Good evening, welcome to the September 2020 meeting of the advisory panel on racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. I would like to start with introductions, which is always such an interesting part of a Microsoft Teams meeting to go around the virtual table, which seems to just change every few seconds.  So can we start please with Judge Grierson? Brian Grierson, Chief Superior Judge for the Vermont Judiciary. Good to see everyone. Jen Furpo. Jen Furpo, I'm a training coordinator with the Vermont Police Academy. Monica? Hi everyone, I'm Monica Wieber and I'm with the Department of Corrections. Pepper. Hi, James Pepper with the Department of State's Attorneys and Charis. Thank you. Ms. Morris, Elizabeth Morris. Hi, Elizabeth Morris. I work for DCF. I'm the Juvenile Justice Coordinator and I am here with Jeff Bray and a transition in DCF and participation on our lab. Welcome. Representative LaLonde. Yeah, Martin LaLonde, Representative from South Burlington on the Judiciary Committee and very interested in data in the criminal justice system. So just listen to me in today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jessica Brown. Hi everyone, I'm Jessica Brown. I'm the Managing Attorney of the Chittenden County Public Defender Office and I was a community at-large appointee to this panel by the Attorney General. Great, great. Curtis. I'm Curtis Reed. I'm Executive Director of Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity. I am on the Fair and Partial Policing Commission and here to observe. Thank you. God, this is all moving. Jeffrey Pippinger, please. This is Jeffrey Pippinger. I'm the Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the government and families. And as Elizabeth noted, we're going to be transitioning who will be attending this meeting on behalf of the commissioner. So Elizabeth is with me tonight and then she will be here next month as we transition to the new Adolescent Services Unit Director. Captain Scribner. I'm Julie Scribner, Captain of the Vermont State Police. I'm the Co-Director of Fair and Impartial Policing and Community Affairs and I will be filling in for Captain Scott as he approaches retirement. And let us talk to Captain Scott who will tell us happily about his inventing retirement. How many days there are to come? It's like 47 work days. But who's counting? Gary Scott with the State Police. Sarah Friedman, please. Hi. Hi. Hi, sorry, struggling to get off mute. Sarah Friedman with the Council of State Government Justice Center. I'm here with my other CSGT members and we're helping the state of Vermont implement the policy changes in Act 148. So just listening in and hoping to absorb all of your knowledge today. Great, thank you. Let's see, where are we? Julio. Okay. Mayan? Yes. Julio. Yeah. Vermont Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Unit. Loretta Saki, please. Hi, I'm Loretta. I'm with CSG Justice Center and I am a Policy Analyst and I am here both with Sarah, Angie and Madeline. Thank you. And let's have Madeline. Hi folks, Madeline Dardo. I'm also a Policy Analyst with the CSG Justice Center. Rebecca Turner. Hi everyone. Rebecca Turner, head of the Appellate Division on this panel as the Defender General's Designee. Thank you. And then the interestingly and charmingly named<PHONE_NUMBER>. Oh, that's me again, Sarah Friedman. I had to call in via my phone. I'm on twice, apparently. Got it. David, David Scherer. Yes, David Scherer with the Vermont Attorney General's Office. Thank you. Susannah Davis. When I found this, this is Susannah Davis, Racial Equity Director for the state. I am here as an observer. I am here as a friend of the court, if you will. I am an amicus. Thank you. Judge Davenport. Hi, I'm Amy Davenport. I am here as a member of the Council, the Children and Family Council for Prevention Programs and here as an observer. Thank you and welcome. Thank you. And<PHONE_NUMBER>. Yep, hi, it's Robin from Crime Research Group. Great, hi. Hi. Angela Gunter, please. Hi, everyone. This is Angie Gunter with the Justice Center with Madeline Sarah and Loretta. Great, thank you. Karen Gennett. Hi, Karen. Hi, hi, everybody. This is Karen Gennett from Crime Research Group. And now I'm, hold on. Oh, wow. Give me a moment, folks. It's a little, I think that's everybody. Have I missed anybody? If I have missed somebody, this is a really great moment to speak up because I have no way of knowing. Hey, everybody. There she is. I was worried. Sheila Linton, she, her pronouns, co-director of the Root Social Justice Center and appointed by Attorney General, community at large, member of the panel. Great, thank you, Sheila. And I'm sorry you didn't show up. I am Etan Nassred and Longo. I'm chair of the panel. Again, welcome to everyone. Want to move on to the announcements. There aren't many. One that is important is, if you look at the agenda, after the second item, which was going to involve Kristen McClure, but she's not here tonight, is she? I will, I actually think I can do that for her. I think Pepper and I probably can do that for her. But after that item, I would, what I managed to not put in would be a section on the requirements under section 19 of Act 148 for sort of the immediate issues regarding racial disparities that we can seize on in the moment and address as part of the report that needs to be submitted to the legislature on the 1st of December. So that will happen after the second item. That is the first announcement. The second is a really wonderful one that just somehow never occurred to me, but it absolutely occurred to Sheila and it's brilliant. And so simple that the public commentary really ought to be after each one of the discussion items. So we're going to break that up and do it right after, because as she points out, people don't necessarily remember what, you know, in the first discussion item, what they wanted to talk about when we're done. And that's an excellent point. I should have caught it didn't and I'm obliged to Sheila for doing so. So I just wanted to announce we're going to do that format. So having said that, let's launch into the update on the data discussions held with IT staff members from various criminal justice agencies. You will remember that I sent around several documents. One was a kind of template for what our final report might look like. And in there was a truly lovely flowchart. That came out of these discussions. It's a bit daunting, but I think we'll be able to go through it. I do, I am sorry that Kristen is not here, but we'll do the best that we can. And I guess I'm going to just turn it over to you Pepper and let you talk about the update on the data discussions. Because if I do it, it will be the blind leading people who are also blind. Okay. No, yes, that works for me. So what I'd like to do is talk about what we have done, what we've been doing since our last meeting, talk about where we ended up and think about, start to think about with this group what the next step should be. So we, Kristen, Aiton and I convened a meeting of the kind of IT directors at the state's attorneys and sheriffs, the court administrator's office, the defender general's office, Department of Corrections, Department of Public Safety, VCIC, which is the Vermont Crime Information Center. And then also, you know, Kristen is with ADS and Crime Research Group all attended. That conversation was really designed to deal with the first element of section 19 of Act 148, which is identify existing data that explores the relationships between demographic factors and sentencing outcomes. So this was really a conversation about what data systems do each agencies use, what data is collected, how it's collected and how that information flows from one agency to another. And the results from that meeting are really captured in that flow chart that Aiton discussed or referenced that he sent around with the agenda, which kind of just looks at just, you know, how data moves around through the system and what's collected. I think that if our objective, if we need to answer the question about the relationship between demographic factors and sentencing outcomes, my own personal feeling is that the current data that we collect is not gonna be very helpful in doing that. And I say that for just a few reasons. One is we have no kind of data governance, master data governance over the entire system, the entire criminal justice and juvenile justice systems, meaning that how we collect data and what questions we're asking and the definition of terms like race and ethnicity are not consistent from one stop along the path to the next. And so that really leads me to believe that understanding some of the demographic factors and sentencing outcomes is not gonna be answered easily by the data that we're currently collecting. We also don't have what Kristen, and I'm sure this is just a terminology phrase that I'm not familiar with, but it's kind of self-evident, a master person index. So that if James Pepper is arrested and sentenced, we don't know that that sentence James Pepper is the same person that was arrested. So that's one aspect that kind of really puts the roadblock in trying to determine if there is some sort of disparate outcome. So, and then what was also very clear to me, at least from that meeting, is we don't have appropriate data systems. I mean, for instance, the defender general's office and the state's attorney's office both need to upgrade their case management system, which I think would be the kind of place where we would do a lot of this collection. We don't have the appropriate staffing or the ability to train folks on how to collect this data. I mean, we can figure this out. I mean, but right now under our current budgets, we don't have the staffing or resources to really achieve this kind of high quality, consistent data collection. So, the next steps, I believe, are for this group to consider. And, you know, we had a second meeting of this, you know, these IT directors scheduled, but then we kind of decided we actually need to check back in with this, I'm calling it the RDAP Plus because the stakeholder group identified in section 19 had a lot of people mentioned, they all serve on the RDAP except for the Racial Equity Executive Director and CRG. So that's the RDAP Plus. So, you know, the section 19 group. We really need to, I think, at this stage, check in with this group to decide how we want to proceed. For instance, we recommend that we establish a data governance agreement or a data governance council. Do we want a master person index? And then more specifically, more granular. What data points