Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the November 1st meeting of the Act 65 Working Group of the Racial Disparities Advisory Panel. Let us introduce ourselves. I'll go down the list. Robyn. Robyn Gilli, Cram Research Group. Thank you. Abigail Crocker. The University of Vermont and National Center on Restorative Justice. Thank you. Susanna. Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director for the state. Karen. Karen Gannett, Crime Research Group. Elizabeth. Elizabeth Morris, DC Act. Thank you. Julio. Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner, Defender General's Office. And I hope I will get this right. Gail Prule. Super close. It's a weird French name. It's Gail Prule. Yes. Desi. I'm with the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance. Thank you. And Monica. Hi, Monica Weeper. I'm the Department of Corrections representative to the panel. Great. Good evening, everyone. As I had said to some people before we got going, Evan can't make it tonight. Sheila can't make it tonight, but they both were just gave their regrets. So they won't be here. What else did I think? Nothing. How's keeping it? Yes, something. Yeah, this is a sign I just wanted to apologize in advance for having to leave early today and then next week and then the week after that. Sorry. Quite all right. Sorry, I just bulldozed every lap. No, that's fine. Unfortunately, I guess if you're expected to train people, you're expected to also be trained. So that's a conflict. Sorry about that. Oh, and how's keeping we this is due this report on the 15th. So we have roughly two weeks. A week from tonight, I'm sorry, a week from tomorrow night will be our last meeting with the full panel. So what I really I want to start out by proposing that we we've got a drawn line of those of us who are on the working group with edits that there has to come a moment where it's done, but the edits that are on here are discussed and that's fine. But then somebody isn't going to go back and three pages earlier decide something else. Now I'm not talking about copy edits. Traditionally, but there's no need to follow that tradition and you'll know why when I finish the sentence. I've gone back to the last two reports very close to the end and done the copy editing. I mean, if anyone else is totally jazzed by that thought, that's lovely and do feel free. But what I do want to say is that there's really got to come a point where we're done. And it has to be discreet. It has to be specific. And it needs to be significantly before a week from tomorrow night. Because what we have to present to the panel tomorrow night is basically a finished piece of work with some tune ups that need to happen. Does anyone have any comment on what I'm putting forth here? I just agree with what you're saying. 100%. Should we say then, because we'll meet Monday next week, I would imagine. Because I don't imagine we're going to get through everything tonight. But we'll get closer. Should we then say, let's say Thursday. Thursday is it. That worked for everybody. If it doesn't work for somebody, say something. You're saying it's on November 4th, Thursday to have all of our inputs in. Is this coming Thursday, November 4th? Yeah. Yes. OK, thank you. Yes. I'm sorry. I was like this Thursday, whatever that is. No, and that's fine. I just think that after tonight, then we'll have a cleaned up copy for us to look at. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Don't be curious. So I just want to put that out there. Because I just, otherwise, this turns into a nightmare at the end for the people who are pulling it together at the end. And no, just no. I want to start launching into this. But I wanted to start out by offering something to Karen. Go ahead. I just I just wanted to say that I was which you and I were in touch today and he couldn't make the meeting tonight. But he will take a look at the final draft that we come up with tonight and make any if there's anything he feels is important or we didn't capture. He'll I'll make sure he knows to have it done by Thursday. Great. Thank you kindly. You're welcome. So what I wanted to put out was sort of a compromise. And it's kind of a big one. One of one of the big issues that we got to at the end of last meeting was racial justice, social justice. I think we're OK with office. Entities, a little ecto plasmac, but, you know, but there and Jeff Jones really summed it up. Well, I thought about why racial justice, as I said, in my comments, he's right. I don't agree with him. And by that, I would imagine you all couldn't understand that it's possible to think someone's right and still think that being right is a question of degree and not a question of absolutism. I still I was really willing to go to the map on that. That was going to be the one thing I was going to have as a sticking point in this was that we talk about social justice. And I was really going to do that for a bunch of reasons. A lesser reason would have to do with the resistance that I sensed from various progressive legislators about it being simply about racial justice, that this body be that and that that would get us around that. But I also a larger issue for me had to do with the fact of what witchy so eloquently said a few weeks ago when we were talking about this, that during the pandemic it was black transgender women who were dying more than just black men who were cisgendered that it really was in the intersections that these things really were propping up. I I believe that's true. I think there are data to show that. Um, I feel very strongly about that. I feel like just talking about race is something that went on at least out in the world. I don't know about Vermont, but out in the world, no one does this anymore. And people, everyone's an intersectional theorist and things of that nature. And I guess I've studied this long enough that I'm kind of on that boat. But what I would propose is I can live with it being the Office of Racial Justice Statistics if all of the language about scalability is made extremely is just it is strong now. But as long as that remains very strong and that's what I'm putting forth, I'm willing to back off and go to Office of Racial Justice and so on. That's a big one, but I wanted to throw that out there. I don't think we need to answer it right now, but I think that I just wanted to start that conversation off and let you all think about that, because that's a big one, but it's going to be a real sticking point. I think it's going to be a sticking point with a lot. I mean, we've already got three community members here on this. I don't know where she Stevens will lie on it. I don't know where Jess Brown is going to lie on this. I know that Jeff and Sheila both want it to be racial justice, and I do not. So I don't know the witchy I'm imagining agrees with social. I don't want the whole thing to like get bogged down on that. There's too much more here, but I do want to put that in your heads as something to think about and something that I guess I would hope we could resolve at our next meeting a week from tonight. OK. Thanks, you're welcome. I just felt like I should put that out there to start with. Anything else before we turn our attention like we did last time?  