around the materials. And I'm sure Marshall will share his his presentation with us as well as I think there was a link that that we he was looking at in terms of what witnesses were there and all the all the there are recordings of it, how depending on how deep people want to go in here, you could go back on YouTube and listen to the past. So we can get those resources to everyone who's interested. I'll put S4 in email to everyone in the first thing in the morning, which for me is early, so you should have it. I will I'll do that tomorrow morning. And, you know, Ethan, I was actually thinking it may may be worth it to invite. I mean, you could invite a sponsor of the bill to come chat with us and with even legislative counsel so they can walk through, you know, I know it sounds like a pipe dream for folks that talk with them, but it might be worth just the ask in that way. You're hearing directly from from absolutely. No, we should do this for me. Is that my only concern is that too late? It could be a ton. Again, they could schedule it from Monday or the Monday after that, right? And so I will start with sending out the bill, the link to the bill. Tomorrow morning to everyone so you all can at least start on that, and then I will start making inquiries beyond that. Later in the day at some point, Sheila, I just I just had some questions that were a little bit confusing after you spoke, Tyler, I was trying to understand what you were saying and what I understood was what I understood from Marshall's presentation is that there's a piece of S4. There's three specific things that we're looking at to not have in the S12 or or in the big 12, excuse me, and you were referring to your office being more in favor of the S12 in certain ways. But we were specifically talking about those three areas. So now I'm curious of where your office actually stands. And if you were specifically talking about those three areas or were you concerned about other areas because that's not what we were addressing in our conversation. And you made a misstatement of make all of that that. And I'm just trying to understand if all of that that is when you refer to the bill, we don't want to make the bill all of that, you said. Could you explain what the that is? I apologize, I don't remember what I was saying when make the bill, all of that. I think I was referring in general to that there's more pieces. So specifically what I'm talking about is we've been having a great deal of conversation about building out our residential system of care. One of the things this bill does is it has a delay of implementation of the raise the age. And that has to do with kind of workforce capacity to manage the population. I want to see our raise the age go forward. I want to be able to do that. My concern is if we try to do that prematurely or if we try to do that unprepared, that we will, you know, that we might see something happen. We that the department will will, you know, there might be a critical incident that the department's not able to respond to and that there's a pendulum swing that drives back and there's like this huge push towards there's great concern that youth violence is on the upswing that it becomes inflammatory or something like that and that there is a push back into saying the problem with all of this is that we're expanding the raise the age initiative. The reason it jumped up in my head is as we're flipping through the presentation and the individuals that were cited in the Bennington case, I noticed there a number of them were 18 or 19 years old. And I want to envision a juvenile justice system that can manage the needs of 18 and 19 year old populations. And so what my concern is is that people will characterize our most concerning cases, so to speak, or this population because they're adults because they're yada yada and that they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of the juvenile justice system. So I think our position has been around that. Yes, we need another year to delay, which is one of the elements that's built into S4. I wasn't specifically speaking to the three charge types that Marshall was speaking. So apologies to the group if I've taken us on a little bit of a goose chase because I was referring to elements of the bill, which you all haven't been exposed to. And maybe that would be part of conversation that could come out when we all get a look at digging into the bill more. Thank you. Yep. I would like to if possible, move on because there are a couple of other things that we need to consider. One of them, we're just not we're going to have to let it drop off and we'll get to it. We'll get to it later. Anybody else? Let's I mean, we can do this till seven thirty, but then I really would like to go ahead on something else. Just wanted to offer that if people do and I hope folks know that they can come to me with I say this to anybody, but if you have questions about something that like in terms of how the bill might impact what prosecutors do, I'm happy to talk. I'm happy to talk with Rebecca Turner or Marshall listening to so we can, you know, all chat and get the same information. But if there's anything in the review of S four that, you know, you have a question about like, what does this mean? Like, you know, it seems like it's a term of art or something like that. Happy to talk about any of that my available, you know, whenever in terms of educational foundation. OK, anyone else? I just like to thank you guys for having put up with me for this much time. And since I'm not a voting member of this group, I'm going to leave now. OK, you wanted to go earlier. Sorry, Marshall. Oh, no, no, I'm I was happy to stay and participate. I really you guys do an incredible job and the, you know, doing it at six at night is tough work. So I just wanted to say I appreciate all the work that you guys are doing. But I am going to take my leave. Thank you. All right, thank you.  