Okay, we're back, we're live, I'm Jay Fidel, it's a given Monday, here we're going to do Think Tech Asia, and we're going to talk about inter-Korean relations and the Pyongyang Winter Olympics with two Korean professors who just happened to know each other. Actually they're married. One is Professor Yoon Kyung-na, that's the lady at my left, and Siok Woo Lee, Yoon Kyung-na is at Yonsei University, and Siok Woo Lee is at Inha University, and they're close enough so they can actually be husband and wife, live together, was it near Seoul, no, near Incheon? Near Seoul. Near Seoul. Near Seoul, okay, okay. The funny thing is that we all know that Korea is of interest in Hawaii, and it's of interest maybe lesser in the United States. But recently, and thanks to Kim Jong-un, I suppose we should thank him for this, people have paid more attention to Korea than ever before, really, since the war, actually. And that's why the Korean Games, the Olympic Game, Winter Games now in Pyongyang are so important and interesting to everyone because it's a magnet, it's a lightning rod for everything, okay? And that's what we're going to talk about today. And if you don't mind, I'm going to talk to the lady first, okay? Because lady's first, right? So let me explain what I mean by that. Yoon Kyung-na is studied, and you've been on the show before to talk about this, yeah? About feminism and women's rights, and women's rights play into the Olympics. So let's talk about that first. And this is about comfort women during World War II, right? How does that play into the Olympics right now? Actually Japanese Prime Minister Abe came to Korea to participate in an opening ceremony of Pyongyang Olympics. And the issue that he raised with our President Moon was, you know, a comfort woman. Actually in 2015, our ex-President Park and Abe made kind of agreement about how to solve the comfort women issues between two nations. And the way that they reached agreement was not agreed by the Korean people in general and comfort women themselves. So many of Korean people just want to make it redone and redo it again, redo it. So what was the flaw? What was missing from the agreement made earlier? They didn't participate in these comfort women's opinions in the agreement. So it wasn't reflected in the agreement itself. But how is the agreement less than accurate? Actually they never asked for money from the Japanese government, but they agreed to give them money. It wasn't that big money, nonetheless. Reparations. Right, right. But they didn't ask for the money. They did ask apology, since the apology from the Japanese government. But the agreement didn't include that part. So most of Korean things that you have to be redone by this newly born government. I mean, the regime of President Moon. But Abe is quite angry about it and he would never take the request of Korean citizens. But he this time brought about the issue again with President Moon. But he said, but we don't know how it goes. You mean it's not done yet? No. They're still talking? Yes. In the past, during the Olympic Games, the Korean government and the U.S. government agreed upon delaying the U.S., how do they call this, both sides of regular exercise. Even the military exercise? Right. Right. We decided to delay the military exercise during the Olympic Games. But Abe didn't want it. He wanted to go ahead with the exercise. Right, right. So he asked President Moon that you shouldn't delay the exercise. And President Moon said, that's our domestic matters. You shouldn't be involved in this kind of decision. So there is an issue between two nations. And when you say issue, you mean they don't agree? Right, right. They don't agree. So this is very interesting. As I was speculating earlier, the Olympics is a kind of magnet for all these issues and anything could come up, even if it wouldn't otherwise come up. So you have here what, President Moon is asking Abe to re-do the agreement, or is Abe asking Moon to re-do the agreement? So what are their respective positions then on how the agreement should be redone? It should be more inclusive of comfort women's opinions. Ah, okay, okay. And that would be specifically what points? I mean, as I told you before, since the apology from the Japanese government. So the comfort women would be entitled under the new agreement to an apology from the Japanese government? Mm-hmm. That didn't happen before? No. Interesting that it didn't happen before, because it would seem obvious. Right. I guess it was some interesting negotiations that went on before. Actually, it was before, but Abe's regime kind of reversed it. Okay. Mm-hmm. So Abe wants to be conciliatory about this, am I right? Is it? True. No, the Japanese position and Abe's position is that they want to close this issue as early as possible. He wants to. He wants to close it. Right. He wants to satisfy the expectations of the comfort women. Yes. That's good of him, isn't it? Yes. And from that agreement, so-called that this, you know, we don't have any tax version of the agreement. It's the post-conference, they buy the two ministers of the foreign affairs to countries that make a speech statement what they agree, right? And in the agreement, so that the agreement, they want to close that the comfort women issues, they completely and inversely. So that as you mentioned, that that agreement does not reflect fully about what the victims they want, so that after change of the government, the South of Korea, the government, they investigate what is going on at the time. And that the team declared that there is some issues to come out to that issue, so that they have to say that it is unable, they are not able to comply with the agreement. So that is now one of the hard issues between Korea and Japan. And over the issues where the Abe participated in the Pyeongchang Olympics, the Japanese that that issues was big obstacles for Japan, so Abe to participate in the opening ceremony. So when they have a meeting between the Japan and Korea, they talk about the issues or said, but as you mentioned that they had, you know, they have disagreements on the issues still, right? Now the agreement only concerns the comfort women or is there more to it than that? The debt issues are about the comfort women issues. That is so interesting. So how is this going to wind up? I mean, right now, is it an active negotiation right now or is it waiting for the Olympics to be over? Where are we going on this? Maybe not during the Olympic Games because it's a peaceful day. Everybody should be smile, happy, okay, but after the games are over, they'll get to it. I suppose there's plenty of pressure that they should finish the job. So what do you think will happen? Will the comfort women, will they be represented in this deal? Will there be an appropriate topology? For the time being, it should be very difficult for both sides of nations because Japanese citizens and Korean citizens are not agree upon the agreement that Abe and our ex-president made. So I think it will go on for the time being. Oh gee, too bad. I mean, it seems clear what should happen. Is it a matter of face? Is that what we're talking about here? I mean, are there other diplomatic issues under the surface that make it hard for them to come together or is it just a question of national face? Not only comfort women. The comfort women is one of the issues derived from the Japanese colonization over Korea. And we also have some territory that many time issues between two countries. And also forced labor issues. So that when I come here to talk about the legacy of the late Professor Jombandai, I briefly mentioned about the what kinds of issues we have with Japan. And all the issues derived from that colonial period is not solved at all. Still at this moment, you know, we got independence in 1945. It's still, in the 70 years, more than 70 years have passed. But still we're talking about the past issues. Yeah. Well, to take this out for a minute, take the comfort women issue out. Take this agreement out. Can you tell me what the current diplomatic and popular relationship is between Korea and Japan? Is it friendly? How friendly? Aside from this issue, are there other points of contention? I think the diplomatic and also the strategic perspective is quite hard. Because as you know, that traditional alliance should go to the United States, Japan and Korea at the one side. And the other one is maybe Russia and China and the North Korea. But at this moment, it's quite a different posture we experience in these days. Because the United States wants Korea to talk with Japan in a more favorable condition. But the dead issues are still to the side that cannot overcome easily. So that stands in the way. Yeah. And also, you know, in terms of the issues of the U.S. soil deployment in the Korean Peninsula, it carries the tension between Korea and China. But as you know, the economic ties between China and Korea is very strong in these days. So that the one aspect of the economic relations and the other relations based on the security issues, it's a little bit difficult to pin down how these self-critical governments to put that diplomatic, the posture for the future. So in a sense that this Pyeongchang Olympics, they provide us with a very good momentum in some sense. Although we have to see what will happen after the Olympics. But the Korean government in particular, the President Moon's emphasis on the Korean Peninsula issue is that, you know, so-called the sit-in-the-driver-sit. He wants to sit-in-the-driver-sit to drive the, want to be a main driver for the Korean Peninsula issues. But the issue is that the atmosphere surrounding the car is not quite easily to navigate. So that the issues also give us some of the difficulties for the United States how give South Korea to navigate idea, how to move. So what's the, what's the sea change on this? I mean, I take it that the Olympics and an opportunity for discussing this kind of issue. The Olympics in general causes people to look at it and see what, you know, what is the nature of the relationship we're working together on this, we're together in Pyeongchang. But what's the sea change? Are things getting better? Are they getting