He sounded like Pat Sage Act.  Oh, I know. It really was he was like a radio voice, and I don't have a radio voice. It was wonderful. But so you're going to put my voice. But we were at the beginning of section four, which is identifying how and to what extent the currently office of social justice statistics should be organized and staffed. And the first comment is by Monica, which it's on. Can I just stop you for a second? Do you want me to put the notes in as we go along? Yes, please. OK. Would you? Yep. That would be lovely. Happy to. Thank you. You know, just for clarity, what page did you say we're on? Page five. No. He said section four, identifying how and to what extent the office of social justice statistics. I don't have page numbers. Do you have page numbers? Sixth, you know, I know on the bottom left of Microsoft Word, there's a right next to the word, so I see Monica's. OK, I'm there. Thanks. OK, Monica. OK, well, two thing I was going to ask if who was going to take notes, because I thought that worked well, but Karen's already volunteered. But Karen, if if if you need backup, just let me know. And then I had put guide in there this week. We kind of had this conversation last week about the governing body. And I think we kind of resolved I'm not stuck on any particular word because I'm not. Yeah, so we I was just noting it for consistency. And we did make a decision about kind of the word we were going to use for the governing body in the earlier part of the document. I am. I do feel strongly about the word choice here. I thought we had landed on direct. From last. Right. Which is my point was like we made a decision on the other part, which is why I don't this comment doesn't. Oh, got it. OK. But I would. Go ahead, Rebecca. I do think we should be consistent. I do think it's particularly in this section. I think we should say direct. Got it. Thank you, Karen.  Yeah. And of course, next would be Evan. Oh. Poor man. He's he's he's copy editing, but sure. Some people. Should this be and. Great. Thanks, Karen. Why not? Yeah. And go ahead and delete that. Thanks. I feel like a word is missing here. Should it be populations, persons, communities? I think the idea is that we aren't talking about specific individuals in the sentence, but communities of individuals who may have been impacted by disparities in these systems, which means it can be representatives of those communities who participate. OK. Which he kind of already. I'm looking. So he wants that after the he wants it like those populations, those people who those communities who is that where he's looking to insert something like that? I didn't need to. Yeah. Which I think makes sense. I suppose nicely. So. So is there is there a proposed edit to replace there? I think it's good as it stands. Here are the words in the same class. He he. Population seems to me that persons would work. Persons is the most appropriate, I think I would agree. I would agree. Anybody else? No, I like it. I do agree that it's it's the sentence reads better with a word. There's then I it's persons. It's fine. I believe it is. Yeah. I loved what I this is one of my favorites. I this one I he I'm probably outing him. But he was a philosophy major in college. And I at one point earlier on said to him in an email I said I'm going to take a wild guess. You were a philosophy major in college and you did calculus. I was right. Because it's just how he thinks somehow. And I like this. I tried to reword the sentence using passive language so that no one could accuse our death of speaking on behalf of the legislature. I'm assuming as opposed to making a recommendation for the legislature. So I think it works what he did. It comes out a participatory governance structure should be integrates diverse perspectives throughout the day the life cycle. And may and may also help right to avoid perpetuating problematic practices that may result in inherent systemic racial disparities works works. Yeah. Got it. OK. Going along and it's Karen. Tyler actually. Oh it's from Tyler. Yeah. Sorry. That's OK. I had to copy some of these things over because they didn't move with my right up being in pasting. Is it the first task of the office itself to develop this board. If so do we need to go to such lengths to define representation below if that is the work of the office. It's a good question. To consider what if we only included the first list below which characterizes the makeup of the communities this office should serve as others have said this list can be combined with any unacknowledged characteristic populations from the community list. I'm the what do you all think. What does somebody else think other than a ton. Well I did put a note in there. Oh sorry Elizabeth. No I was just going to say Monika I think you responded because Tyler and I connected about this and he said that he thought he agreed with your response essentially was that was what I was going to say. OK. Well and so. My thinking was that again I just put here. I think we want the governing board to structure to be in statute and then we want the statute to give the board authority to convene that board and if we do have specifics about who we want to be on it which I think we do we should state that in this report. And there they are. Yeah. So it just and maybe that just needs to be something that's a little bit either more clear here or you know as we pay attention to the statute that gets introduced making sure that that's clear there. OK. And that of course we'll have to worry about when we get to the point of the bill. Right. Which we're not doing yet. I would also take out that red up above do we want to be this prescriptive. Because the answer is yes. I also think it's interesting how we divided this list up into three groups. And I I'm fine with it except that when I see how buried the individuals who actually have the lived experienced in the systems the people who are the data right presently with the disparities and that they're not until you get to the third group deeply embedded in that bottom third group. And I'm talking about number three individuals will lived experiences. So you know I think that's a wrong way of it's communicates a low priority of that of that group. And when I think that actually they have to be top right. They are I don't want you know as much as a ton you were talking about sort of keeping that focus when you're talking about the title of the entity I think for me what's central here is to not lose focus on the individuals who are the data right. And so I just want to and I think that's individual lived experiences right.  