do we want to collect? We've talked a lot about high discretion, high impact decision points along the criminal justice pipeline. And I think that if we want to, you know, look at how those might lead to disparate outcomes, we want to decide what data points specifically we want to collect. Also, who should be responsible for either aggregating this data and disseminating it? Or, you know, I know we've talked in the past about who should have ownership over making sure that the data collected is, the data collected is of high quality that it's timely disseminated. And whether there needs to be penalties for agencies that aren't doing this. And then the last big question, I think, Eitan, you mentioned this earlier. We have this kind of section, subsection A1 of section 19 says, tells us that we need to perform an initial analysis of sentencing patterns across the state and identify where the use or length of incarceration may exacerbate racial disparities and then make related legislative proposals. And I'm glad Representative Malone is on the call because I think that the intent of that was when we're doing all this work about identifying, you know, data systems and, you know, the relationship between demographics and sentencing outcomes. And we come across something obvious, like, you know, people of color are not being referred to diversion at the rates that their kind of white counterpart defendants are, that we should make some initial recommendations. And those recommendations will both go to the legislature. They're also going to be directed to the Sentencing Commission. And the Sentencing Commission, again, involves a lot of the same people that are on this call. But they'll take a look at those recommendations and see if they need to see what they can implement right away. So that's where I think we are and I think what the next steps are. And I'd be happy to discuss any bit of this anymore, any piece of this or, you know, I think what we would want to open it up to is kind of what do we do next and what do we want this report to really look like for the legislature and the Sentencing Commission. Thank you, Pepper. Oh, Rebecca's got a question. Pepper, could you clarify whether or not the subcommittee talked about the frequency of collecting the data and how often it would have to be reported? I actually don't think that we discussed that, but maybe some of the people on the call know. I mean, perhaps, you know, for instance, I think the state police have certain statutory requirements for dissemination. Rebecca, this is Robin. We were talking more about the live systems. So that when the stop is made, this, you know, this data gets inputted, then that data that gets inputted to the state, from the, you know, to the police then get electronically shipped over to the state's attorney. So it was more of a live how do the data flow in real time and not a what's best practices to report out on data? Does that answer your question? Sort of, but remind me, what is the current statute requiring disclosure of the aggregated data? How often does that happen right now for police data, traffic stop data? So once a year? Traffic stop data is currently once a year and then there's a statute, somewhere that says, the Department of Public Safety shall publish an annual crime report. So those are the only two statutory requirements that I know of for publishing data. So annually? Yes, DOC has their data updated daily and available publicly. And then the courts are in the process of changing their data systems. But usually people just ask us for the data, but we don't have authority to post it. Regularly. So I would just throw that out there for something else to add to this, which is the importance of making sure that there is a certain frequency that we agree on and suggest I certainly think it should be more often than one year. And Robin, if you're saying DOC is already doing this daily then and getting it out publicly daily and you guys talked about ideally real time, I think that should be part of it, right? Because a part of it is understanding that transparency, immediate reaction and accountability. So whether that's providing the data and publishing, it seems like possibly the same thing, but probably not, but to make sure we address that. Curtis? Yes, just a point of information. How many different data collection systems comprise the whole? And how compatible are those systems? I don't think I can share my screen, but the flow chart shows at least 10 or 11. And honestly, we didn't have the Department of Mental Health or DCF or the Attorney General's Office on the call either. So and are they integrated? The answer is largely no. I know, I've been talking to Karen Gannett a little bit offline about data integration, which is a project that it's going on independent of this group about how our systems can talk to one another a little bit better. Okay. So when data moves from one department to another, it has to be re-enter, or is there a way to? Sometimes, Curtis, this is Robin, sometimes it depends on the data. So for example, the courts, DCF, VCIC and the Department of Corrections and I all get the same data extract and that works with our systems in various ways. But if we were to track the race information, for example, the race information that I get from my court extract is actually something that comes in from the state's attorneys and or the police, usually the police. So it just gets copied over. The courts, for example, are not making an independent determination or asking a defendant his or her race. So it gets copied over. So some things do get copied over. Some systems generate their own data and ask their own questions. And sometimes we merge all of those together. Okay. Monica? Hi, yeah. I think my comment goes back to something that maybe Rebecca was talking about because the committee, the group that Pepper describes, we weren't really talking so much about reporting and timeliness of data because I think from our perspective, it was really about what data exists and can we even use it and what are the gaps? Which is primarily, as I read section 19 of Act 148, what that conversation was directed towards and it was mostly directed towards plea agreement, sentencing and those type of data reporting. So it was a little bit of a different approach, I think, than what you might have been thinking. And I thought Pepper, you had a question and now it was a while ago, so I can't for the group. And now I can't quite remember what I was thinking, but I think there's a lot of things that we need to consider in this report that should start at the beginning, right? We've identified some pretty serious gaps in the system. We've identified some needs that we need on a just sort of resource and technology level to start to think about getting the data. And then once we can have that addressed, then I think we can start to talk about conversations around putting it together and reporting it out beyond what's already happening. Those are just some ideas. Judge Greerson. Yeah, I just want to echo what I think was Curtis's question and some of the comments by Robin and that is from the court's perspective. We don't generate this data. I think it's important in whatever process we're discussing that the source of the data be identified because we rely on whatever the state's attorney files and I assume that comes from the state police. I'm not aware that or this police department, the law enforcement, not aware there's any independent investigation by the state's attorneys, prosecutors on race data. And so everything that's in our system, I'll say everything, probably I shouldn't, but I wouldn't say 95% of what's in our system is generated by people outside of the court system and it comes into us. So even if we are in the process of rolling out a new case management system, that system is not generating this data. It is essentially acting as a pass-through from whatever source the data is. Thank you. Anybody else have a question or something to put in here or ask here? Okay. Oh, Rebecca, I saw you. Yeah, briefly, again, clarification. Is the data just focused on race or are there other demographic groups, gender? Was that point raised that we should, while we are obviously charged and focused on racial disparities, the overlap and cross data collecting needs should not just be race, but gender, right? Gender and ethnicity and age and disabilities, all sorts of things. So I just wondered if that was also talked about. It was. And that kind of also is gonna get us to, and I'm not rushing us there. So the second part of the discussion, Kristen raised this and actually Robin raised this and I raised this. Mark Anderson also, sheriff in Windham County raised it. For instance, a lot of these systems, and I was, I have to say, utterly horrified to find that a significant number of them can play race and ethnicity. I don't know how to say how unbelievably wrong-headed and dumb that is and how it just, it just flies in the face of, I don't know, as an anthropologist, anything I know about humans, it's just bizarre. And yet we have systems that do this. So one of the issues that Kristen wanted to bring up and won't, but it sort of is led into by what Rebecca just asked is that she was concerned that there may be actually data requirements that are not currently required by state agencies that community stakeholders would find significant and necessary to have collected. And that sort of flows into what we're just talking about. I think that's a big issue. I think that, I don't know, personally, I think that's huge. I think it's important. I think it is missed in the legislation. Again, though, also I'm not sure how we do that between now and December 1st. But I do think that that is an important issue to bring out. Judge Greerson, your hand is up. Oh, it's not supposed to be. Oh, okay. How do I get it down? I don't know. I think I might be able to help you. Lower your hand. Okay, I just did it. It's very exciting. Either you did it or I did it, I'm excited too. It was a group effort. So I would also like though at this moment to invite, Sheila, can you put in your point, please? Is this okay? Sure, which point would you like me to put in? I've wanted, well, there's so many. You were really talking about the whole notion of the data here. And I'd want that on the record. Yeah, thank you for that space, Aton. I appreciate that. So I've expressed this before in the years past. I think I've been saying it for a few years now is that we keep on spending a lot of time, a lot of resources, a lot of energy, talking about