more friendly? Are they getting less friendly? Are they the same? It's quite interesting thing to start looking back the history between inter-Korean relations. We had two inter-Korean summit meetings, a trend year 2000 and year 207. The time the Korea was governed by the Democratic, or so-called the progressive regime, which emphasized the engagements rather than isolation of North Korea. And this Pyeongchang is, I think, in a sense, quite a good moment, because only when South Korea has the progressive regime, in the Olympic games, either Olympic games or the sports games, we have a chance to have a united team, right? No chances we can see that when conservative parties, the words are ruling a party, the governing party. So that this is maybe a good moment to change the whole situation, because it's the beginning of the new government. But the thing is that the atmosphere will change whenever the North Korea, a little bit, you know, give us the, you know, different signs. You know, this Pyeongchang participation, this Pyeongchang from the North Korea, gave us some sense. North Korea wants to talk, maybe talk to South Korea, through the South Korea to the United States, give us some message how the sphere will be changed for the future. But like what North Korea did, like the launch of the missiles, or the development of the nuclear system, they may be, you know, very powerful strong the backlash inside of the Korea too. So that I want to see that if North Korea, they give us the South Korea to play a room, they give us the very good benefits that many, many stakeholders in this region. Although, you know, we are kind of suspicious of North Korea's strategy, giving kind of confusing messages all the time. You know, reunification is not just political matters, it is also cultural matters. We know that they are sending two confusing messages. But, you know, whenever we see the two nations combined into one team, the mood or our, you know, emotional level toward North Korea is changing. What is it changing to? I mean, we feel more friendly about not North Korean regime, but North Korean people, right? We kind of feel a lot of sympathy or... They're family. Yeah, we are. So it's not just political matters, it's just, it is very emotional and cultural matters too. So, you know, although they are sending two confusing messages, having this kind of event as a one team is very important. Well, yeah. On the other hand, you know, Kim Jong-un is not a stranger to playing games. And I don't mean sports games. I mean, diplomatic games. And I mentioned to you that there was a discussion on National Public Radio on Saturday, which I thought was very interesting, where they were making this comparison between the sports games and the Kim Jong-un games, and saying that, you know, he knew how you feel, you, the South Koreans, feel about North Korea, how tantalizing it is for you to think that in our lifetimes, there's a possibility of reconciliation of one Korea. Wouldn't that be fabulous? Just thinking about it now today with you, it's fabulous. But maybe he's just taking advantage of that. But we are not being misled by his strategy. We know there's another mess. You know, he plays games. But I want to enjoy this moment, you know, after the two nations between one, this kind of emotional cultural unification is very important. After the two nations become one, without, what if I have just antagonism or enemy kind of feelings about them, how can we beat one nations, you know? Yeah, yeah. We're going to take a short break. Okay, when we come back, I really want to hear about how you think this is going to play out after the Olympics. You know, it's really nice to see, you know, the touchy-feely things happening during the Olympics. But the question is, what is the long game? Or even the intermediate game that he's playing? So exciting. I can hardly wait till this break is over. Good afternoon. My name is Howard Wigg. I am the proud host of Code Green, a program on Think Tech Hawaii. We show at three o'clock in the afternoon every other Monday. My guests are specialists, both from here and the mainland, on energy efficiency, which means you do more for less electricity and you're generally safer and more comfortable while you're keeping dollars in your pocket. Hey, aloha, standing energy man here on Think Tech Hawaii, where community matters. This is the place to come to think about all things energy. We talk about energy for the grid, energy for vehicles, energy and transportation, energy and maritime, energy and aviation. We have all kinds of things on our show, but we always focus on hydrogen here in Hawaii. Because it's my favorite thing. That's what I like to do. But we talk about things that make a difference here in Hawaii, things that should be a big changer for Hawaii. And we hope that you'll join us every Friday at noon on Stand the Energy Man and take a look with us at new technologies and new thoughts on how we can get clean and green in Hawaii. Aloha. Okay, we're back. We're live and now we get to the most interesting part about speculating into the future. Two professors to help us do this. So we're in suspended animation. Okay, the exercises that were planned are, I guess, being suspended for a little while. We're talking about sort of olive branch kind of messages that have been sent. At the same time, we have nuclear threats that have been sent. And somehow the Olympic Games, as they often are in the world, become a lightning rod, a pivot point. And you have to look down the other side of that and figure out how the Olympic Games have affected these issues, what's going to happen on the other side. So I guess my question is, what is going to happen on the other side? Where are we going to go?  You know, they end. They're going to end pretty soon. What's going to happen? Who's going to know the right answer? But I think after we have good mood between North Korea and South Korea, I think it will be very hard for Kim Jong-un to find very good rationale to shoot a missile again, right? He sent his sister, you know, try to talk. He's going to look bad. If he starts making threats right after the Games are over, it's going to depreciate any value that he might have had in the world view.  I don't think he want to look like a kind of irrational, I mean, towards the world. I mean, he tried to look good.  So I think after having good atmosphere and mood and cultural reunification and seeing each other's cultural performance, I think it will be very hard for him to, you know, shoot a missile again. So I personally think it's quite a good idea to make him difficult to find out a good reason to, you know, shoot a missile. On a moral level, or at least an appearance level. Now, you've been writing about and studying security, maritime security and other security. And that, I guess, you know, refers a lot to the security between the two Koreas and in that region. So how do you feel about this? You know, if I had something about the discussion, is that, you know, if we look at the history of the inter-Korean relations, and I think South Korea already paid a lot of tuition. So we know what will be going on after Olympics. I think it is a bit premature to say that North Korea, they abandoned the nuclear program. That is my personal understanding. However, if you look at, right now, the geopolitical, the security dynamics in North Asia, I don't think that North Korea is only a key player to contribute to the instability of the region. Who else? Right. I believe that it's the United States. You heard it here on Think Tech. Right. And it's quite odd to hear about support. You know, the bloat knows the policy and preventive the attack against North Korea, despite the fact that the strong ally in South Korea, they want to be a seat in the driving seat. And I think the law of the United States should be limited, as I mentioned, as the navigation. So if you drive your car, you pretty much refer that to the navigation, right? But if you know the way, and also you can sometimes refer that to what the navigation says, but who decides the driver? But if the navigation is to say too much, I don't think that is a good thing for the driver. So my understanding of the whole situation is that after Olympics, still there is some concerns. North Korean tactics of strategy is not what we think, but I think despite the fact that we have to engage more with North Korea rather than isolation and give us the more time for inter-Korean relations to talk directly, bilaterally. You know, since then maybe United States feel a little bit uncomfortable, so-called the Trump passing, do not refer to the Trump march, and directly talk to the inter-Korean to decide a very important one, let's say more of the concrete pathway for the future of the inter-Korean relations. They may be a bit uncomfortable to the United States, but however that if that is what really people want to live in that area, I believe the United States give the way for them to move again. Now there was a piece in the New York Times today for the proposition, and I can't give you the detail on this, but for the proposition that to the extent that there's the possibility of rapprochement between North and South, this actually undermines American influence, the Trump administration's influence in North Korea, and especially with South Korea, with whom the United States has had a very close relationship for many, many years. So do you agree or disagree with that? No, I partially agree with that, and there is a possibility, you know, the United States, the government, just strongly believe that what happened in Korean Peninsula currently is not good with the U.S. national security interests. However, as I mentioned, what will be the future of the national interests of the United States, the stability of the region is, I believe, the best, so that do not provoke much against what North Korea is doing. And in a sense, looking back at the small story about what happened in the Pyongyang Olympics, the vice president, the Pan's, do not even talk to the people that came from the North. I don't think that he didn't need that. That was silly, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He