But I just that so I just want to make sure we somehow change how this is being communicated with the individuals who lived it's like an afterthought how it's being presented. I would suggest it would be I mean I can't do it right now off the top of my head because it's Monday feeling like Friday. It's one through five in the first list. It would be very easy to insert with lived experience. Number four already has youth with lived experience. Oh there you go. And I'm not averse to just having experience since I don't know what non-lived experience would be. But maybe I'm being too too hyper focused. It's a phrase that seems to have caught common in the common parlance. But like I said I'm not sure what the experience would would be in this context. But it seems to me that that would be the natural place to put it. You could be a police officer with experience in that system where you could actually be the person charged convicted serving time in jail. Right. You could be the person who so I think that's what I mean. Like how close are you to be directly impacted. Is the officer in the juvenile justice system. Yes. And there is also a lot of conversation about family members holding that role of lived experience.  And that that does need to be clarified when talking about this because technically that that you know that family member does have experience but they don't have their lived experience. And I'm not persuaded but OK it's still lived. People live their experiences. It may be my participants are subjects of prosecutions but they still have lived experiences. Anyway I might the larger point really was just that force. Rebecca makes a very good point and it's very consistent with number four to put in that top tier people with the experience that we're looking for. I agree with that. OK. Let's let is that accept Monica. I just wanted to I do remember at one point we had a conversation about you know moving that community stakeholder list up to a higher place in the report. And so you know it was clear that hey the community stakeholders we thought were prioritized over some of these you know you know state entities so that it doesn't look like an afterthought even though we don't think it that way. Some people might read it that way. So. Do we want. Do we want to switch the second list and third list. I would be fine. Doing that. I would as well. Others. I think it's fine because the current group to is not going to be forgotten by the legislature. Really. Totally true. No matter what. Exactly. So I don't. We could leave them out of this report and they'd still get. I think it's fine to put it at the end. Right. I put it. I put a note in to do just that. I see. Thank you. Rebecca. This is a very good point. Evan asked. Elizabeth responded. Evan asked. Is it the actual user? Who should be on the board or a representative of these youth and Elizabeth. No. Elizabeth responded not represented. If we have a representative of the youth on the board instead of the youth themselves that we need to ensure that there is a system for the representative to aggregate specific feedback from youth themselves. Adults who are speaking on behalf of youth without consulting them are not adequately representing them. We have this discussion. And granted. It is hard to find people who have been part of the system who will want to come back and do that. There's a lot of reasons why there's it's hard, but we should at least put it out there in the report. So yeah, Elizabeth appreciate that language. Yeah. Point. Yeah. And I think there's, you know, there's certain ways that we could. Tyler and I had a long conversation. About this as well, because, you know, it is also difficult to expect a youth who. Has that lived experience in the JJ system or is currently in the JJ system to come to one of these meetings and expect that they're going to feel like they can intercede themselves into a conversation. That's going to be very difficult for them as well. So, you know, Tyler and I will also talking that there are some alternatives. Where we could identify that there is. One of their representatives whose job it is to aggregate that specific feedback. And from an entity where they're not necessarily represent, where they are definitely not representing. Their entity, but their job is to essentially.  So, there's a couple ways to approach it and I think it depends on what we. Want, but I do think that there needs to be some really serious thought on how to make sure that they're not just a token youth on the board. As well. Boss.  There's, there's some entities that are used to gathering feedback from youth and presenting that, or we could go the route of saying that there has to be a youth on the board. If that's the case. I just am concerned about them just being sitting quietly in the corner. So anyway. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Elizabeth, would it make sense to say, to leave it to me? It is for and then add or as an alternative. And use some of the language in your comment as an alternative. Representatives. To aggregate. Specific feedback from youths themselves. Or, or some, you can give me the language. I don't, it doesn't matter what it is, but it's the idea of having at or as an alternative. Elizabeth, would it make sense to say to leave it the way it is for, as an alternative. And also, you know, I'm not sure if we want to have too much stuff that the larger group discusses, but it could also be something that they weigh in on how to, how to handle that and approach that. Or, or, and I'm sure Sheila also would have some thoughts on that too. Stuff. But I, I'm, I'm open to that. Suggestion. Well, do you want, do you want to talk with Tyler and just give me the language for that? Yeah, we can. We'll talk through some language and have it in by Thursday. Does that work? And then this group. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. You know, a ton. This series is the point of people aren't giving feedback on Thursday, but we have comments or suggestions based on this new feedback coming on Thursday. We're going to be open to discussing that, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be helpful. Yeah. And Elizabeth, if you want to give, because I know that. You know, if you got you and Tyler coming up with some language, if you want to float some ahead of Thursday by me and I'll loop in Marshall. Our juvenile defender. And deputy. I think that'd be helpful. You might have something to add here. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Wonderful. All right. Karen writes. I know Karen writes. Tyler's comment. Sorry. It's all getting very representative. As I consider this is Tyler. As I consider what this governing body looks like. I have a bit of work to do. That these players may be positioned to bully the community representation of the room. I appreciate that these agencies have expertise and how to understand and utilize data. And there is a value to that. But it does come at the cost of overwhelming the voice of those coming from the communities represented. In the data. Oh, that was with a question mark. Sorry. Monica says. Good point. Maybe these entities have a different role with subject matter experts to inform the work versus a full board member. That's what the. That's what the council is. Has. That's it set up. Right now. Just saying. That this would be. The council for those of you who don't know. There's the council. And then there are these subcommittees of subject matter experts. Who. Meet on their own. And don't ever actually meet with the council. But there. There's sort of. Representation from the subcommittees that goes to the council and speaks with it. Monica. So the way I'm reading this section though is that we're saying that. This whole list one through nine. Is part of that larger. Guiding body or council. Right. Along with. People on the other. List. And so it's a big. Group of people. Who are. This governing body. And the way I interpret it. And you know, again, Tyler's not here, but maybe Elizabeth. You can channel him if you've done it to him. Right.  Is that. You know, that it's like, okay. Well, of course, you know, we can sometimes. 100%. Just kind of use our position and authority to. You know, overwhelm people and make them think that they don't have any. Rights to. Say anything. And so, you know, that if we want to address that, there's ways that we could say we think these people should. Either like not have a vote or there should be some other. Or not, not have a vote, but some way to set it up. Structurally. That. Addresses. What, you know, is almost. You know, There's a lot of things that we're trying to do. You know, And we're also trying to get to the extent that the authority. That. Addresses what you know, is almost like a disparity within the governing body that we're setting up already. You know, I'm not. I'll go ahead, Rebecca. Oh, no, no, go ahead.  You had your hand up, it was. Say, Monica, then I think your suggestion is a good one. Cause I think Tyler here. And you could tell Tyler, I had a conversation about power dynamics with youth, and some of the stakeholders that are identified that we just you know we just laughed about how the legislature isn't going to forget about them and I and I to be quite honest I think the suggestion here might be to to change their role completely and for them to be removed from the official representation on the governing body maybe their advisors maybe there's something as Monica suggested just because it seems and Rebecca you've brought this up a lot too is that the community stakeholders need to be the primary ones leading this or directing as as we identified that word and I think there's just concerns about them feeling like they have a say in what's happening when there's a group of people who might be saying oh well you don't really understand how this works like and then going into to details so so just clarifying so you yours what's being tossed around here is to think that to make the government stakeholder representatives to be advisory sort of have a second level status got it an advisory room to the governing board yeah audience yeah because they're gonna they're gonna need as you mentioned to speak to people to understand what's going on and I think the the bill that gets introduced should should make it a requirement that that these government agencies support that work but maybe not necessarily having the same authority as the governing body Abigail but I like that I've just for my own clarity then how would this be different than sort of the councils and committees towards the bottom of the report anybody you know I had a similar question yeah I don't know if I had necessarily been answered to that to be quite honest but I think I think you're raising a good question I think that's what we need to go through and sort of align some of the language right because I do think that some of those committees are made up of these people and that the again the bill should require that these government entities participate in order to inform and advise and then the governing body is able to take all of that information into consideration but these people nine people on the list aren't sort of I don't I don't know I'm just imagine like voting or whatever the process is right that that they're not I have to share that instinctively I'm nervous about carving out two different to not integrate the two only because it's so much easier to render one as some secondary the other and I'm not presuming that the community members will always be leading the charge here right I mean who has the data who has the money who has the who can sue it can be the ultimate obstructionists right and so I like the idea I just don't know if in effect we can make it happen I don't know if it's better to integrate it as one from the beginning I don't know but I just share that I yeah Julio can I well you're you're like new to the council though aren't you I mean you haven't been on it very long well I mean I'm I'm you know the the membership of the council is the is the office and I've been dropped in like it's a representative of the office so it's not it hasn't named by my job title or anything like that so yeah so I've been I've been in on two council meetings and one subcommittee meeting I think it's subcommittee meetings yeah I mean I can't speak to what goes on on the council proper because I haven't been to any of those meetings just looking for some information