the data, the importance of the data, all the continuous breakdown of the data. And what I notice is for myself, my own perception is some discrepancies of how that shows up. And when we talk about data, I feel like even though we're talking about the challenges of how to collect that data and the resources and be able to do that, I feel like we more readily jump to accommodating that, that we have to have the numbers, we have to have the numbers and the data is really important. But then when we talk about the people, which is either anecdotal evidence or people saying that this has been going on or 400 plus years of understanding about white supremacy and that culture. I mean, I think that the narrative today right now at this moment in time is that whether we chose to acknowledge or understand or even be aware of what's been going on for black people for over 400 years in this country, we're thinking about it now. And I'm trying to figure out how 400 plus years of data in my personal opinion hasn't been really weighted in the way that I would like to see and that we keep on coming up with all these ideas as much as I respect all the IT, data analysts, everybody's expertise here and I do think data is important. But again, I've been doing this and I'm fairly young for over 25 years of sitting in these type of conversations about data. And while we're talking about data, people who look like me are dying. So I'm continued to be frustrated with this conversation. And though I understand as collectively as a group, once again, that there's a need for data, I wish that we could be focusing our resources on actually addressing the issues and that's really the white supremacy and actions and behaviors and implicit bias and the structures and systems that we already know exist and are oppressing black and brown people. So I just wanted to say that I'm frustrated by this conversation as I have been for probably about 20 years now. And I think we're spending a lot of time and resources on collecting the right numbers when we know what's going on. Thank you, Sheila. And even though I'm chairing this meeting and need to concentrate on the legislative tasks that I have been given, I would just like to note that that frustration is something I share completely and I'm working with a certain split consciousness here. I think- Hey, John, this is Robin. Can I address that point for a second? Absolutely. So Sheila, I really appreciate your comments. And when I've appeared before you guys before, I kind of go back and rethink things. People's stories are data and I think as a statistician, I haven't been really good at getting that across. And it's just as valid data as the numbers that we collect. In fact, it's probably better because it's not sanitized. It's not forced into these little categories that don't actually apply. One of the things we've done with the traffic stops and race data is that what we heard was that people keep leaving their house and getting stops. And what we knew is that the data as collected or as presented, I should say, didn't prove that, didn't show that. And so we worked with the police and we've been able to get these data out and with the next round, you'll be able to see it. With one agency that I tested this out on, for example, we were able to show they pulled over this woman of color five times within a month. Now, that had to feel awful, right? And this woman was a resident of their jurisdiction. So sometimes we can get the data to show the stories. We're just not using the right data, but I would like my colleagues to hear that stories are data. And when we analyze those stories, we can come up with answers probably faster than I can change the data systems. So that is my... Not to have a decision, so box. Thank you, Robin. Rebecca. For the record, I joined Sheila 100% and urged this panel to move forward and quickly through the subject because we need to go on. And we know at the Daily Show, I understand this is what the legislature's interested in. I want the message to be clear that I think, and I joined Sheila, I think that this is a poor use of our invaluable time, each of us coming in together just once a month to do this. Poor use in this moment of time. We have an opportunity here to provide some real reform measures that the legislature can move on and to focus on data again, is just a poor use of this precious time for this panel. Thank you. I'm gonna make this... I'm gonna leap here. Partly, two points. One was sitting in this meeting with Monica and Pepper and Kristen and all the IT staff people who were there. We started out with a flow chart that was really even I could understand, which says a lot folks. And I looked at it and went, oh yeah, cool. Normally I look at them and I just like run screaming. But that, you know, I worked and I got it. Then everyone started talking. And as different datum were put forth, Kristen would change on her screen the flow chart. And at the end of the two hour meeting, the flow chart that is attached to the document that I sent around that I believe is the proposed outline, that was the result. And I remember looking at it at that moment and going, oh my God, I wanna take my life. I also know from talking with a few of you that you had that response as well. Then the second thing I want to point out is Monica's point that she just made and I'm not gonna get it right. But you just were talking Monica about, there are some really broad obvious things that need to happen here. And that a lot of these other questions that we're asking and that Pepper was very good at outlining for us. Really are dependent on this first line of I guess I would say activity. I kept being struck through this entire process since the last meeting of thinking one that nobody on this panel and none of the IT staffers who were at that meeting are qualified or have the time to pull all of this together. They're just not. It was just, it was absolutely clear to me, I'm not an expert, so I need to put that out there. I am really not an expert. But I am good at listening to people and I'm really good at listening to hearing people say, oh, the X and then another person saying, yeah, we don't do X and it's just never come up. That happened a fair amount at this meeting. I get very schematic in these things. So part of me then going to what Rebecca and Sheila just put forth is in some ways, I'm not sure this is difficult or as difficult as I initially indeed imagined it to be. I'm sensing that we need funding and we need to talk about what kind of staff we need, how many of them to do this. And I'm not sure what else is legitimately possible before the 1st of December, which is our deadline and that all these other lovely and important, frankly, questions that Pepper's brought up, that Sheila's brought up, that Rebecca's, that you've all brought up, they're dependent on this first line of stuff. There is, I just don't see how data integration, we've been charged with it. I don't know if any of you feel like an expert on this, let me know, because I've been looking over this stuff incessantly and it's not making any more sense to me than what I've just said to you. I'm your chair, I'm throwing it out. Okay, also like discuss. Rebecca, is your hand up? No. No, no, I'm sorry. I mean, if I might, or Rebecca, were you gonna say something? I've spoken too much. I mean, everybody's raising some really good points and I was, Sheila, you raise a very good point as well. I think it's probably the important point here is that data has been discussed, at least in my tenure with the state, which isn't as long as some other people, getting more data, getting better data, integrating data systems, and it hasn't happened yet. I think there's some places where it has happened, but it has not happened sort of across systems. And I was concerned about the ability to provide the information in this report, in the timeframe I mentioned several times to the legislature, I thought their reporting requirements were a little aggressive, and some of the other things that are in Act 148, and that there are other projects, as Pepper was saying, and Karen and Robin can speak to, that have been happening for several years related to a different project at the Department of Public Safety on the same topic that just hasn't moved forward. So I'm not sure that I'm really saying anything other than there should be some agreement somewhere or some acknowledgement on a higher level that this is much, much harder than people think it is, and it can't be accomplished, as you said, Eitan. I don't think without some real willpower that includes funding and resources on the topic. Okay. Chief Stevens, oh my God, I didn't even know you were here. I'm so sorry. No, that's fine, because I came in late between technology issues and accidents on Route 7, I was kind of delayed. So I didn't catch, I apologize, so I didn't catch a lot of the beginning, but I guess my question is, is I understand the way legislators work that they don't want to make a mistake, they're trying to defer to others to make sure that they're doing the right thing and they're always trying to find out what the data is. So I understand where they're coming from. My question is, though, is that this group, like they were saying, only meets once a month, I think we gave solid recommendations in our report and based on some of the reviews of experts who have already done this in the past, remember the big thick book I brought that we talked about with different reforms that they actually specialize in that, about how to do that? And we actually put that in place. So I guess I don't understand why they're ignoring that report and trying to get us to do more data when that's really not our role, I don't think, is crunching the numbers because we're kind of giving them the roadmap and we're not full-time people that can crunch the numbers, right? I mean, even the state police has someone that does it full-time that crunches the numbers and gives us data, right? And she does a great job at it. So I guess I don't understand where their opposition is to the report, do they not care about the work we've done or do they not agree with the recommendations? Cause I feel like, why am I sitting on this committee helping to provide information when it's just being ignored? We've talked about this before cause I have better times, I have better things to do with my time. I mean, we want to uplift our people, we want to make decisions, but sitting on this, working on reports for months that they ignore or don't care or tell us what's wrong with the report that you