Thank you for coming. So just to sum up, I will put S four, the link to it, rather, out in an email in the morning, I will also at a later part in the day tomorrow, I will somehow figure out the sponsors and I will get in touch with them and invite, well, at least one of them. I'm sure there are several to come and speak to the RDAP in May. And I think, of course, reading the bill first is going to be really central to that. On the other hand, we are going to have to move. I suspect a bit more quickly than May to get commentary in on this. So I think we may be looking at what will be a special meeting. And I know that that makes everyone slightly nauseated. But I think there's not much more to be done. This is the situation as it is. It's how it's been presented to us and there really aren't a lot of options on that front. Matthew. Yeah, thanks. I just I just wanted to volunteer to be part of a smaller group to look at this if anyone else is interested. OK, that's true, too. I mean, I'm not given what's going on at the moment. I'm not sure that we really need the subcommittee that tends to take up in some ways a bit more time in terms of meetings. It seems fairly clear from the questions going around with some significant exceptions that there are some that there is feeling that something needs to happen from this body regarding this bill. And if so, that seems like a general conversation. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, people. I'm not always right. Sheila. OK, I'm not trying to call nobody out now, but who is on here whether the legislature or not is our connection to be giving us this information such as we missed up until now with S4. And my question to that is because I'm wondering because I feel like no, it's not a letter. It's a little bit more accountability than that. Like come to us, come to us, be accountable. This is what we're asking for. This is what we've said. This is what we need. This is what would work best for all of us. And if that's how we stand and if that's what we've communicated and if those people know that, then somebody should be accountable to us. And maybe they need to understand who we are and have a relationship with us so that we can work together and make sure that we're not missing what we're missing in these transactions. Well said, well said. Couldn't agree more. And each other, I just wanted to I think what you're saying is you want to be as Marshall was saying, I'm just going to use his term of art, but you want to be one of the usual suspects. I think that's totally fair. And I think that's totally accomplished, you know, accomplished something that you can accomplish. And I'm going to talk with Martin tomorrow and just reemphasize. If you send him an email, you can I'll talk to him tomorrow and say I just want to really emphasize that this group wants to be heard. And I'm on the group two and there's lots of folks. And I thought I thought maybe we had members of the legislature that have joined in the past. We did. OK, yeah. But I'm beginning to feel like they're here when when our interests definitely align. And when they may not, they're well, not here. That is concerning to me. It just feels like we'll listen to the R DAP when it's convenient and then otherwise not, which gives this body a mixed message, which as the chair of the body, I am bound, I think duty bound to confront. What exactly do you expect from this group?  And then other times we're not even consulted. I find that concerning. It's a little bit too much of people in power picking and choosing when they want to be accountable. And I think this group is interesting precisely because it is made up of community members and governmental actors and some people who are both and have been both and are now in different positions. I think that it's in a really good place to give some guidance and feedback and criticism of these things. And that has been supported largely. But then I really have to say I'm just stunned that this has gotten this far without it be without the sponsors or anybody else. And I'm not I'm not talking about people who are on the panel who are also giving testimony. I just think it's really remarkable that we get this really broadly this you know love fest from the legislature and here it's almost like oh don't say anything. It's weird. It's really weird and it goes to the function of this body. What are we supposed to do? I mean I'm not interested in writing reports that I have to tell people 12 times exist as opposed to doing something about this. Sheila your hand is up again. I'll stop pontificating. Yeah, and what's even more devastating about all this is this is involving our youth of color. Yep. And and as I've said before I'm hoping that I'm not sure we're going to go into for the next on the agenda. But this is why I really would like for our job to be focusing on the juvenile system because I think that people forget forgot or not remembering that that is part of our work as well. And we really need the people to know that the youth and youth of color and the disparities that they're experiencing. And even though we have representatives I know here on here it doesn't seem like we continue not to really focus on that area. And so this is once again an example of that and our real need to you know when person was talking about going upstream this is what we're talking about we need to go really upstream. Thank you. OK, moving on I would like to spend the time that remains to us considering the third item on the agenda of the state of DCF requests of this body. You will recall that there was homework on this. And I'm really not going to say much here. I've said enough tonight. I would like to have someone begin the discussion. Elizabeth gave us a very clear spreadsheet which is on the SharePoint site. Erin tagged that again for us this evening. It's been tagged several times. And I'd like people to weigh in right now. Grant take good notes on this because this is one where it will certainly form a framework or indeed an outline for part of the report that's due in December. And this is the word document right that says like E.M. Yeah, four six at the top four six twenty two. Yeah. OK, Erin. That's all I was going to say. I was I'm hoping that I put the correct document in the SharePoint because Eitan you said a spreadsheet. But the document I was looking at was from Elizabeth Morris and it was. Yeah.  