about the power dynamics that you've witnessed perhaps witnessed yeah I mean I I think there's no shortage of viewpoints that I've heard from anybody there um uh on and and for for the rest of the group for context I've been involved in some discussions about I think it's a biannual review of the states or the council's model fair and impartial policing policy um and the subcommittee meeting that fair and impartial policing subcommittee meeting that I attended most of the discussion was among people who were not state employees so um you know I didn't I didn't keep a stopwatch but um my aim in that meeting was as a representative of the AG's office to try to have a small footprint as possible because I was kind of presenting um you know a legal analysis or identifying issues for discussion but I didn't have a particular position we were advancing we just were airing them for discussion um and everybody just took it and ran with it um so I didn't I didn't see that as a particular issue um the end you know my limited like I said it's only been a few meetings so but it's you know it's a different group and it's a new office um so thank you I wonder if we need to resolve this uh I'm just like if it works if there's if subcommittees if you have a large body and then you have subcommittees within the large body as the way they operate versus setting up this two-tier system where I worry that the second tier government tier group will run with the details and and too many details are going under the radar of the community member's larger group rate um whereas you could have better integration with one big group who break up into subcommittees based on interest skill level and all that I just wonder if we should just say leave it how it is all these groups how it actually operates seems to me it's sort of set up for working with subcommittees setting up subcommittees anyways I don't know I'm inclined to not create two tiers frankly and dividing that based on community and government I just see uh from my experience working on these government stakeholders the voice of um we you know we can very much be out voiced um on these government dominated only committees where then all of these little details go forward but can't get handled at the bigger level right and so that's that's where I come from I think that it's easier to silence important issues that go under the table if you don't have community members integrated into it Karen and then Julio and then Elizabeth I actually am raising my hand for Robin Robin hello hi um so I well I have a question about the council and I think this is getting to kind of Rebecca's point a little bit as well um when I think about some of the civilians that are on or community members that are on the council um they are people who have power um in their existence um because of who they are um either as community members and organizers or in the case of our own colleague at CRG a former mayor um so people who have power are already on the council but are in community member positions where the people we're looking to include on this council by definition have don't have the power um that these other community members have um and are in very precarious positions so I don't know that the fact that it works well for the council um would also work well here given that we are dealing with a much more vulnerable population and trying to include that population um on an equal footing um or even greater than equal footing um so that that was kind of my comments because um I you know I'm just how do we best for people who aren't able to or for people who don't have power um creating this this this so that they do have power and they aren't um shadowed down by I'll just say the cops because they'll shut them down Julio um yeah I I haven't been on other groups and maybe or seen other groups and so maybe it's just my own experience but the comment was bullying and now I just heard it shouted down I is that what's really going on in these meetings if so I'd like to know what groups those are because I I haven't seen it uh I think well I can just tell you as a female in the criminal justice system then I've gone to meeting with cops that we've actually had to stop them and say you're talking about me personally in this room um because yes they will shout and they will scream and they will misogyny is real it was racism and so so are a lot of other things so yeah it happens and I have power I'm really talking about state committees and councils that exist and and and if they do I I'm not saying that sexism doesn't exist I we work in this as our it's in our job title that we we work in this stuff so we're familiar with it it seems to me I mean one question is whether you increase the power by removing votes from people or whether you add more votes to the disempowered group I worry a little bit that and and I could be wrong about this this is just projecting the legislative reaction I think the likelihood that the legislature would say that that government group has no vote is not likely to go very far um and I and I could I can imagine all the arguments I would hear about it um uh but um you know in terms of guard rails like voting for things that might violate federal laws like how do the non-government people know what FERPA is etc or no you know that sort of thing um so I mean I think I think the concerns very real and I just wonder if that's cured if I mean like on the council I think on some issues I haven't been involved in it personally but I think where there's disagreement in the room it comes down to counting noses in the room um but people are in the room and they all have a vote so I think that might be a way a way to adjust it because I think it's not that people the government representatives whoever they are whatever the list is are are vote list but that that they just they're susceptible to being outvoted in the group um that isn't that's a little bit different than like how the meetings actually occur which is what I was trying to get earlier about whether people um are shouting down people um I haven't experienced that and I'm very concerned to hear that there that there are state advisory panels and things like that where that where that conduct exists because I'd like to know about it maybe offline but um you know I'd be more towards increasing the number of community you know votes um then then to remove votes um from government um representatives or experts or however they're described Elizabeth yeah yeah thank you for your comments really I think that that's well taken and I appreciate your your