don't like, because just crunching numbers is kicking the can down the road and not really our role when they got 200 other people working on the same thing. So that's just my comment. Sorry. Thank you. I would like to ask the people from CSG who are charged with the implementation of Act 148 and are here certainly as observers, but they're also very concerned with helping the state implement this legislation that has been passed, that we are now, we are statutorily required to address. I'm not trying to kick responsibility here, I'm trying to get as many viewpoints as we can because I think that as many as we have, the better the decision will be that we make and certainly the report that we're required to produce on the 1st by the 1st of December. So can I ask you guys to just weigh in here? Is that, am I putting you unduly on the spot or? I can jump in and at least say a little bit. That would be lovely. Thank you, we can hear you now. Okay, and I hope you all can see my face as well. I know that I'm on both phone and I'm dealing with some connection issues as I'm sure some people can relate to around here. But yeah, as Etan said, I think we've met a few folks on the phone and actually may have a few calls later this week or next week with a few other folks who are currently in this meeting. But the CSG team is transitioning from what we call phase one of justice reinvestment which was led by our colleague, Ellen Whelan-Whist, who I think a lot of you all know and David DeMora into phase two of justice reinvestment which is implementing the policies that were enacted in Act 148. And so as you all I'm sure know, there were many policy changes in Act 148 and we're currently trying to figure out an implementation plan for how we can support the many different priorities in Act 48 along with the revitalized justice reinvestment to working group which has many members overlap with this group. So I think that my understanding and as a relatively new person on the block so I hope that I'm kind of staying within my lane and my current understanding having only getting up to speed on the project in Vermont as Ellen passed at the time, is that there have been some analysis that Vermont's data has gaps and has places where it could be improved as all states do, of course. We have no model state for doing this across the country right now, I would say. But that does not mean that there's nothing that can be done right now in terms of analyzing racial disparities in your system that of course there are places to improve data and that is definitely a kind of valiant cause and something to be worked on for those people who really wanna understand the system but that's not to say that you all have no understanding right now. There are analyses that can be done to start getting towards that disparities analysis that the legislation is asking for right, that can be done right now although by December 1st might be a very ambitious timeline. And I think that we also can't discount everyone's experiences and where folks might anecdotally experience disparities every day with their contact with the criminal justice system. So I know that you all have a lot of in-state capacity to address this but always need more. And so CSG is also available to help with this as needed. We have a couple of different areas where types of assistance we can provide whether it be research or more project management facilitation, experts, examples from other states. So we're kind of here to just generally support the process of all the different policies in Act 148 as folks are figuring this out. So Etan on the spot, I hope that that answered your question or at least helped clarify something. Absolutely, thank you so much. That was, I was hoping for just an overview of what you saw and what you needed and your point of view which I knew was important and varied from what is being put forward here. Okay, there was something I wanted to do and I don't remember what it was, but it's okay. Other questions at this point. Hey, Tom, this is Karen. Hi, Karen. Hi, I don't know how to raise my hand on this. I've been trying to figure it out but I'm not finding it at all. We're at the point of just scream, you know. Okay, someone will show me later. I'm wondering if it might be helpful and I'm kind of processing this out loud. Robin did a report on race and sentencing that we released back in 2015. So it's not up to date but what it does is it gives an idea of what data is needed to actually look at sentencing. It's a slice in time. It's a very narrow slice in time. It's only the actual act of sentencing someone. So it doesn't look at anything that came before and how that may have impacted that moment in time but she, and Robin, you can jump in here and correct me if I get something wrong. One of the things that we figured out while she was doing that report is criminal histories, make a huge difference when someone's being sentenced and drive incarceration. And we've- And in particular, those out of state criminal histories. Out of state criminal histories. So the out of state criminal histories were independently more relevant than the in state criminal histories which gets to the points that I make. Right, a colleague of mine, a public defender in Los Angeles is currently, once again, going through all the convictions because the gang unit was planting evidence which is something I did as a young public defender when the crash unit got exposed in the 90s. So all those convictions from the bad police departments are still in those data that are driving these sentences. So just saying that again. Can I ask a quick clarifying question? Just wherever you are, sure. It's Sheila. Are you saying that out of state criminal histories are weighted differently? No, I'm saying that when I ran the models that those out of state criminal histories mattered a lot. So what I did is, let me just tell you briefly what I did and this gets to your point, Sheila, also about numbers and data, et cetera. So in order to measure the specific request from the legislature was, is race making a difference in sentencing? That was a specific question. In order to do that, I had to find crimes where there was a variable in sentencing. So that means there was the opportunity for some people to be treated differently than others. And a sufficient number of non-white defendants concentrated in that study period. So what I did is found four crimes, assault, domestic possession of marijuana before it was illegal or before it was decriminalized and possession of cocaine. Those were the four crimes that are all misdemeanors. So that means the judge has some kind of wide sentencing breath there. And I had a sufficient number of non-whites who were convicted of those crimes. I took all of those people and then matched them to a white cohort. So the same ages, the same demographics, the same charges on their, on their, on their, you know, on the docket. And then I pulled everybody's criminal histories and working with the state's attorneys and the judiciary and the defender general came up with a score for that. So a misdemeanor conviction counted as 0.5, a felony conviction counted as one, a probation violation counts as 0.25. So we kind of came up with a score of how this person's criminal history looked. And when I run the statistical models, someone having an out of state criminal history was more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than someone who didn't. So does that, does that, under answer your question? I guess my question specifically was whether it didn't, it didn't because my specific question was whether it's weighted differently as criminal history in Vermont. No, it just makes a difference in the sentencing. So there's no official, there's no official, you know, use the wait, wait these differently. It's a, that's what the math showed is happening. Does that make sense? Yes. You're saying because they showed, you said because they showed basically as being habitual offenders, they got a heavier sentence and the other convictions out of state were probably biased and which contributed to the higher rate of conviction or sentencing than somebody else that was just in Vermont. That's what you're basically saying, correct? No. So I'm saying that if you, so there's, so the statistician in me is saying this, people have, people come into Vermont, a lot of us moved here from other places.  People in the criminal justice system have passed and some of those passed their criminal histories from out of state. And some of those criminal histories are a product of police departments that have engaged in really bad behavior, of court systems that have engaged in really bad behavior, but we still don't necessarily litigate all of those individual convictions. But so the, people use those criminal histories and makes a difference in the sentencing. We are generally accepting all criminal histories in the system as being valid. I don't know how many convictions were done on a, I've got another study that's looking at that. I don't know how many convictions were out of NYPD when they had a problem. Or which defendants were part of that problem. So one of my thoughts was we could actually pull together, I think we may even have an, I'm sure we have an executive summary in that report. For you all, so you have some understanding of what data are needed to do a sentencing analysis. And so I'm thinking about rather than looking at all the data stuff and how would all the exchanges happen and who, what system talks to what system, which is the answer is pretty much not a whole lot of them, is starting with an actual analysis of data and seeing if there was something that was missing or something that you notice in that analysis or something we want, we want something more done because of that analysis. I'm not sure if that would be helpful but I'm just kind of flipping it on its head and thinking, what if, what if we started with an actual analysis of race and sentence and it's more than race. It's all the demographics. And it's one of the only, well, we're looking to get out of state criminal histories for other projects we're doing, but it's the only project we've done that includes out of state criminal histories, which makes it really valuable because you can look at how those out of state criminal histories impact certainly this behavior at a point in time. There may be other places where they impact other decisions but we could, and I'm not sure what that would look like. I'm just kind of talking out loud rather than looking at data, actually looking at an analysis. And I'd be