No, that's fine. I just was nervous that I'd missed another now. Now I might have got somewhere. No worries. Thank you. Oh, anyway, onward to people. What was concerning? Where do you want to go with the requests from DCF? I'm happy to chat. I feel like I've talked a lot tonight, so I wanted to reserve some stuff. Sheila, you you up for it? Or are you still thinking? Or I'm just I don't mean to pick on anybody. It's just I want to get this going because we keep we keep having reasons to skip it. I'm I'm wondering if I have the correct doc if anybody can put it in the chat because I did do homework, but I don't know if it's off of the document that I think that somebody said I wasn't able to open up SharePoint. Ah, great. I believe we have a chat tonight. We write. Oh. Can somebody just drop the document in the email? Aaron, can you hand do OK? Thank you. I just want to apologize also to the group. I am flying blind with regard to this document right now. My computer is very barely letting me hang on to this Zoom meeting and I don't want to sacrifice that. But words seems to be the thing that is disrupting it. So I'm I've got open ears, but I can't see the document right now. OK. Well, let's start here. Does do people are are honestly are they ready to have this discussion? Or should we move on to the last item on the agenda and come back to this one? I'm happy to talk about the doc that Aaron sent out. I started marking it up today with with some questions and comments and be happy actually to circulate. I know as a republic body, you shouldn't be circulating things that are kind of moving without warning and meeting and all that, but happy to kind of get that that rolling. For my read of the document, it seemed like some of the first paid couple of pages appeared to be kind of pullouts from the 2019 report that didn't necessarily relate necessarily particularly to the juvenile justice system, but kind of a more general topics because when I was comparing it with the 2019 report, some of the bullet points sound felt familiar. Am I right about that part? I felt that. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I made it like numbered bullet points on the first page. I think that number one, that area about track existing federal requirements with respect to due process for limited English proficiency. I would I would love to hear like and I know Aaron, you had worked in the immigration context before. I think that there's the immigration topic is really important for, I would say, a training avenue for prosecutors, defense attorneys and and law enforcement, because one of the things that I think I was thinking about that first section, one thing to add to it is the immigration consequences. Even if something feels like a small issue, like a misdemeanor, it may actually result in Aaron, you know the term better than I do that because of the crimes of moral turpitude or there's there's a term of art in the INA that I just if we have the opportunity to educate the legislature, the public, etc. in that first bullet point about this, one of the one of the ways I think that our justice system could do a whole lot better. I say justice system sort of incorporates the juvenile system as well is when we have every opportunity to warn people that interactions with the justice system could result in, you know, immigration consequences. Many times it surprised sometimes defense attorneys, sometimes prosecutors. Oh my gosh, this person is here and there was there was opportunities as Sheila was saying upstream to maybe get that person going in another direction. Did it have to get all the way to a prosecutor's desk? And so I felt felt that a few times the enormity of something happened to not just do with criminal consequences, but immigration consequences. And number one made me kind of feel that again. So I don't know if that was the intention, but I felt like immigration comes up in number one. OK, Aaron, I'll just respond to that quickly. I love that idea, Tim. I would be happy to train anyone who wants it on. You know, deportability of any criminal conviction or criminal activity. I know the defender general's office does a really good job of training the public defenders. I did offer to provide a training to the Chittenden County state's attorney's office because they asked, but that offers on the table for any state's attorney's office who would want it. And in terms of training law enforcement at the next fair and impartial policing training, I will be presenting about immigration and kind of like what happens when somebody is put in ice custody. Just so law enforcement on the ground has a good understanding of actually like what happens to people when they're apprehended by ice. This is all to say happy to provide more trainings to anybody who wants it on that topic. Well, I was just going to say that sort of stuff you could include as sort of a response from the 2019 report to sort of say, here's some things that are happening like the defender general training and the AG's office being involved in the fair and impartial. I think there's been some updates in that one, too, and be