thoughts about the reaction perhaps from the legislature I'm wondering if perhaps there's other ways to approach the concerns of you know community versus government then taking away votes from governing um stakeholders there were a couple of different things that um the state advisory group that I help um manage uh recommended and that are in their bylaws uh one of which is that they did exactly what you said Julio is that they just they essentially made the the membership of one of their subcommittees which is focused on ethnic and racial disparity to be primarily community members so there's no way that governing you know the governing people or our version of that could outvote the community members just from raw from raw votes and then the other way is that they made it so that there cannot be a discussion doesn't matter if there's a vote or not there can be any discussion if no community members show up to that meeting the meeting has to end um and we've never had that happen any members have always been present um but it's something that is in the bylaws uh Susanna you know I was gonna make a suggestion and then I thought it was stupid but here I am with the microphone so I guess I'll say it um because what we're getting at here is very much about the difference between diversity which is just bodies in the room versus meaningful inclusion right and so if you know I worry that I like Elizabeth um note about that subcommittee being primarily made up of community members and yet you can have a subcommittee entirely made up of people with lived experience and they may unanimously vote something out to the larger body and then the larger body comes and then these people are a numerical minority in which case it could fail anyway and so um it's it's sort of it can encapsulate it in a way that feels empowering at the micro level but could still be thwarted at the macro level what I was gonna suggest please don't laugh at me what if we had a role on committees I might put this in my annual report what if we had a role on committees that is a sort of equity parliamentarian whose job it is to do traffic control in the room so that that kind of thing doesn't happen and here's the thing I am actually at heart a small government person so this feels like a very odd suggestion but carving out in with a lot of intentionality a role and doesn't have to be formal it could just be like who's going to volunteer to be this person um but but making it cleared that putting people in the same room for decision making is not the same thing as everybody having meaningful access to make decisions whether you are a young person a senior person a brown person a person with eight fingers right if you are somebody who may be on a undesirable end of a power dialectic then there could be a designated person in the room who has your back I don't even need an answer to this but that's what I was thinking really I had two thoughts one was actually what you just said Susanna like someone to run it who actually checks those sorts of things and the other thought and I this is more of a question in that first group there are five people in what is currently the third group there are six people um that's 11 although I guess in the third in the what's the second group we have legislators so all you need is two of those and then they're outnumbered um I was just trying to get a numeric you know is that even possible I do like the idea of go ahead Susanna I was going to say I had another thought before that which was in the reporting that is likely to be required from the spot from this body what if it was just mandated that there would be a section or a perspective that needs to be included so for example the racial equity advisory panel and the racial equity director are each required to report to the legislature and that just doesn't make sense to me because we're going to say the same thing but um but I guess it's a way of the legislature the way that it's written implies we want to hear from the director but we also want to hear from the panel about whether the director's relationships with other entities are effective and so I wonder if it's just like you know the report shall also include a section dedicated to the perspective of the youth members on the board so that it's like you can't get railroaded because we have to hear from you by law and I don't I don't mean to say like let's put responsibility on 16 year olds to have to because the legislature wants to hear from them directly but I don't know ignore me I'm still thinking well no no no no no no I no I see it as sort of a step I like these ideas right like I like oh it's like yes yes yes it's in my head like I coolio's point which is which is and others have made it including me and maybe not so explicitly which is votes right we got to make sure that that it's not just token or representative it that there are the numbers right of that then there is this making sure that voices are heard and not railroaded in any given meeting then then susanna as I heard your addendum to your point which is almost like an and make sure there's space in any report or any kind of sharing of the experience whatever whatever point makes sense of specific voices so yeah because it almost feels like you know where you know you're doing a home visit or something and it's like okay we have to you have to leave the room so that I can ask you privately are you okay blink twice if you're okay right and we don't want to create an environment where we are walking into it with the expectation that we can't trust men people from dominant groups in a room with historically marginalized people right because I know a lot of very vocal people from historically marginalized groups who are not going to let themselves be wrote so I don't want I don't want to go into the expectation that that's going to happen but I think I think the word who you'll use earlier was guardrails right just making sure that there's a mechanism in place so that if it does happen under our like so that it just it doesn't happen under our noses because we hadn't thought it through and actually hate to drop this and run away but I do also have to and so I just provide some suggestive suggested language first I'll throw some things on paper and see what's okay thank you executive director can we move on given that that's going to happen okay um Abigail Crocker and I don't know why I'm reading everybody's thing you know you all are capable of breathing do you have it in front of you I do I can I can answer on it yeah so yeah I don't know why I keep doing this and I