happy to sit down and talk with Robin about potentially what that could end with Aton and what that could look like. I don't know if that would be of interest. Thank you. Representative Lalom. Yeah, I was really just going to listen but I felt that I should just jump in here. I wanted to give a little perspective of how I think we've ended up here, where we are with the section 19 and at 148. So if that's a value, Aton, I won't waste your time. Please, I don't know. So I've been in the legislature for six years. I pretty quickly learned that we really didn't have very much data that was able to inform our decisions and inform whether our decisions were actually making a difference. I did learn through those number of years that we did have crime research group that could help us on that. But that was a little bit more ad hoc as far as when we reached out to ask for that particular report. So the bottom line is we felt there was a need to have additional good data. And actually the ACLU and supported by the racial justice alliance, they certainly support this bill that the ACLU and I and some others worked with two years ago, H-284, which is something that asks for data throughout the criminal justice system. We did take some initial testimony the first year, but what really seemed to be moving was the justice reinvestment too. And I and others who participated in some of those meetings, at least I certainly did, every time I raised the issue of data in areas where we needed more data. And because it made sense because CSG was evaluating our criminal justice system through data. And there was agreement from the folks who were on that from CSG helping us out there that the data deficiencies should be addressed as part of this. So when justice reinvestment hit, I guess at the end of last year with the bill that we were going to introduce that eventually passed and we had input on the data, it was at that time that your report of the RDAP also came out related to data. Both those things actually, chief, I know there's a lot of people probably didn't look at that, but I was one that was very excited about what was in there about data because it was consistent with what I was pushing and others were pushing with H-284, but it quickly became apparent that our best vehicle for getting anything done was the justice reinvestment bill. And it also looked like the area that we needed the most work that nothing seemed to really being done. I mean, sure there's stuff being done, but as far as really improving and understanding the racial disparity data was in the state's attorneys, was in the courts. We had work was being done with law enforcement. It still needs improvement, but it has been improving. The Department of Corrections data that the CSG looked at, they thought that that was, there was improvement there as well that could be made, but really the focus needed to be on these other areas that hadn't gotten focused with respect to this kind of data. So that's kind of where we ended up. And that's why it seems a little narrow because it seemed to be the area we had the least information on data. And as far as, yeah, I agree with Rebecca. It's sometimes very frustrating and with Sheila that we're just worrying about data instead of doing real work. I believe we are doing some real work with respect to use of force and other things like that. But I agree that that is frustrating, but that's what a lot of stakeholders are asking us for as well. Again, the racial justice alliance, the ACLU are pushing us to get our data together. So as a legislator, yeah, I need the data. People are pushing for data, but I think we do recognize that that obviously we don't wanna just get completely hung up and spending all our time on data. So I apologize, wasn't gonna talk, but I just wanted to kind of give that a little bit of perspective background of where at least my perspective of how we've ended up where we are. Thank you, Representative. Chief Stevens. I'll be quick. I do appreciate the, we all want data. We all want good data so we can make good decisions, but I guess where my point was is that we also offered parallel recommendations to start working on. I mean, we've seen the reports in VT Digger that the state police has all, they have maybe the best data that we, that they've been working on this for a long time and they've made corrections and they're still disparities. They're still, you know, they're still having to work on that. So I'm saying is if we solely focus on just the data, we're gonna miss the opportunity, I think, to make some reforms like maybe, you know, maybe some of the other recommendations about not incarcerating, but finding a different way to do it so that people can still work. Okay, that has nothing to do with data. That has to do with some things of keeping people out of jail where they can be serving time at home while they're waiting their sentence and maybe still providing for their family or, you know, making some other reforms that make sense that could be done that so you're working in a parallel situation while you're trying to improve a statewide database or create some, you know, so people can talk with each other. In other words, the systems can talk with each other. That's all I'm suggesting is that I was frustrated a little bit that we put a lot of time and effort into that report and it seems like most of it's focused on just data. So that's the only reason why I didn't mean any, that the legislators didn't look at it. I'm just saying is I know you're trying to make the right decision, but it's more of, I think there's opportunities to do parallel paths. Thank you. Rebecca. I appreciate hearing, Representative Alon clarify the background to where we're currently at and particularly what I'm hearing him say is the desire to hear what data points are needed or missing that would be informative for understanding racial disparities in the prosecution and judicial area. I'm hearing that right. What we may be able to contribute, again, taking where Karen and Robin are suggesting with a particular example of sentencing disparities without a state histories, if the ask is for us to come up with specific points to collect data from the prosecution side and from the judiciary, again, the example that Robin and Karen just encouraged us, what are the missing data points, right? Was that what I understood? From our defender's perspective, what I wanna know is what did the prosecution ask? What did the prosecutor ask? What did the particular judge impose? But it goes even further than that, right? Before that, what were the conditions, pre-trial release conditions imposed such that that exposed that particular individual to further charges that then trigger increased their preconvictions or their discharges but it increases the sentence. So who is this defendant, not just race, but the full package? And again, what are the prosecutor's decisions charging? What were the plea offers that the prosecutor offered up? What was on the table? What were the conditions imposed by the judge? What bail was imposed that allowed this person to show real real habilitation before sentencing? All of these. So it's it to me, Robin and Karen, I've heard you talked about this report and Gwen and I'm not in a position to sort of give you what you're asking and I don't think you understood you is not asking for that now. But there are so many pieces missing and certainly, I have Jess Brown and I and we have another meetings come up with places where the prosecutor or the judge's exercise highly high discretionary decision-making points and we can turn to that quickly and give that to the legislature. If that's what they're asking us to do is focusing on the prosecution and the judiciary. Thank you. Robin, I have a question that I'd like to direct at you. Is there research anywhere that you're aware of that looks rigorously at the data? I'm not sure how to phrase it. The probative value of the story of the narrative. Sure. And their use is actually data. Yeah, well, there's a whole field of study on qualitative analysis, but I'll give you just some examples that some people here in this group have heard me talk about before and the value of qualitative analysis and public policy or court procedure or something. And this is the story that I will tell forever. I was doing a qualitative study on a program down in Bennington County. Judge Suntag had started the Integrated Domestic Violence docket and one of the reasons why it was started was that victims, we needed victims to feel safer when they were going into court to get their RFA's or for criminal cases, et cetera. And so the court had stations deputies in the parking lots. They had staggered arrival times on RFA day so that the victim was in one room and the respondent was in another room and never the two should meet. And now here's an interesting question. How do I measure whether victims are safer? In this case, we didn't actually speak to victims largely because some wouldn't know whether they were safer because this was their first time. But I was able to talk to a lot of people who worked with victims and were able to amplify their voices for me. And here was the quote. I said to somebody, I said, how do we know that victims are safer? And he said, because I work in Rutland and in Rutland, the women asked me if it's safe to go to the bathroom. And in Bennington, nobody asked me if it's safe to go to the bathroom. And that was the quote. Now I can't get any data points on how safe does it feel to go to the bathroom in a public building. But that quote and that story, right? That helps shape how we now treat victims and how we can think about the experience that people have and people who don't really have a voice as they travel through the system. So if you want more examples of really great policy work that has come out of qualitative analysis, I can totally get that for you. But yes, there's a long rich history of qualitative analysis and moving forward with criminal justice policy where numbers don't necessarily tell the story that we need to hear. Thank you. Yes, sir. I guess like I said at the last meeting, I'm just gonna think out loud. I love the last two agenda have been very funny because they've clearly been aspirational, which is fine. Actually, it's great. It is what you want to do. And I think that's marvelous. But there are a couple of things I'm aware of. One, I am just, we've got this deadline of the 1st of December. What I'm also hearing from this discussion is, it's just too soon. It's just too soon. It's irrational. It is not possible from what