good to capture that. And I will also let the rest of the state's attorneys know about your availability, Aaron. OK, anyone else? Tyler. If I may just share very briefly a context converse could the question that attorney leaders do not share to the very, very beginning makes me think, OK, not everybody was in this room when this report was first developed. The majority of this report was actually put together by Rebecca. I believe it was you and Susanna working together and there was like kind of putting together these are these are all these activities going on, right? Did I get that wrong or was it? No. And then I just want to say Jess Brown, too. Oh, and Jess, of course, sorry. So the three of you put this together. And so most of that is with the if we want to be having the conversation of the juvenile justice elements of this, those are the blue parts. There are a few pages down into it. So I don't want to stop the conversation. I also just want to bring to the attention that this isn't just the juvenile justice stuff. This is kind of putting together recommendations from reports from many different arenas. That are related to this work. And there are requests that Elizabeth and I had of this group is of the activities that we have going on of the recommendations that came out of ours. We were this small subcommittee of two. And then Rebecca, when you offered to join us three, where would the group like us to go was kind of the question that was logged out from us? So that's that's just the context for this. Thank you, Tyler, Rebecca. And I just add to because it is 737. It's helpful for me to get my head around where we're doing here. But what Susanna, Jess and I tried to do with this compilation was to pull from various sources starting with our R&DAP report, but looking elsewhere around the state, various reports to draw out recommendations that we could put in one place. So we could use this as a resource for us when we're having moments like this to sort of revisit and get our sense of where we wanna prioritize efforts. And I know tonight's discussion is focused on general justice. So I would add that what Elizabeth, I recall, did here was contribute based on her position, DCF, the known reports that she had seen and committees that were focused on juvenile law issues. And so this gets into stuff that's not just delinquencies, but also chin stuff, which I think there was discussion as to whether or not to do it because that falls outside of our mandate, specifically, as I understand it, we are focused on delinquencies and not to neglect and abuse side of things. But I think she put that in because there's a lot of overlap. So while there is the section on juvenile, I think what page is that? Juvenile Justice page 14, at least on my copy. I believe. I think as Tim pointed out earlier, a lot of these issues could overlap, but as Sheila is making a point, and I am in full support of making sure we spend time dropping on specifically juveniles and juveniles in the delinquency court systems and how we can address disparity issues. We just spent most of our hour and a half on S4, but it really was picking up what Marshall raised before, which he shared with us as I recall, his greatest concern for juveniles in that system to him, even though the numbers are small, the damage was greatest was for when kids are placed in the adult criminal system. And that was what got him back here on S4. So to me, I guess if I'm gonna, sorry, one last part, if I'm going to weigh in on an interest area, it would be to pick up on what Marshall has been talking to us about, anything that is dealing with and trying to keep kids out of adult courts and encouraging that to happen. Can I ask a question then? Would this conversation that I'm trying to get us into then be best put into, I mean, that the energy, I guess, for that would best go into the efforts that we're defining this evening to have an impact on S4? Because if so, we can just put this aside for right now and concentrate on that. Yeah, it's a bit being sidelined, but that's the way it happened. And that that may be where we need to go next rather than have this discussion that Elizabeth had asked us to have. Sheila. To answer your question, Aton, I think it's a yes and for me. I think that S4 encompasses some of the areas in which I think that we should be focusing. Again, I just think that we should really either have a duality of the criminal and adult juvenile system of work we work on or we should start shifting into how can we focus on the juvenile system? Some of the areas, whether they're mentioned in this report or the other one, one of the other reports I reexamined too was our December 4th report. And one of the things that I'm really interested in is mandated reporting and first contact and specifically both within schools but in organizational entities, et cetera, both the statutes and the law in general, and then how people choose to utilize that mandate or that power. And another one I'm really curious along with that is like attendance. I know that a lot of our youth end up in criminal or not maybe not so criminal proceedings, but they end up, their parents can end up in criminal proceedings, I believe, or family or whatever for lack of attendance and tardiness and things like that. That's often how sometimes somebody gets involved in the family. So I'm really curious about areas like that. I'm really curious about the first responders and how that links to mental health specifically and how we're addressing that specifically with youth right now. I'm really also interested in know your rights and for youth, not just on an adult level but really being able to whether it's a thing that's actually in schools for school curricula or whether it's something that comes in or how are we providing that information to our youngers and letting them know their rights and how are we like disseminating that information? So I know not all of that is necessarily reflected in the reports that you're talking about. Some of it is, but these are some areas and which from many reports are things that we've said in this body that I would like to continue for you to take away with but also for us to continue to work on and support. Great, thank you. Grant, put that all in bold face, if you would. Tim.  