can and my comment changes based on the conversations as they go so my comment was related to what's now the third list with the top bullet there on the data experts employed by the office and I put this in as a comment I wrote in order to support research partnerships and transparency it would be helpful to also include external methodologists with substantive expertise and community-based research and just of note there's a heavy focus throughout the document on the use of appropriate methods and analytic techniques in all the work both qualitative and quantitative so it would be really helpful to ensure there is substantial methodology expertise present and I don't know if I see that like I see like a lot of like in like direction to use appropriate research and sound methodologies and insistence on qualitative but even in sort of the four the four new staff positions that are to be employed by the office there's like data architects and engineers and and sort of a dashboard analyst but there's no methodologists and that's in I think an essential sort of support and sounding board I think for people who are trying to use their expertise to design research questions and so I was this comment came from suggesting a another person on this list that would be a methods a research and methods expert and perhaps somebody not employed by the office somebody who is more independent and and that would help get some support to the folks who have the important questions to be answered so they can be asked in a way that are that is measurable but I just don't want to throw a wrench into things that say now it's now it's a balance of 10 to 19 you know so it's something that I think is missing here and in subsequent sections this is Robin so one of the things that I think as we've been approaching this document and this gets to like a discussion that Abby and I have in the comments later on about like how is the research like the research part so not the dashboards the actual high impact high discretion research questions and I think that there is here in Vermont in particular a lot of subject matter expertise on broad research and then also specifics about criminal justice so our colleagues at Norwich University there's the actual Department of Criminal Justice and they've got published researchers on you know corrections and then a different person who's an expert on policing and a different person who's an expert on hate crimes and just like Abby has her area of expertise my area of expertise years ago was actually defense systems so that instead of just picking one methodology one person who has a broad base to really look towards the experts who do the research in those fields on to assist for specific questions and so then that way it's also not a a long-term commitment for you right so if the governing body wants to look at policing then they can bring in experts on policing and what has worked in the past in other jurisdictions they can bring in rural sociologists they can bring in whoever to help them answer that question instead of having the resident experts paid by the office who may not necessarily be an expert because nobody is in all different fields or aspects of criminal justice and criminal justice research so I get what you're saying as far as like somebody needs to also be like you know present and helping say well what you really need is x y or z or this is how we need to frame the questions that you can measure or this is something we can't measure here so the way you want to so let's find another way to do it but I think that you know this could be me just trying to be more inclusive but trying to include more people who have that specific subject matter expertise about the criminal justice system the juvenile justice system and what the research says that's out there in those questions so that was kind of like my thoughts about also later on when we talk about research grants going out yeah I think that just maybe I'm not being clear so my concern is not about content methodology or content expertise in research domains I think that's clear and tapping into and staffing this board or this entity with having the ability to hire on their behalf folks to do to do work on their behalf but I think sort of two things are missing one opportunity to do things in partnership with so like you know I personally would not be seeking funding from this board to do to do to do research for this board on this behalf but it would be a missed opportunity to exclude researchers like me from partnering with this board because they're doing all this work and this is convening voice so I think that sort of external like researchers like those at Norwich those at UVM who have historically had a harder time getting a seat at the table I don't see this right now solving that issue which I think is a way to sort of synergize the great minds that are collected here and expand on it and and I think it's the research methodology that I'm most concerned about not not so much the content expertise in policing or content expertise in specific domains of the criminal justice but more like content expertise in qualitative design content expertise in sampling strategy survey methodology those types of things which which isn't here and that's the thing that you know that that knowledge base I think would be helpful to be strategic about so what would you want to see here in language I think just if it was a an elegant a new person on group three something to the extent of a research methodologists an external research partners or something to that extent and I could come up with specific language if the group like feels it's important to include that component you know I go ahead Rebecca I don't disagree I think that what you're saying abby's is makes sense in terms of of what we have and what we're missing here certainly it's been my intent by sort of pointing and copying those specific examples from AISP on the types of methodologies that should be used but it's such it's it's a it's a it's relying on something that's already identified your point is making sure we identify the expert so that it can constantly be uh evolving present best you know best practices type of thing and I and I hear I think I hear your your distinction from what Robin was talking about and what Robin was talking about as I understand is covered by this and what you've identified as something missing and I certainly to me the methodologies is critical way outside my realm of expertise um but I so it's it makes sense to me and I think we should add it notice others I don't have