I'm gathering here to do the work well in a considered, in a measured and in a dedicated fashion that is actually productive in that amount of time. Chief Stevens raises the point. What is there in the report we've already written that might be germane to this discussion? Robin reminds us of qualitative analysis. God only knows what we're doing with the IT staff. Karen says, why don't we look at this analysis and maybe go from there? The first thing I guess I would put forth is, I suppose what I could do is, go to our friendly legislators and say, yeah, we can't do it in that amount of time. I mean, Sarah Friedman even said, I mean, in a moment there, she was, thought, I believe the word she used that that deadline of the 1st was a bit, I think you said aggressive. I take that. And so I guess I'm starting to chip away now, given that it is 717 at some action points here. And that the first I put forth is, there are more discussions that need to be happening before we actually write. And certainly before we submit. That would be my first, would be the first place I go. Secondly, it seems, and I think we need more feed, I need more feedback on this, that we are feeling perhaps that we'd like to look at what Karen and Robin have proposed in terms of going at this from the standpoint of an analysis rather than this very abstract. I mean, I don't think I'm trying to get out of, really looking at that flow chart, but I am. That maybe what needs to happen is something that really is more graspable. There is a sense, and I, no one has talked me out of this yet. That flow chart tells me it is madness and somebody who is charged to look at madness and make madness sane needs to deal with that. And we need money for them to do this. The fun, the finer points under that would be how many people who deal with, I'm just calling them madness experts. How many madness experts do we need? That still seems like a fundamental question to me, given what's been said here, given that I'm not an expert, given that the last hour and 45 minutes hasn't made that any clearer to me. If someone from CSG wants to weigh in on this, great. But what I'm feeling is at the moment that the main recommendation is, yeah, we need more time. We need to look at this, the analysis that CRG has produced and see how that informs this discussion. And we need to look at qualitative analyses because in fact, we're thinking of data in a broad sense here, including what Sheila brought up and that a bunch of people here have piggybacked on. I'm putting that forth not so much as a motion, but as a direction upon which people can make motions, but it really is a point to focus the discussion further. I'm shutting up now. Why is it after I talk, everyone gets quiet? Aiton, if we need to make a meet a statutory requirement, maybe based on what the legislators were saying about data, and I think it was, Rebecca was just talking about, wasn't it the about judicial, like they still, they had specific that they could turn around pretty quick if you were looking for judicial and if there are things that we can do fairly quickly, I say we do that. And then part of the report says in order for us to do additional work or additional data points, then you either need to get more time, more resources or assign it. So that's part of the report. So I mean, you're giving them what we know we can produce. So we have that, if we have that in our discretion and our wheelhouse, take the opportunity to give them what we can, that makes sense. And then in the report saying, we cannot do others unless there's more time, more money or more resources.  I don't know if that's acceptable to the legislators who are here, but I mean, that's at least a direction, right? If we just go to them and say we can't do it, we don't have enough time, then that's, I don't think that's gonna go well or just gonna look at it as we're not really trying or whatever the case may be. But it's just gonna, I think we do what we can within our purview that we can turn around quickly and then just make sure we put in the clause that if you want additional data or something, then you have to provide those resources or whatever. Rebecca, can I ask you to just sort of elaborate a bit on what you said? Is this putting you on the spot? It was very tantalizing that we could really address points one and two fairly quickly. Can you say a little more on that? Cause I'm feeling emotion, but I don't feel ready yet. Oh shoot, points one and two. What document are you looking at? The agenda? I'm looking at act 148. I'm section 19. I can read it in fact. Please, please. Point one, perform an initial analysis of sentencing patterns across the state to identify where the use and length of incarceration may result in or exacerbate racial disparities and make any related proposals for legislative action, including recommendations for further study. And Sheila, you should be listening too cause I know this is something that you're on. Point two, jointly report their findings pursuant to the subsection and any associated recommendations pursuant to subsections one and two of this subsection to the joint legislative joint oversight, justice oversight committee and the Vermont Sentencing Commission on a before December 1st, 2020. The report shall include any dissenting opinions among the stakeholders. That's a good point. I like that. Anyway, those are the two points, Rebecca. I know, God, I'm really sorry to put people. I'm really, I'm trying to pull something together here that we can grab. I'm sorry to do this. If there's some, you had said something that's really tantalizing about the judiciary and the defending, the defender's point of the different sides here. All right, all right. Perhaps pulled together fairly quickly. Did I get that wrong? How about this? Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. What I understood Representative Oland as clarifying which was that it would be useful to hear what parts of the process in the prosecution and judiciary's arm of this that we should be looking at since the focus has been primarily solely, statutorily at least on police. And Robin and Karen just pointed us to sentencing. We certainly could go to all parts of it. My point was, if you look at sentencing, you can't understand it completely unless you go to the beginning of it because each decision point along the way, pretrial, charging, bail, conditions of release, plea offers, jury trials, well dear, on and on and on, right? Inform the ultimate sentencing. My suggestion was this and the chief made this point. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have come to this. There has been work we've done. My recollection of the work done that was not put into the report because we weren't ready there. We, similar to what Robin did in terms of this flowchart was similar to the work we started. I recall the VLS Blackboard, but I think there was more where I remember sharing with this group at least sort of a quick outline of where I saw and I know there have been great erasings of this by others, I don't mean to claim the drafting sense of this, but it was about identifying all of the discretionary points at each of the significant parts of the criminal juvenile justice system. And we had made a decision because we're so big to just focus on the pre-precharging. And that's what led to the report because we hit a deadline. But before that, we had had an outline to work from and granted. We didn't ever vote on it as a panel that that was acceptable. But my suggestion is if they're looking for points, because really what it is to me I'm hearing is let's collect data on the high discretionary point made by the prosecution and the judiciary. And let's put that in the list, suggest that's where the missing data should, there should be a focus on. And I think that's, if there's any suggestion, perhaps, it's so big that what I'm hearing from Representative Laun is we focus just on the prosecutor and the judiciary. Right, right. That's all I have. I don't know. Thank you, thank you. I realized that was, Rebecca saved me, but thank you. Representative LaLonde. Yeah, and I just wanna say it's not coming just from my viewpoint of all this, but the language in the bill in section 19, specifically when you look at subsection A, it becomes pretty clear that it's the prosecution and courts data that is being looked at and that we want.  So. Okay, I... So it sounds like we have a direction. Yeah, it does. And it sounds like what Rebecca was talking about, what we started originally can be put together fairly quickly to give them places to focus on that hasn't been focused on previously because everybody's always dealing with traffic stops and everything else. Maybe there's some, I mean, Judge might be able to weigh in on this, cause he's obviously involved with the prosecutions and other things that maybe that is the place that's missing that can be focused on that we can turn around. I don't know. It sounds like we have a direction. May not have everything, but it sounds like we have a direction. Would you care to make a motion? I would rather Rebecca make that motion because she's knows what she was just saying. I don't mind seconding it. I'd love everybody kicking the can right now. I mean, we're really trying very hard. I'm not saying... How about this? I have so much time on my hands. I propose a subcommittee cause I am starting with that draft and maybe updating where that was a few months ago, checking in and circulating it with a whole panel and whoever else is interested in sort of coming to the next meeting with where we can get closer to a whole document, document that reflects all of the points so nothing's missing or if there's any disputes about how things are characterized, we can work it out before the meeting and we have a document to work from at the next meeting. That's my motion. Long. Can we discuss a bit about who would be on the subcommittee? Can I hear back from panel members who think this is something they could work on? I mean, I would. I'm here. Judge Grierson, you have a comment or are you voting? I mean, saying you'll do it. We can't hear you. We've had this discussion and I think at one point, I think I would have been on that subcommittee and I know I missed the meeting, but I would be glad to be on the subcommittee. I mean, I think the statement or the legislation doesn't cover everything that. Now, by any stretch. So I don't think we can just look at that legislation and say that's the answer.  Okay. So, Rebecca, are you on the subcommittee?  