missed a really good opportunity. He came out of a very small on that. Right, I think he would have been restful about it. I mean, it was a great opportunity, you know, to initiate the relationship between North Korea and the U.S. And it wouldn't have hurt anybody, you know? Right. It's just being friendly, what's wrong with that, you know? Look for a possibility of peace. Right, right. His personal emotion could be like that, but it's diplomatic side. You know, he should have been more diplomatic with that matter. Well, this administration is not known for the nuance of his diplomatic policy. But let me ask you one last question, okay? And I think I have part of the answer. We only have a minute or two left here. What is your advice to the United States now? It's as I mentioned that the repeatedly I want to emphasize is that United States do not provoke that the stakeholders in the region, like South Korea and North Korea. South Korea want to do based on what they believe. I mean, back out? Is that what you mean? No, not the back out. But as I mentioned that the law of the navigation, right, to give us some advice, but not the provoke directly using the term of the so-called the broad-nose policy or the prevent. The Twitter approach. Right, right. So that as I mentioned that who is a key player in the make instability in North Asia, I believe that the Kim Jong-un and North Korea is one of them, right? But I really hope that Trump will be, not will be the second. More reserved. Yeah, more. The key player for the purpose. So what about Kim Jong-un? He's complex. He's a very interesting man. They will be writing about him for a thousand years. Right. But what is your advice to him? What do you think he should do for the benefit of his country and for the benefit of the possibility, however large or small it may be of reunification? I just want him to be serious about the destiny of the peoples of the peninsula. Don't take advantage of the fact that two nations are divided. I don't know if he has that kind of ability, but he should be. He should be very sincere, more sincere. As a Korean person. Right, right, right. And Mr. Moon, what's your advice to him? It's not an easy question. Actually, I think he tries to make a balance between progressive citizens and very conservative citizens. He tries to be balanced, but sometimes he'll listen to what he's heart saying. So, yeah. He can't go too far wrong if he listens to your heart. Thank you, professor. Nice to meet you. Thank you, professor. So nice to have you here. Our conversation is only starting this morning, I'm sure. Okay, thank you. Aloha. Aloha.


My name is Tania Lunsford-Links. I'm a writer and an interdisciplinary artist. I'm so excited to be an artist in residence here because I grew up here. When I explain to folks what I'm doing at the library, it's kind of absurd. I get to talk to people and read things and touch things and be in the archives and make art as a part of my art practice. I've been thinking about oral histories and I come from a family of folks who keep our history alive by talking about it. This is the first opportunity I've had to just work in my element in a site that's so special to me and just be curious and kind of figure out where the art wants to go.


Let's just, I guess, get going with who we have and say oh good, now the lights are going out. Yeah, this is really happening. Pat, why don't you introduce your... Yeah, hi. Pat Atilio here. I've had the working group invites all along, but one reason or another I haven't been able to join until now. I thank you for having me and I will be a fly on the wall and make only constructive comments. So carry on. Tuzana. Hello, Tuzana, good to be with you. This is Rachel Equity Director. And Eitan, if it's helpful, if you can't see the full participant list, I'm happy to go down and call the roll for you because I can see the full list. The full list. Oh, that sounds like a good idea. He's got you frozen. Okay, should I?  Great. I'm going to do what my dad always says and take initiative and I'm going to call the roll. Yep. Next I've got a phone number ending in 9147. That's Robin from Crime Research. All right. Ian. Hi, Ian Loris. I'm Eitan's assistant note taker. All right, Karen. Hi, everyone. Karen Gannett, Crime Research Group. Eitan, I don't remember if you introduced yourself. Would you like to do so? Hi. Theoretically, I'm the chair, but I'm actually technologically challenged. Pat has already gone. Julio. Let me make myself visible here. Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner, Defender General's Office. Thank you. We're too. We're not seeing him as they them there's data engineer appointed by Susana Davis. All right, Mr. Chair, that completes the attendance. Wow. I, you know, it's funny. I think I did. We just have a very small group tonight. Monica couldn't make it. Evan couldn't make it. Alan couldn't make it. He thought Elizabeth would be able to be here. Sheila has unfortunately had a death in her circle. So she won't be able to make it for a bit here. And I'm trying to think of who else said they couldn't make it. I think Evan may not have been able to. So it really is just this very small group. And let's just forge ahead and get as much done as we can. I thank you all for being patient. I get really angry when technology doesn't work. I'm going to throw things. All of that maturity goes right out the window. And I was really, really close. So thank you very much for being very patient and understanding. To start off, I wanted to say I had a very, my brain didn't work very well this week. One thought that I did have that sort of connected to where we were at the end of the large meeting on Tuesday was that the community met. I mean, we have to work out who this governing body is. But I was going to suggest that the community members, the people with lived experience, there's a particular term that the tool fit uses that I can for some reason not remember. But that those help with the nuts and bolts body that Karen and Monica had proposed, but that they also sit on the governing body. And the reason I thought useful is not merely the continuity, but what that continuity means. In other words, that they will then have a sense of where things need to go and where they can go. Because they will have sat through discussions about what data exists, what data don't exist, what can exist, what can't. All those sorts of things. In other words, it serves in a strange way as a sort of education. So that once the body gets going, actually governing, they've really got it, or at least that's my hope. That was my major thought this week. In terms of thinking about who the governing body is, didn't get that far. But I did get to the blending idea. I like that idea, Ton. I have to admit that even though I recommended and was very familiar with AISP's toolkit at the beginning of August, I'm right now today just coming into it, meaning to have gone through and reviewed what they recommended for the actual exercise of identifying the board members. Do any of you have that page number handy or page numbers or can recall the part of it? Because I also didn't come in. I figured we would work together on that exact thing tonight. So you're hoping that my computer might actually function, which would be, God, I'm trying to get to the toolkit. Fantastic. No, and Susanna just put it in the chat. Oh, okay. And if anyone has, because I see it's 76 pages and I know there was, I remember seeing... It's near the beginning. Is it the page 40 on mapping assets and engaging community? I think so. That's what I remember, because it was very clear about how to choose people. And I thought that was... Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I just agree with Susanna's recommendation, specifically 42. Step three, I mean, the earlier steps was about mission, not to skip those steps, but in terms of the actual 6Ps, identifying the 6Ps in your community and their asset dimensions. Let's see. I mean, the reality is with this is I think what we would be able to do is quote it and put it in the report and simply hope that it has meaning for the legislature. I don't think that we are going to be able to do much more than that. Suspicion is that what will happen will be something like what happened with the criminal justice council where the governor appointed 12 people on the recommendation. Well, I mean, what? There were people recommended by the two NAACP chapters. And he took them. I think it may end up being something a skin to that, though, as we say, we can recommend this. I'm just saying, I don't, you know, I think we're limited to some degree in what we're going to be able to get. No, I'm hearing you. Karen, you've got your hand up. Yeah, I just I just wanted to say, I think it's a really good idea to reference and put the link in for that document in our report, because it has so much good information in it. And I just think it's a really valuable resource for the governing body and the nuts and bolts committee both. And just to have it be a guiding document. Okay. Okay. Witchie. Yeah, I agree that linking it is important as like, but very, but I would almost want like the specific pages, especially like when we think about page 36 that talks about identify your stakeholders. Like, it's like very like I look at this and I'm like, Oh, this is like, I know exactly who should be at the table when I look at this list. And, and so it's important to like, make sure that we know that we have saying who's going to be part of that table considering all the conversations we've had. I'm also wondering, isn't one of our outputs supposed to be like something like a bill. Not just a report. Yes. Yes. So I think we can almost like, you know, but being carefully, be careful not to plagiarize but almost like copy and paste a section of like who should be at this table because we talk about like the people who own the data that we're going to fund it. Who's going to use it that other like public interest groups, etc. Just want to know that that we should, we should make sure that we have that we're able to help. Focus who should be at the table. Not just like here read this. I'll take a stab at this this week. I actually have some, I shudder to say I have free time, because that seems like you're telling bragging to people, but I have some space this week where I could actually take a stab at writing that. Rebecca. So I do. Thanks, which I think it is 34. That was 36 sorry identifying your stakeholders. And yes, and yes, in terms of Karen in which your recommendation of linking and going even more detailed and page numbers and linking but what if could we tonight even take a stab at identifying some of the obvious. Other stakeholders whose engagement is central to data infrastructure is what their point was bullet to other stakeholders other direct stakeholders who can facilitate success, but we're not part of the core group and other stakeholders and then and then the sub questions. I'm just wondering if we do you want to try to take a stab at identifying specifics. I would. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. If we start with core stakeholders can do do people agree that the R DAP government reps are based starting point at least for the government stakeholders is that right or not should we not maybe we shouldn't start with any presumption just start with a clean slate actually huh. Yeah, let's do that let's do that let's come in with no pre preset. We pre pre judgments. I was thinking geographically. And thinking of groups around the state. And I don't know what I say geographically I'm not sure what I was doing I'm not sure that I was doing it by county or. But thinking of groups that represent historically stigmatized communities. And looking at getting a sense of who those. You're going in and out. And then talking about representatives from each of these some, you know, there'd be somebody from each of them. I'm not sure what to do. I think still going in and out. You are but I a little bit. I'm returning your video. Turning my bit. Yeah. I hope this is better. Okay, how is this the double NAACP chapters. The pride center would be a big one. The analog to the pride center whose name I can never remember even though I live in Wyndham County. I don't know if Zeta runs it out in the open or outright that out in the open. Thank you. And outright. And I mean I think we should get a. It should be a really sort of comprehensive list of those groups. And then we can work from there. Does that seem reasonable. I think it's a good resource for the legislature if even an appendix we provide a list of all of the organizations we think should at least be in the consider, you know, in the running are considered, you know, considered. Or relevant for this. Whether or not it's at the table, it's or, you know, I like it a ton. I would add ALV. I would add migrant justice. I would add, you know, ACLU. Other other groups you guys want to toss out. I put in the check. Oh, racial justice alliance. Yes, great. This is Robin any mental health organizations. Not yet, but let's put do you have some specific suggestions. What will disorganization is. Mad Vermont. Mad freedom. Mad freedom. There's now the group. Whoops, I lost you a ton. The whites. Mad freedom. Isn't it mad freedom and freedom. Yeah. Yes. The other thing I wanted to say just following the thread of intersection points. We know that in Vermont people of color skew younger so it would be really helpful to couple our efforts with generational equity things or at least to think about youth. As an interested party what's the word not interested party but you know what I mean. Stakeholder. Right. I recommend Washington County youth services because they do a lot of community engagement with youth and at least in Washington County. Great.  Yeah, I just also want to call attention that it's important that I definitely agree that all these community organizations should be at the table. I also think it's worth noting that those who own the data and those who are going to use the data should also be at the table in order to actually be able to have a conversation of what's possible. Right. Thank you. Thank you. So department corrections DCF states attorney's offices. The center general's office. Again, I'm just thinking big not being censoring on my list department of ed. Right. Judiciary. Judiciary. No, I didn't get that yet. So somebody from DPS and then somebody from the data governance boards of the cops. So they'll have one when they right now they've got two data governance boards night. Then they'll have one, and then maybe there will be none. Sorry. I made you laugh though. Yeah, so the cops and then you said DCF and it's always always, you know, sometimes people invite mental health to these meetings and sometimes they don't invite mental department of mental health. I've never figured out when or why or how, but I'm just saying somebody might invent invite them. I can imagine there being friction between mad freedom and the department. Sure. But department of mental health maybe we should worry about that. Yeah, they own data. And it may be that, you know, that's true because that's protected health data. But at least data in the aggregate or data that is, you know, can be added to data sets that could help inform what we're seeing in different areas of the state or something like that. And Rebecca, the CJC. Yeah, because they're separate and have their own data collection efforts. What, what, what? What's a CJC? I'm sorry. I was. Oh, I'm sorry. Community justice centers. Thank you. They do some of the diversion programs. They do a lot of innovative programming, but they do keep their own data and don't necessarily share it with anyone. Right. Okay. Pat, you have your hand up and then witchy. Yeah, this, this may be very obvious, but yeah. And we're taking notes here. You want to bucket the, these different stakeholders by, you know, what their role is, if they're, you know, if they're contributors, if they're receivers, if they're just consulted. You know, we can use the breakdown that's in that document. But that'll, that'll be helpful to make sure we've got everybody covered, I think. Well, that Ian, can I ask, while you're taking these notes, when you send them to me, I'm going to just, I'll like, write that in when you get them to me. What, you know, sort of the roles of these people. So if you just keep good notes about who we're throwing out here, that would be helpful. And Julio has put three lists into the chat as well. Thank you. Witchy. Two things. One. That's kind of nice. I went to that for one moment. Go ahead. Okay, two things. One, making sure that we bring some disability lens in here. So I'm sure there's an organization out there that can help provide that and be in that committee or be in the running. And another one is just recognize wanting to sort of recognize that power dynamics is a real thing in a committee like this. And wanting to make sure that, you know, like the community should have and community organizations should have a powerful voice, and not to overshadow necessarily the data owners or data users, but just noting that who are we doing this for? And recognizing that when we establish some type of, you know, a decision making structure or whatever it is that we decide. But when we put these people together that we do it in recognition of how power dynamics are going to play into this and that we empower those who need to be empowered. Okay. I think I have a question if you go champ. Go for it. Okay, thank you. So as listening to what you talked there and I was thinking about some of the ways that we do our projects. And that we pulled together stakeholders for each project that we have, because we want different areas of expertise in the room.  And so I was thinking about that in context of the Bureau, as you're going to propose it. And not that anyone likes reporting, but I think giving the director or whatever position a requirement to put together different stakeholder groups so that you're not burning out, especially the community members who were going, you know, so you don't have to go to every meeting if it really not touching. Sorry. If it's really not touching on what you're doing, and that the director puts a report to the legislature every year. And to our depth, these are the people we consulted. And this is their impact that they had. So it's forcing kind of like a record keeping and an impact analysis of the meetings that you're having so that people aren't just going to meetings for the sake of it. But also really documenting how people are, how their voices are being. I don't want to say that we're used from going to used in this process to create the data sets and the data integration. Okay. Well, do you have anything to add to that because usually have these really subtle philosophical points that you combine with the technical know how that I'm getting I'm gotten a little bit hooked on. Well, I'm glad I'm bringing value. I don't, I don't have tools or anything in mind. I think that addressing the power dynamics is going to be like it's going to need to be a group effort, like all of us putting our brains together. I think Robin, I'm sorry if I got your name wrong, but I think Robin just mentioned a wonderful way to create some type of accountability around who is saying what and how and like what decisions are ultimately being made by whose voice. So I think that's definitely a tool that can help be like help address that. And, you know, I wanted to also just support what her second or what he said earlier about when we when we choose this group and I know we're doing a big we want to capture all the possible people who should we should think about and not miss and get this long list and then we should consider the ideal size. What is a, you know, I don't think it's, again, it's seeming like we're less inclined to come up with a specific actual board suggested membership and more of philosophical and fundamental principles that should be considered maybe I don't know maybe we'll get to something more concrete but size but but more importantly what you pointed out I just want to get lost is weight that that that we can't have these numbers were ultimately we're losing sense of. There's just one or two or three in proportionate voices from from the people who actually are the data. Right. Right. As compared to everyone else we also want to make sure they're they're they're involved because they they own the data they control the data they could obstruct data sharing right all of that stuff but we want to make sure and I think that's really keen I agree with witchy that we have to be cons of like if we're going to build in protections here that is a fundamental starting point which is that whatever numbers whoever's at the table. We should agree on the representative way of who is at the table just overall right making sure that they're not people who are stand to lose the most. Again people who have the lived experiences and people represent their interests.  