I mean, it sounds like the group wants to chat about S4 and delve into that. I think that's a good use of time for what it's worth as a panel member and happy to talk about that with anybody and then also on the report with the future looking towards December of this year for the report for this group. I just really today started delving into the 2019 one and some of the stuff that was put together and I was looking at like page seven, it had reference to prosecutorial policies and I actually last year, we published in combination and working with the ACLU, probably about 50 policies from state's attorneys that kind of sometimes touch on some of these things in our state. So I'll try to gather that because I think it will be helpful. But I think you had the report discussion combined with Rebecca just said might be good for a day where we don't have, we had good guests today, I think, very good guests. But I think it necessitated conversation which was really good for this group. Yes, but I'm also, I just want to say I'm really grateful for what Sheila just put in because I feel like that goes back to what Elizabeth had asked for from this document and that gives us a very broad approach to that. So Sheila, thank you, bless you. And I mean, I feel comfortable with that at the moment, Jeff. Yeah, basically I want to say what Sheila said and I'm pretty hot about that Brattleboro report and we didn't hear about it. That's unacceptable, totally, completely racist, unacceptable. Thank you. Here, here. All right, let's leave this then for now. We only have nine minutes left. I'm comfortable with saying we've had a full meeting. Anybody else feeling that? No, everybody else wants another two hours. We'll go to 10. Okay, I'm gonna recommend and I'm not making a motion because I can't, I'm gonna recommend that we stop now. That we stop now with the knowledge that I will start getting us going on S4 first thing tomorrow morning. That's great and we need to approve the minutes. Thank you, damn, thank you. Motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Seconded. I guess we'll vote if there's no discussion. There's no discussion. Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand or raise the something. All opposed. All abstentions. Okay. Can I just, before we do, before we do the next inevitable motion, can I just confirm our voting methodology? Because I believe last time you also gave us the option to screen to indicate a cent. Is that still an option or? Sure. Screen. We could all use it. Okay. Good. Thanks. Just making sure that's still on the table. Yeah, I know. I've taken many forms of a cent or dissent or, or I'm not interested or whatever. Yes. Absolutely. But that did carry. So the minutes are accepted as submitted. And I will get those to Anne Walker tomorrow so that she can post them on the page on the AGO website for the RDAP. Thank you, Sheila, because my brain is clearly mush. I would, I think I'm going to say, is there any more? Is there any, well, we've got a lot of new business. Anybody got any more? No. I want to say new business. Go for new business. The new business is just the announcement, the root social justice center is having a youth center dance party, which means at the root, we center blackness. We center our queer and trans youth and our youth with different abilities. We have a youth dance party on April 21st, which is Friday from seven to 10. We are physically accessible. And if you would like to join us and hang out, not really you adults, unless you want to shop around. But if you'd like to bring your youth and have them hang out in a safer space, come on down to Bradborough. Great. Thank you, Sheila. That's wonderful. We, that's, that's the note we needed to close on. That is the note we needed to close on. Thank you very much. Next meeting is the, well, our next scheduled meeting, shall I say, Derek, go ahead. Sorry before I keep going. I just had sort of an open point of curiosity. Maybe it's appropriate for a conversation at a later point, but wondering if there's any intersection between the work of the newly created truth and reconciliation commission and our DAP and what synergies may possibly be explored there. So I'll just put it out there, but now looking for discussion on it right now, just couldn't help but wondering about it. I was on that selection committee and that needs to happen another night, Derek.  Believe me. So, but I noted, duly noted, we'll go, we'll go there. Any other. Okay. Next meeting that is scheduled is the 9th of May. Be aware that there is the possibility, a distinct possibility of an emergency meeting before then. Please just keep that in mind. Of course, I'll write my, I know some people want one email. Obviously that is not going to happen. I will do my best to keep them to a minimum. So anyone want to go home or like, not look at their computer screen. You know what to do. If you ever hear that she's made a motion on seconding it. I'll second that.  That's okay. Thank you for seconding time. I heard it enough. All in favor of having dinner. I am all opposed. All just abstaining. Okay. Jen, should we put you down? Jennifer. Should we put you down as an abstention? No. I raised my hand that I'm sorry. Forgive me. Sorry. That's okay. Everybody were adjourned. Talk to you soon. Thank you so much. For a lot of hard work this evening.