Yeah, no, I think that the subcommittee that the judge is referencing was something that Pepper, David, Sherry, and Judge Grierson was on. I remember it was the four of you. Yeah. And I think also Jess Brown. Okay, sorry, Jessica, I don't remember. I don't know if anyone else is interested in joining that, but it sounds like that's the same group. Sheila? You had some other points here that you were concerned about. Is this something where you feel you should weigh in? I was, so first of all, in terms of the committee, I'm very interested in the committee, but I have really limited capacity, so I want to be realistic. So I would love to be able to contribute in an authentic way to what is being discussed, but figuring that out with my schedule and my other responsibilities would have to be taken into consideration. And I apologize that it's dark. I'm choosing to have not turned on my light yet and I'm on my porch. I think some of the other questions might be able to weigh in, Tom, but I think one of the clarifying questions I have is with the interpretation of the 148A and trying to understand that, is that statement also saying that if, just a second, I'm gonna sort of bring it up so I can be able to understand a little bit more, if for somehow by that analysis that the use to the length of a car observation does result in masturbating or racial disparities, are we making this legislative action or recommendations with regard specifically to that or to other connected systems and structures that impact that? And I know that's really confusing of what I'm saying, but what I mean by that is so, for example, if somebody goes to jail and they have children and their children go into DCF custody because they went into jail and they were in there for more than a night or whatever their children had to go into custody for whatever reasons. Are we also creating legislation that says, hey, don't be taking people's kids away because we're also talking about, again, the juvenile justice system, which is DCF is a part of it, and we're also talking about the other merits of spokes that are connected to this. And so I don't know if I'm just reading into that section A really deeply or if I'm just looking at it very broadly, but I'm just kind of curious of people's interpretation if it's just with, oh, yes, we want legislative action on how to prevent this thing from happening, but then it is happening. And one of the other things that are happening that helps support that thing happening, getting at the root of things. So that is a question I have. I really apologize. I can answer clarifying questions if that's necessary. I'm thinking. Okay. Actually, that's helpful. I would, well, I'll be tendentious. I'd love a motion suggesting that a subcommittee meet between now and let's say a week before our next meeting, which is on I believe the 13th of October to prepare a, not particularly long document with these points of discretion that are significant that answer points one and two and that they get that done about a week before that. And I get it out to everyone and we discussed that in October. This is clarifying the motion that Rebecca made to create the subcommittee. Correct, A-Ton? Correct. So the same motion. Okay. I will second that. Well, someone has to make the motion. I'm legally not supposed to. Okay. I'll move that the subcommittee do everything that A-Ton just said. Love it, Jen. Thank you. I'll second it. Great. All in favor. I don't know. Raise your hand, scream something. Hi. Hi. Thank you. That actually works. All opposed. Excellent. All abstaining. Great. So we have a subcommittee. Well, A-Ton, can we say though that part of this, I don't know if it has to be a motion or not, but someone will determine who's on the subcommittee. Are you going to say anybody on the panel who wants to be part of it, contact Rebecca or whoever's going to be spearheading this? Oh, okay. I thought, sure. Because we don't know who's on the committee, right? And if you're going to do that. It was Pepper and Rebecca, Judge Grierson, David, and Sheila depending on her schedule. Okay. Sorry, I missed that. All right. Thank you. So would you all like me to use my expertise in creating doodle polls or is that like ridiculous? Those of you on the subcommittee. No, I'm sorry, A-Ton. I just figured, I didn't know who was on the committee, but you've already named them. So I'm okay with just, we don't have to make this complicated. Okay. Okay. All right. So we have that. The other question then, okay, so that gives us a direction as Chief Stevens, as Rebecca has everyone sort of pointed out, that feels good. I would also just like to point out that one of the important points in point one in section 19 also says, including recommendations for further study. I know it makes me want to scream and pull my hair out, even though there ain't much. But the reality is I just, it would be bad, I think, to make bad judgments around this. I think there's enough of that that's gone around. Do people feel in general that we should work on that in October and not worry yet about the December 1st deadline? I'd like to get some clarity around that. Okay. I am gonna move then. No, I can't move. I'm gonna suggest, oh, I'm sorry, Judge Grierson. Yeah, I mean, if we really don't think that, if you're gonna need resources to do what we've been asked to do, they're not gonna be available before December 1st. We can go ahead with this subcommittee and see what we can do under that action. But someone might as well frame a letter to the legislature and get it ready to go saying we're not going to be able, we're not going to be able to provide the report called for by the legislature by that date. If that's what I hear the discussion is tonight. I can do that. I mean, if everyone agrees. I will, we'll get, okay, let's hold that for a moment. Representative LaLonde? So I understand, Eton, that you're going to be testifying with corrections the next day or two. Is that news to you or? I said, I think Eton might be coming into our committee is what it says. While we were on this, I was looking for a vehicle if you really felt that we needed to change that deadline because the judiciary committee doesn't really have a place to put that, but I did find out that corrections is working on some language related to police reform bills and there may be a place where the deadlines could be modified. So that's up to you. I just wanted to give you that heads up that there's maybe that avenue to try to do that. Representative, if I might prevail, if you know, can you tell me when I'm? You'll, I'll have to have Sarah Cloughy contact you. I just asked her if they had a bill and she says, I think you're coming in. So let me check with that. They have a, can I just, Eton, there's a draft. And some of you are probably aware of it because you participated in some testimony last week. There's a draft bill, right? That they've been working on. They did take some, they reviewed it today with their legislative council and they said that they would probably be coming back on Thursday with some more testimony, but they didn't, I didn't hear your name mentioned, but that doesn't mean that they weren't thinking about having you come. So, okay, but I can look at that too. Well, I'll, I'll figure something out. Thank you. I don't see you on the agenda. I'm looking at their agenda right now, Eton, but just so you know, things seem to be even more fluid than usual these couple of weeks of this oddball session that we have. So that's really heartwarming. Thank you. I will figure it out. Thank you, representative. Okay, thank you. Losing the thread. I would like some, what I'm hearing is there is feeling that I, there should be a letter or some form of communication to the legislature about what we currently feel is possible and impossible for the 1st of December. Is that correct? Yes, no, maybe. I think it makes sense to, to put something like that together. And I think we could also base it a little bit on the work that that committee did with Kristen. Cause we really, I think identified in that committee how difficult it was gonna be to give them the information that they requested. And then we would be able, and then it looks like, oh, you know, it's not like we were trying to avoid doing this. We tried, we were looking at it and oh my gosh, it's way bigger than we realized. Would you like to make a motion, Monica? Sure, I will make a motion that the committee write a letter to the, I think it's chair of the joint justice oversight committee. I think that's who it goes to or whoever it needs to go to that we describing why we will not be able to meet the December 1st deadline as outlined in Act 148. Lovely. Oh, Sheila, you want further discussion? Sheila? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, yes, thank you. I said I'm fine. Oh, you are, sorry. I saw your hand up. So I thought I'm fine. Last vote, I'm sorry, you asked a question and I chose to raise my hand to answer. Okay, thank you. So does anyone want a second, Monica's motion? I'll second it. Thank you. All in favor, scream. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, all abstentions. Okay. Thank you, motion is carried. I can draft a letter and I'll get it out to people for comment and edit and all sorts of stuff like that. Tear it apart, put it back together, do whatever you want. It'll be fun. I'm also thinking I want to include if she's agreeable to it, Kristen's, I want to put the two flowcharts because Monica makes a really good point about really emphasizing the complicated nature of this. And I feel like that might help is to take her first flowchart, which was so pristine. That's really the only word to be used. And then we ended up with that really frightening thing that we are looking at now. And I think that might help make the point about the complication. I think we have a path. Does anyone feel like I'm missing something or we've missed something or that there's something else we need to do before we adjourn? Do you want to do public comments? I mean, I feel like everyone's been talking already. Who's on the call? When we started, I had said that everybody was in, that's Curtis and everybody like jumped in and had really good things to say and asked and so on. Because we're incorporating that. Sheila, I think I said that at the beginning that she had recommended that we were gonna do public commentary after each of the discussion items. And since those were largely aspirational, people just left in and I loved it. It was really organic. If anyone else has anything to say, certainly come on in. Well, there we are. Hey, Tom, can I just ask one question? Yes. Sheila, just for clarification, we had talked about, somebody had mentioned, I think it was Monica, about reviewing some type of data that might have been Karen, that to reviewing, are we going to still do that? I didn't know if there was a discussion. Thank you, Sheila. There was a lot going on in that discussion about reporting and then is she gonna do something? I personally don't know if this was the same thing, but again, I'm really looking for that data dictionary. I'm really looking to personally understand the flow chart that was presented to us and the acronyms of again, the data dictionary of those things. I'm looking to understand the current system so I can understand what we need to either abolish or rebuild or to work from and critique. So I'm just sort of wondering about that particular information if that's something that's gonna move forward. She was not, but yes, go ahead. Sorry, it's Robin. I can totally explain a lot of that. A data dictionary in my term, in my world may mean something different and that would be thousands of pages in my world of data fields that all the systems collect and what they mean. So what does it mean in your world? Well, maybe in a technical sense, it might mean that, but starting from what we've received, so the example of the flow chart, I don't know what some of those acronyms actually mean. So I'm curious about what they mean, what they provide and what their funding resource is as well. And the reason why I'm asking that is because what I've been hearing in these conversations is that I heard somebody say, well, we're only funded to get this type of data. And so I'm wondering if certain, well, it sounds like not wondering that different entities choose to invest in collecting certain types of data and funds that is what I'm hearing.  You go down the list or is it what's most important to them? Like, do they direct based on the funds given what we're allowed to collect data on? I'm just really curious about that whole relationship within that flow chart. So starting with the information that's been presented to us in both the flow chart and that other chart sheet would be a good starting point. Mike, I thought, and I may be wrong on this, that what we were gonna do is you guys on the subcommittee, we're gonna work on points one and two. And given that that is a huge topic, we were going to get around to considering that, but not necessarily for the 13th of October. I may be wrong. Was that anybody else's understanding? Okay. Sheila? Yes. I'm thinking that that may be something that we're gonna be doing after the 13th of October and that we need your labor right now with the subcommittee around points one and two. Is, I just wanna have a thumbs up or recognition that that question is understandable, that either Robin or somebody understands what I'm asking or if there's anybody else on the panel or who's on here who agrees around, understanding what those entities are, but also understanding that funding stream and who funds what and why. Is that actually my question? I think that makes sense. I just think it's one of those, the elements of the hugeness of that project that I'm writing a letter to the legislature saying, it's a little ridiculous to do this by the 1st of December. I'm sorry, I can take, so I wrote the Excel map that says the data map. I can certainly add to that to make it more readable for people who aren't enmeshed in the system and I apologize for not doing that. So I can explain some of the acronyms that appear both in my data and in the flow chart that Kristen did. On the funding streams, I think that that's a question that I can't answer and I would need, because I know at least from my perspective from, for example, if you wanted to change a field in a particular database, it's not even necessarily a funding stream and maybe we can document this, it's that you have to put your name in a queue and if nationally other people don't want that field, you're not gonna get that field because they're buying these data systems that are national. So to help kind of find those questions or find those answers for you, maybe I can have a conversation with you to kind of understand what that means to you. That would be great because I did not understand what you just said. Okay, I'm sorry, not for a long day. No, I'm sorry, I just don't speak that language so I don't even understand what you mean by that data system, I don't even understand what that means. Okay, so for everybody I will write out what I did in that data map in better English for people who aren't part of this system inside my head. Angela, if you do, I would appreciate some time along with you and I can try to speak better English on that and just try to translate it out of my head. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, our next meeting is the 13th of October, again from six to eight PM. I am hoping given all the moves we've made in this last hour, no, I'm sorry, two hours that I will a week before that be able to get a document from the subcommittee out to everyone that will probably be our main focus. And that is really all I have to say myself. If anyone has any other business, this would be the moment we have seven, eight minutes, six minutes. Hey, Tanya and Rebecca, I just want to ask the people who want to be on that subcommittee are interested who think they might be interested in joining to maybe stay on just for a minute or two so we can coordinate our schedules and when we can next meet. And I would stay on as well just so I can listen in and help and I would, for everyone else, I would certainly entertain a motion for everyone to, I don't know, do whatever it is at eight o'clock on a Tuesday night. I make a motion to end the meeting. And second. Great, all in favor. Hi. All of stating, we are done. Please subcommittee people, stay on everyone else. Have a nice evening. See you next time. Thank you subcommittee people volunteering your time. Thank you. Have a good night. Thanks, bye. Bye. So I subcommittee people, I was staying on because I wasn't sure if you wanted corrections input on what was happening. Is that me? I don't know. Yeah, hold on. It went away. It was a good idea to have Monica on now. It's okay. I'm sorry. Okay. I think, yeah, I don't know what that was. I apologize for that sound. It wasn't pleasant in my ear. So I'm sure you guys didn't like it, but I just wanted to, if you want me to be on the subcommittee, I will, I wasn't sure. So I thought I'd just stay and offer that. Great. Okay, great. I think you'd be a welcome addition, Monica. Thank you, Judge. Yeah, no, thanks, Monica, for wanting to be a part of it. So how about, let's take a look at our last week of September schedules. It looks like 28th September, unless you want to be before, but that gives us a week before the date that Atom is hoping we get that document too, out to the panel. The only thing I will note to those of you that think this is important, who celebrate, that's the ump for. Oh, that week? The 28th, exactly, is ump to four. Don't mean to interrupt, but I just wanted to volunteer CSG services if you wanted some help, like facilitating, figuring out scheduling, setting up the agenda, taking some of this off. You all, some of this kind of project management support and thinking this through. So that's why we're still here, not officially committing members, and I didn't want to interrupt, but. Thank you. And yeah, I just wanted to put that out there. Oh, fantastic. We should accept that offer. Absolutely, I do. Thank you. Does that mean scheduling these meetings? Yes, and that would mean figuring out a schedule, although while you all are here, it might be just to do it on the phone, but we could also send out a doodle or something like that, so that we could help just support the process. Right. Well, and I just want to go ahead, Judge, sorry. No, I was just going to say, I was looking at that week and God knows what'll be going on with the legislature on that time, but I think if it's later in the afternoon, like three o'clock might be a better time for everybody, but I just throw that out there. Of course, I have just three investment implementation meetings every day from three to four, but I can probably skip one of them. You want a break? I'll just make Dale do them. I was curious though, because A-Town, I heard you say, you wanted something the week before, and I just didn't know if waiting until the week of the 28th gave us enough time. I wasn't sure how much time we were going to need, so. I, that's a good question, and I'm not really going to be good at answering it. Yeah, I'm not either, I'm just, yeah. Let's try it. I think we should try it for the week of the 21st if we can, just to give ourselves a little buffer, if that's your fault for folks. When is the afternoon of Wednesday, the 23rd? Do you have a meeting? What are people's thoughts? And the only real day that I could probably, for me, is potentially on a Tuesday. Just to put that out there, and it doesn't have to revolve around me, but I'm just, as we're looking at schedules. So the 22nd, if we were going to do something, I could be potentially able to do something at two or at three that day, if that's something that would work for folks. But I'm curious of how long, do you want to meet for, what's the duration of time? I don't know, a couple of hours? What do you guys think? Let's budget it a couple of hours, and if we don't need it, we don't need it. And I'm good for the 22nd Tuesday, starting at two o'clock. I am as well. Yeah, that works. I can meet two to three, three to four is tentative, but certainly I can be there for an hour and hopefully two. Great. Can I ask you some clarity? Are we picking September 22nd at what time, please? Two. Right, two to four? Yeah. Two to four is fine with me. And there we are. Great. So someone will send out a doodle invite, what are the teams invite, I suppose? Yes. Oh my God, yes. Yes, I will get that out to the team. I think I might have a mixture of everyone's email address. I will find the others that I need to, and I will look to get a calendar invite early tomorrow morning. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right, so I guess, well, I don't have to end this. You can go. Thanks everyone. This was really hairy, but it went well. It was one of our hairier ones. It was exciting. Thank you for everything, seriously. And I'll get going on the letter and I will do all the rest of that. I will talk with you all soon. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Good night. Good night. Good night, Tom. Good night. Good night.