I'm going to be very honest about this because. I realized I mean we've named what probably I mean so far this body has at least 30 people on it probably. I mean I don't think that that's an overstatement given the conversation so far. I'm just and that's that I just that's so unworkable.  I am not good at that so I'm just putting that out there. I hope that other people are really good at it because I'm going to have a hard time narrowing it down. I'm really good at coming up with a list of. Oh let's put them on let's put them on and so on but but then we would have a body of 100. Yeah I don't I don't know if others agree with that. I agree that we're not looking to have a representative of every racial justice oriented organization on this board. I do think there's a point where it just becomes unworkable. But what people are what I'm hearing is something someone representing mental health the intersectionality. We want to make sure our the key ones that we want to make sure representative maybe that's how we approach it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's a good idea. Pat. Yeah and again it's kind of the same comment I made before that if we create the if we create buckets like key stakeholders or whatnot it'll help the prioritization. We don't you know it would be feudal to come and try to come over there like a numeric way of how much influence a particular organization has. But if you have the core group and then the group that you inform of the group that you consult occasionally and kind of define the role all those roles or categories of stakeholders that'll help you with that. Bucketing. Okay. It's a good list so far. I think. And so far we haven't tried to divide them up based on juvenile and adult. One of my recommendations from there. The other is do you remember when we had that demographic. Decision making point. In our report of last year and then we went and and identified further within the demographics category what we were hoping to capture. I wonder if that's our starting. I don't know. I'm thinking Pat about your suggestion about breaking up the suggested lists right now into buckets. And I'm thinking of maybe calling each bucket. Can we come put some labels on some of those buckets and try to. Sure. Put them in. Well for a starting point you could use what's in the in the AISP document the core stakeholders the other direct stakeholders. And we can just modify that if you want to starting point. I'm looking at page 36 there. Right. Works for me when she. Do I just want a clarification the the. Criminal in data stuff source for young folks and for adults in the criminal system do they come from separate data systems or they just come from. Yeah. Oh God. The courts adjudicate sorry the courts adjudicate everybody and we have a unified system which makes us better than other states. So you would get juvenile disposition data as far as you know how many kids were sentenced to probation or adjudicated you know and since we've expanded the juvenile court to include a broader definition of juveniles. That information will all come from the judiciary. One of the groups that that has information about juveniles that don't have information about adults is DCF and DCF is often involved in the. Truancy cases and other cases that involve juveniles as are the CJC's. Some of them have one actually has a truancy program. So yeah no different places. Sorry. Okay. Well I'm glad I asked for that clarification. Thanks. That's for Department and Ed I throw in there. Right. Yeah. Where's the more overlap with the courts and they have from the juvenile crime and and adults sectors I'd say courts. States Attorney's Office Attorney General's Office right. Defender General's Office. Not the OC. Well. I mean there's crossover with youth. Yeah. Yeah. Cross over with youth offenders. Yeah. So. But but we do have DCF on the list and DCF. I know that in the past Sheila had expressed interest in the other side of DCF which is the termination of parental rights. And the taking away of kids and into custody. So once you get DCF at the table they have two primary data systems they were born in 1984 the data systems. So there you go. And yeah but they have two data systems. It's the same data system that the same two data systems that collect information for both their delinquency stuff and their care and protection. Elizabeth. Oh. Go ahead. Yeah I was just going to add to that a little bit. Yeah our data systems are from the early 1980s so they are incredibly limited. So I will just kind of leave that there for more of the details of that. But it can be difficult for us to even get data on our own and to figure out what our current case load is or looks like or has for certain periods of time. But we are in the process of starting some of the beginning steps to transitioning to CWIS for our child welfare which is which is great but it's only small portions of it. It's not the whole the whole data changeover. Okay. With with she. Yeah I have a follow up question and I'm sorry if I'm taking us down a rabbit hole feel free to pull me back out. But I'm a most wondering should our report then include making sure that there's additional resources for these departments that we're going to want like DCF to make sure that you know data is being able to take care of because like it's going to be kind of it'll it'll be bad if we're like hey DCF give us data and we're like well where are the resources I don't know so it's making sure that we include that in the report I guess. There will need to be a pointed paragraph. About funding. We have done that before. Pointed paragraphs are not foreign to the RDA. We can write pointed paragraph about this is going to cost you. I will just get over it. Which they either will or they won't I mean. I mean I don't know you know we can we're making a suggestion we can't we're not the lawmakers. And so I mean I think you know it's important. Certainly as a veteran of last summer. It's really important for us to bear that mind. Because we we went down collectively went down a rabbit hole last summer. I don't even remember which one it was it we went we were sowing the weeds on a data question. And it was like all of a sudden it was like whoa we're just like not educated to do this. And everybody and went let's pull back we can't answer this. And try to be mindful of that with this report as well so we don't. That sucked in anywhere. We're back. You're you're like. I'm taking notes and building columns and then making a mess of my own formatting but Elizabeth. Good to see my list for core stakeholders for the juvenile side versus the adult side is longer adding basically department that DCA. I added ADS and CJ C's to both sides of those. But barge providers are actually the ones who primarily work with you juveniles in comparison to CJ C's so I would just add that in on the barge side and they have contracts with DCF. Right. And we have all of those contracts critical. I mean we talked about certain providers from mental health on the adult side. Who would you see as the as the critical service providers and others who or other organizations for on the juvenile side. Just capture not lose specifically for mental health or on a broader sense a broader sense for juvenile delinquencies. Definitely the barge would be number one on on our end and then some of our residential programs to be quite honest like you know thinking about seal etc. So I would want that that would I mean they're a huge huge piece of our DCF work our contracts and I'm even thinking of for instance the entity Beckett that is holding the contract for the new secure. Secure residential program that is essentially replacing Woodside that would be off the top of my head that the biggest pieces that I would want to add. But I can also do some connecting here to see if there's any others that other people or Tyler might think up to. Okay. And I'll bring in Marshall Paul suggestions I didn't get chance he's the juvenile defender at the general's office. We I'm curious. What are some holes that what have we not done. What have we not thought of. I see marks marks join and I appreciate who Leo you putting those links in because a ton to answer your question what holes have we not done. I think what we haven't done is specifically what interest areas do you want to make sure represented from the community side because we just went through and identified the government. We also went through and listed names of organizations off the top. But thinking categorically more of an approach right. Who do we who would just just again the brains for main mentality side of things like what size I mean I want to make sure we cover. We had mental health. Down we have. We threw out victims. I know that traditionally we've been looking at the response of the criminal justice system and how people of color are reacting they're interacting with. The way to the state taking away their liberty. But there would also be discrimination in the way the way to the state treats victims. Noted. I'm. Susanna just put immigration in non citizen. Yes. Who's yet. Really critical. There is a non you're not statutorily created but there is a JJ stakeholder group that is made up of all. So Marshall Paul is on that group DCS on that group DOC is on that group. Judge Gerson joins that group we have. A wide breath and I don't know if it would be easier to have like a representative from that group be added instead of trying to go through the list and ask every one of those people to but. Sometimes I might make make might make things easier when you if you have one group that's already convening with all those stakeholders together. What specific communities. By pop communities should we make sure to have I think this is important like in terms of a process of making sure we have representatives right of I mean we said racial justice organizations generally earlier and just started listing them. But we didn't necessarily think about what perspectives and voices are being covered by those those racial justice organizations. It's just a suggestion for me I mean I'm sort of channeling chief Don Stevens here and making sure that. That when we talk about racial justice that we're talking about and I know Robin and Karen a lot of the data we see is black. Versus you know white and we don't and we've heard a lot of people talk about why. There isn't the further break down Asian Americans right Latin X. But. I would suggest we have we make sure that those perspectives from the various. Race race and ethnicity groups and we talk about generally in our demographic points but we're not like I think it would be important at this point to make sure and spell out like who are we talking about. I'm. You know I'm wondering. We have a list of like. Which is. Which is of maybe what remember. Susanna you know. It's a lot. I'm sorry. Can you just repeat that one more time. I was just saying we have. A list of like. Oh I don't know 15 languages and went. Into which. State documents are translated. At this point it might be nice to use that as a way of targeting our. To specific communities. That. The Somali. For instance. In the north end of Burlington. Yes. So Vermont's 10. Just put in the chat a list of Vermont's most commonly spoken languages. Those are not unfortunately all the languages into which we're translating everything yet. But that is the goal. Susanna what is the ranking order for demand or highest need. I thought there was it was Napoli. Yeah so actually yeah so the list that I put in the chat is alphabets is in alphabetical order that's not necessarily the order of commonality and interestingly enough. What I learned from judge Waples in the judiciary was that the three languages that are most commonly requested for court translation are not Vermont's three most common non English languages. So depending on the context that we're looking at the ranking is going to shift a little bit. Well do you have those differences in the actual link I can get them I've had. I've had conversations with ALV about this so I'll have to dig that up and then the court one. It's in a physical notebook somewhere in 11 foot vicinity here so I'm going to stealthily try to find. I love the 11 foot vicinity. That's incredible. I don't think that would narrow down in my house but I did want to say Seema Kamar is the judiciary's recent and very exciting new hire dedicated to language access staff attorney I think out of Montpelier and she and I. I've been talking to she is working hard to implement the judiciary's new language access manual which is pretty exciting. Ooh look at that. That's it. And so in fact when I talk to her like you need to come to our depth and just share like what you're hearing and things because I'm going to botch the order but it was something like Nepali Somali Vietnamese like Spanish just down like you know like not not there and again. It's different though if you do it by county right like I think it's numbers are demand greatest demand and then that brings you down to a second. It brings you down to essentially a Chittenden right but I think that the language interpretation day demand I suspect would be different in Wyndham right or Bennington you're not going to have the high needs for Nepali interpreters in Wyndham or in Bennington right. But I like that idea in terms of the difference. Yeah, looking at the language groups and make some assumptions from there is not a bad idea. It's kind of standard anthropological practice. Not without its problems but it can be a good place to start. So I just am thinking that that would that would help to is. You know and that could be lines in the report of representative from the Somali speaking community something like that some some line that doesn't overly prescribed. What we're talking about but that the mission statement itself that we've already been working on would help shape. That's my thought at least anything else because I'm really willing to sit down and start right you know like writing stuff this week. I think we really kind of have to start doing. I shouldn't say that. I'm sorry everybody that came out like your mother. I wasn't trying to be. I'm just sort of like. We've already started writing stuff that I'm just saying we should keep doing that. Because we did promise the rest of the body to. I think this would be too. It's on your breaking up. Sorry. Sorry. I'm breaking up in more ways than can possibly be imagined. Which he please. I just was thinking as we mentioned a lot of names that those won't always be the social justice organizations. Those don't always be the languages right so like our environment is going to change and we wanted to change right like that's the purpose over doing this. So I'm wondering if anybody had any ideas of like how we foresee this governing body being able to change and adapt with the environment that exists at the moment. Like maybe there can go ahead. Can you tell me more about what you're you're getting at. Because the environment that exists at the moment. Can you can you give me some more shape to that. Sure. So I'll do something that I think is probably relatively simple to understand. Like, for example, right now we're talking a lot about like some Molly's like we need some Molly representation and then probably representation because that's the language that we're seeing me being needed the most in in judicial courts or you know whatever. You know, next year it might be a Afghanis I don't know how to say the plural but the Afghans right so like how do we then make sure that next year. The people who do need representation on that governing body are given that representation and and sort of that that change of environment is is for is provided into the governing body as especially because the point of the data warehouse right is to be able to assess and address these racial disparities so hypothetically things will change because they're going to get better and then we'll see another group that means it. Thank you. I was just going to say I think that that highlights the need to have a regular review process right we're going to set something in motion today, and if we're doing our jobs right then that means it's going to move the needle and when the when the needle moves, then at that point we've got to step back and reassess maybe that means every year or every two years every three years that we go back and say, okay. Based on the progression of data, do we need to shift certain things right like maybe we saw a particular age group was more vulnerable, and we've targeted that age group and then we remedy that inequity and now we say okay maybe that the disparities been mitigated but there's another age group that we have to be looking at or maybe there's another core issue that it's not related to each so I think maybe just a building in a regular review so that things that we take as assumptions today don't remain assumptions in the future. Ian if you would please make sure to make a good note of that because that seems critical. Understood. Anybody else. I have one more suggestion for somebody to add or a subject matter experts like so I think there was a bucket on there for subject matter experts. And there's a whole bunch of IDC 10 billing codes for police brutality, so you can find you know, so there's a lot of public data in Vermont on hospital and ER discharges, but I think that that's a valuable data source and Medicaid and Medicare Medicaid data. So for people who go to the primary care physician and seek treatment for injury sustained by law enforcement. There's a billing code for that. And that all lives in our Medicaid. Robin, this is Rebecca, are you are you saying you're saying we should consider the the hospitals. And that's how much the hospital so the hospitals release public data sets on emergency room discharges and hospital discharges. But I've worked with those data sets and I just happened to look up like what what what are the billing codes for police brutality. And there are some. And so usually when special groups are working with on these billing codes, there's first you need an expert in those codes on when you're supposed to use them and when you're not supposed to. I said that subject matter expert kind of field. And then there's also, and this may be something that our DAP or somebody or you know, the advocacy organizations want to do is to train or to get the word out there that there there are these these billing codes and these are data points that people have access to to try to measure things and to encourage people to use them. And no, no, and thanks for bringing up it actually is it is a huge untapped sort of untapped field of understanding that data and what's going on there within relationships and what we're actually focused on, which is how do people get detected and and who's passing you know how many people who's making these decisions to pass and call law enforcement in or or however to who's discharging who's not. And yeah, I mean the consequences of those billing codes also influences what services you're going to be eligible for. Right, right. With she. Yeah, I have a note on that because I work with healthcare data. That's when I've worked in Vermont hospitals. I didn't know that was there was a well I didn't know there was an ICD 10 code for that but that's really cool but I do want to say that. I think if we that's something that we want to tap into then the people that we want to have be part of that conversation or not necessarily the hospitals, but those that govern the quality reporting for the hospital so we're talking like CMS or we're talking about maybe Green Mountain care board so just like noting like who has the power to make sure that that data touches just want to put that out there. Would it be the Green Mountain care board. I just mentioned that because that was on my brain. I don't know that that's the actual answer but that's where I would start to look. Okay. And for us like when we were doing a study on how injurious domestic violence is. We talked to the like the same nurses they're the ones that use those codes and so understanding how they were trained to use those codes was helpful I don't know who. If anyone is trained specifically on and there's a lot of police brutality codes, all the ways they can injure you. So I don't know who in the state is trained on that or who is there would you anyone responsible for IDC and training in general. I wouldn't know that we would have to talk to like somebody from a quality department had a hospital to know more about that. Do we need also, I'm thinking of my friend Karen. Scott scar and her or the organization about domestic violence. We were talking earlier about victims as well. And the fact that bias can enter into governmental dealings with victims. Should that be another organization and another vector in all of this that we ought to be considering. Can you say that one more time. Yeah, maybe. I think so. We were talking about how. People who are victims. Um, can be dealt with by very, you know, criminal justice system, whatever the system in ways that allow for the entrance of bias. Should we therefore put representatives from those communities onto the boards that we are imagining at this point. I would advocate for the network also because they are a service provider for people who won't necessarily go to the criminal justice system. So I'm thinking for people who get the relief from abuse orders that's outside the criminal justice system. And I know when I've worked with them in the past, especially when it comes to human trafficking and the Vermont legal partnership, which represents people in crime, people who have who have been the victim of crime, but you don't necessarily need to go to the cops to get their services. And so part of that that understanding in their work is why don't people go to the cops. And hearing it from the service providers because that does change over time that changes over location. I think it's helpful. Okay. Good. Good. Thank you, Robin. Yep. Anybody else. I am sensing running out of scheme. Well, you called me out. But I actually saw Susan is a chat comment here. Let me know because I can't if I go to chat something evil happens. My bad. I can say it. I just didn't want to interrupt the conversation. I was asking if we had if we had mentioned cultural brokers and interpreters specifically. I know we kind of talked around the translation issue and the reason that I talked about interpreters specifically is because oftentimes they fall through the cracks in between other categories. So they're not exactly the same as the limited English proficient population, but they're also often not court staff or medical staff or whatever, but they're very necessary in those rooms. But no one necessarily claims ownership. And the example that I used in the chat was when we were doing a lot of testing and vaccination for COVID-19 in all the hospitals dealt with their staff.  But nobody was saying we're going to claim ownership of the cultural brokers and make sure that they're being served or prioritized. So that's kind of a population that's in between others. Okay. Thank you. Thinking. Yeah, that's a really, it's a subtle way to get a different perspective from people with lived experiences and people represent the community because oftentimes these interpreters are coming from the community, right? Vermont or community more broadly speaking, you know, regionally if they come in. So I think that's that is really great. Good idea. I like that. I like that calling it cultural brokers sort of captures a lot of what they're doing. The other side of that is social workers, which we don't have enough of. But that brings the same kind of concept to mind. And we've talked about who is providing the mental health care a little bit, you know, named some some programs. You know, in terms of the educators, and we haven't really talked about that in terms of the children, kids and counselors side of things, social worker inside. Again, I hope when I come back next week, I'll have some more names, but there are lots of ways to get at why, you know, can probably I was just thinking about understanding why people don't report things to the police, right? There are a lot of ways to go back, not just say, you know, it has to only come from the complainants perspective, right? It's to me like who is a victim. It's again, I know these terms are used often, so I'm not going to get on a soapbox and talk about why. But to be careful with language, right, and what we mean and I'm taking you to mean specifically complainants and organizations that represent complainants in the criminal and juvenile justice system. When we talk about more broadly speaking of like why is there distrust of law enforcement, right? I do think that is an important point you're making and making sure that we get those various perspectives covered. But to reduce it just to one side in these court proceedings is an incomplete picture and also starts to again back to the balancing of who is going to be part of this board. And there's one thing is we're making a list like it's merging. I'm not trying to of who has who has data that we want to make sure we can think about capturing and looking at and understanding. And then who should be sitting at the governing table or who should be sitting at a different table relating to the data nuts and bolts things and whether they should be noticed. Yeah, so I want to say that the network actually so anyone who gets really good federal funding has really good data and the network gets a lot of federal funding and I know the data system that they use. And it's the one that I for any service provider I actually recommend that they use the one that the network is using because it's easy to get the data out of. It's customizable on the user end and they have to. So there's a lot of reporting that Office of Victim Services requires that the federal level that standardized across a lot of service providers of people who may not be going to the criminal justice system but feel that they are victimized in some way. So there's there's a lot of data there. That's what I'm saying. And you know legal aid serves a lot of victims of crime they have a code in their system so we know it's a victim of a crime. And you know, they do a lot of work on the evictions and the collateral collateral consequences of crime which may also have race or ethnic implications. Well it does. And you know, I don't know. I mean, so who on the like, would you be interested in an organization that say helps the respondents in the RFA cases and their views of procedural justice because that's also important. For a while down in Bennington, Attorney Bragdon was doing that kind of off the record for with maps permission but the way we don't have I know that we had recommended a few years ago like a public defender for people who are being served with an RFA but we never did that did we? Well, New York does that. So we had recommended that that Vermont adopt the New York system because that if you feel like you have procedural justice. And hopefully it's not just a feeling you actually had procedural justice, then you're less likely to violate the restraining order. Robin thanks for bringing up legal aid I was remiss in dropping them off by earlier and you know there was a recent change in the law this past session which made them create a mandate to have them legal aid attorneys represent people who are in hospitalization hearings and that is sort of a change. It's a change and it's sort of a transition of passing the baton from where a defender's office will represent someone. And then when they go into the hospitalization statutory code area the legal aid attorneys will take over and represent. And so they should definitely be brought to this side, but not at least for the mental health cases. They're very much involved. Elizabeth.  There, Elizabeth. I want to make sure that in all that you're hearing. We have a history as a panel of and we don't like it. We get mad at ourselves of juvenile justice sort of kind of. Oh right, we have to do that too. And I want to make sure that in what you're hearing so far. You're not feeling like some there's a major hole. Or a major hole that we aren't addressing that can be addressed. No, I think you're doing doing a good job. And I think the reality is that when we're talking about stakeholder groups. Most of these entities interact with kids just as much as they interact with adults and they have, you know, a youth side to things in addition. I just think that when we're, you know, when we're talking about making sure that mental health, you know, whoever from the mental health agencies or what not are going to be there that when they're there that they know that they're also also focusing on and. And are essentially representing, I guess is the word I'll use for lack of a better one. Their juvenile services just as much as their adult services, the big divide and the big change that I really sees when it comes to like the diversion programs and bar and CJCs really don't utilize. Or serve youth as much as bar providers do. So that would be the biggest piece that I see when it comes to these. I do think when we are talking about and I do think we might want to wrangle a little bit more about education. And pieces of that because I know that that is a larger perhaps beast, then I think maybe we're ready to work with I do know that the legislature recently. We all know the legislature creates a lot of boards, but they created a new board specifically to talk about racial disparity data within school discipline. And I think that that group is made up of, you know, they did their own process of talking about who should who should come to that meeting. So perhaps making sure that we have an entity from that group as well when we're talking through these things because they spent a lot of time in AOE did presentations as well to the legislature to show to say hey we have all this data on our site and they're going to do presentations to that board and maybe having some of our our DAP group join in when when AOE does that presentation to that board so we can also see okay what what is already there or pieces like that. So that's the biggest thing I would say and I know, you know, the thing that I always wrestle with when it comes to education is, you know, my understanding is that they report every time that an incident gets, you know, referred to law enforcement of some kind, but we never are able to track it through the system and say okay, there was an incident that occurred in a school or, but what happened to that kid is that kid, you know, thinking back to the school to person pipeline, for instance, did that you end up in Woodside and that's been really difficult. I know to find so I'm just kind of thinking through all these different situations, but I'll stop there. I feel like I went on a little a little bit of. I'm really intense so before I continue. Okay, thank you. Thank you, which he. Yeah, I'd be happy if we're trying to send representatives over I'd be happy to like consider going to the data thing I feel like I could probably capture some some things and just bring it back from the data tech perspective. That would be a great. This. Truly. Yeah, how would I know when it's going to happen? Is that the thing that Karen supposed to be doing? Oh, what do you think? Is that it like so we're Karen. So we have that other grants. That's that's paying for search to help with the data integration and ADS and we were going to put together a group of the nuts and bolts people and invite which he said that one, which you that you're talking about. We haven't done that yet. We're with you where you were referring to the. The other board that is the legislature just created this spring. That is going to get if they haven't already a presentation from AOE about what data they have available on the website how to how to find it etc and then that entity is responsible for making recommendations to AOE about specifically raised data within school discipline and they have a list of data points that they want regarding that too. Is that what you were referring to? First of all, I feel so wanted with all of these opportunities. I meant the latter. And I know the former is coming. Okay. Yeah, I'm at the education data with that they were going to report to AOE. I feel like I would be good to sort of take and bring back to that nuts and bolts committee. Yeah. So I guess my question is that I can follow up and and where they are with that. So I think that they were slated to start having meetings this fall. So I'll I'll I'll look into it. Yeah, great. Thank you. Karen. Robin. Yeah, you know where we're, I know right where we're where things are at with getting that group that's looking at the nuts and bolts as we're calling it. Yeah, we are. Thanks. First of all, apologies to everyone we are on our federal fiscal year deadlines and finishing up some major studies. So there's that and then one of the funders for that project. We're waiting to hear from them for the position at ADS. So this grant would fund a position at ADS that would be the project manager for the data integration piece for the Bureau. So we're kind of waiting to see and we're hoping to have an answer. We keep hoping to have an answer by Friday on where Arnold Foundation is with that funding. And if we can start using that money right away. So the short answer is probably not talked over is when we would meet. Okay. Well, it'll be here. Which is like two weeks, right? All right. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, I remember. It is towards the end of September ready. All right. Other thoughts, because there's a lot here I'm really ready to take a stab at writing this week and getting some drafting about what governing bodies might look like out to you and the usual, you know, criticism critique rebuilding, etc. that we've been doing. And I feel like there's a lot here already that's going to make this somewhat challenging, but that makes it fun. I will rely on some of you. I will rely on some of you expect an email or something about this stuff because there's a lot of it that will start confusing me at a certain point. You all know that. But I that's the goal I'm setting myself for this week to be able to do something. Concrete so that when we come back together next Monday, there is an actual document of source that we can start shipping away at Rebecca. You look a little. I don't know what you look. You're thinking. I'm thinking I'm listening. You know what? Are you there? One more thought while listening to you as you're drafting. I thank you for taking the first stab at it. We've been talking about who should be at the table. I don't know what people think about. That it's people who get to choose who should be at the table, right? I mean, it's a subtlety, but it's it's I think maybe leave that for us to think about next time. I think that's a good point because a lot of these it's like the governor's picking the chief justice picks the blah, blah, blah picks, you know, well, why not these organizations pick who should be right? It's sort of an equity of how who can set the table. Anyways, just a thought that was what I was thinking when you asked me. It's a good point. I mean, it only happened with the criminal justice council in some, but I don't even know who did that who wrote in two people or whatever recommended by each chapter of the NAACP. I don't remember how that got in there. But yeah. And it wasn't consistent. Anything else anyone wants to bring up. No, then I will I will start in on this. It will. I'm sorry. I just formed the idea right after you took away the offer to speak. I wanted, I don't even know if we need to be thinking about this right now, but I'm thinking about the draft legislation that we're supposed to be providing. And I know that representative LaLonde very helpfully said that he could help make a ledge council available to the group. And I also know that the legislature has a deadline for drafting requests, etc. Yes. And I just want to make sure that whoever is the ledge council who's on point for criminal justice issues that we can learn from them. How, you know, just in case there's anything else coming down the pipeline that's relevant to this, that somebody is aware. Do you know what I mean? I'm not, I'm not saying it right, but basically, I think we should be in contact with drafters at some point early on, so that there aren't the situation that always happens doesn't happen where there's like six different public safety bills on the same topic. Right. And what if we made a go at this this week and then got in touch with lunch council, like a week from tomorrow, for instance, because I think it will be Eric Fitzpatrick from what I've been told. And what if we make a go at this, and then call him in. Does that seem reasonable. Yes, I would only make the recommendation that you should should probably reach out to send or Sears and representative grad and along and coach and all the ones who've been very invested in this to let them know and see who they would be working with because they'll know. There's a recommendation to to reach out to Luke who in the chat who is of course the head of the Ledge Council. Luca, what's his last name. She member. Thank you. But either way, it's a good idea, Susan and I think it is in mid November who Leo first November first, but it's soon. Yeah. I think we should probably like let them know we something like mid August like we should we would want them in I don't know how much they, you know, what are we with two more weeks until the first of August, I mean October and then we want to take this decision making points to the main body of our DAP to get some key decisions. Sears and grad at all. Good morning. That we would like. We'd like contact with Ledge Council sooner rather than later. Good. It's great. I'll do that. I'll remember that. Got that. Thank you, Susanna. Anything else anybody has. Or do we have enough to get started for this week. I think that is a lot. To take the line share, but feel free to reach out. Oh, I'm going to be reaching out. Yes, because it's. This is going to get. This is good. I'm going to come back. I'm letting you all know now it's going to be a mess. I mean, it really is going to be a mess. I'm really anticipating you all taking it next week and marking it up. So that it becomes less of a mess. But as we often say, it's better to have a mess that's concrete rather than one that's abstract. So let's get something down and write on it. All right. Good. Well then. I guess we should say have a good evening. Sorry, Tom, one more suggestion for next week. I was just looking at the calendars and how many Mondays we have before our next Tuesday with the big are that panel where we're going to present our list of things that we would hope to get a decision on. And it looks like we have Monday and then the Monday right before the panel. So two more Mondays. Monday. But I suggest is that right? Like if the 27th or next meeting, could I suggest that we come and think about the key points that we need the panel to that we want to present the key points that we need some sense of consensus on or start to build that list. And I would I would assume that part of it will be the Constitution of this governing body. Yeah, we'll be huge. So sure. Okay. Make an action item of that as well that would be helpful. But that's what people need to be thinking about. That next next week we'll be discussing what to bring to the main art panel. Yes, please. Okay. Of course, of course. Yep. Thank you. All right. Anything else for many one. All right, then. Then a good evening. And I want to also just say thank you for your indulgence and getting me online. Good Lord. Good night, Mayor. Suzanne, thank you for and bless your father for telling you to just take over. Because it really was there for a bit. Thanks everybody. So all right. Thank you. And see you all next week. Bye.