a particular objection um Julio it's a great point um about uh having you know one or more methodologists look at proposals or or suggest it I thought I had sort of assumed that something akin to that was is sort of nestled into section five that talked about data collection and analysis in terms of um I guess it would be it was a it was a point I would I thought we were going to discuss probably in paragraph eight six of section five about how you coordinate and collaborate with the community but I think the tapping the expertise is is a very good idea related to that I think um and maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but um I think that it's important to have uh transparency about the proposed methodology before you actually start executing the plan so that there are opportunities for others who might point out limitations or offer refinements um before you actually start um digging because they might have better ideas about where to dig or how deep to dig so but I I'm not sure if it's I'm not sure if it's like a that's a supportable full-time position or whether it's you could simply have in section five that any you know any data plan requires you know an independent you know methodical methodological assessment or some process like that with without necessarily creating a new position I don't have a view on on whether it's an employee or not I I tend to like like providing opportunities for um folks outside of the organization to offer their insights for the independence and and difference of perspective so so you're suggesting in section five yeah I mean if you're yeah I think that again before it went to me that's part of kind of your plan for data collection or surveys is that you want to propose your methodology and I think you want to have a process I was assuming that was built in to A and I had some questions about whether it ought to be more detailed and then you know like here's your proposed methodology and then there's a period of you know a period of time where others words it's papered out so they ask for opinions and give people an opportunity to comment or ask questions about the methodology before you carry it out I worked on other projects where there is a survey design and then you know the the entity that's or or the group that's going to conduct the survey you know shows the methodology and then there's kind of a Q&A and you know and and refinements or changes that are made during that kind of comment period or whatever you would call it so um I have a my question would be I guess to you Abby would be we've talked a lot about and it's in the toolkit as well the idea that a lot of the questions and stuff that this entire organization is going to look at are driven by the people with lived experience what is the interaction between the figure that you're suggesting and that I think this is and well my reaction is what I was sort of suggesting would be sort of an unpaid position more of um an unpaid position and the figure would be more embedded in community based participatory research methods which is as a methodology designed to address power dynamics and raise exactly this kind of issue but without the sacrifice of rigor so not control the conversation but facilitate it so the voices themselves have the strongest um the strongest seat at the table so I think that methodology is like if you're if the group is sitting around and deciding you know this group saying we want to approach this from the most um value add way I think a methodologist with this expertise can help guide that conversation um and make sure they ask the right questions so that those questions could then be you know tap into an external you know evaluation fee for service kind of group who will implement it and do it where then you could say propose this kind of um a plan and approach but I think this external methodologist would be um a support and an advisory kind of person to help the the voices on the the community voices um be elevated in a way that is research work you know research driven and measurable okay can I monica can I do one follow-up before you absolutely because my follow-up is still okay so abby do you have an objection to where julia was suggesting this go in the document um I I guess I don't have an objection my only my only hesitation was saying it would go in section five is in section four it states that this governing body needs to um I think it says the questions should be research questions that are specific and measurable and to develop a research question that is specific and measurable is a is a challenging task um and is you know benefits from the partnership of a methodologist with a community voice and that's that's why I thought if you had someone with that expertise on this um but I'm not viewing as a paid position just as an advisory and external methodologist they could help get to that point where you then have that measurable research question okay thank you rebecca is monica still thinking okay good guys I didn't want to jump in front of monica there so I had a reaction to hearing ab abby you sort of clarify what what the role could be and I actually now think it is important to have this person be on the board because it is as it sort of falls within sort of what we were just going through with that exercise of lifting up and making sure there are the voices are heard I mean what more critically point do we need it where we have that intersection point between what we're trying to understand and the expertise to make sure the methodologies don't perpetuate something you know a little systems the the other thing I was going to say is that right now in our in our list number one we're going to move this group to three we already have data experts you know every discussion that I recall where we talk about who should be at the table ADS is always mentioned I think that if we're going to have ADS or any other data person at this governing board level then we should have a methodologist as well so sort of two reasons why I think we should not just move this to this last part which again though I'm still a little blurry as to the role and whether we're creating sort of too much bureaucracy I'm not I'm not understanding how they'll work out but I'm holding out for later but regardless even if we have to I'd like if we're gonna have a data if we have representatives for being data experts at this board then we certainly should have a methodologist and then anybody else Monica are you are you I'm just being mindful that you're you're wrestling with yourself I am wrestling and I wish I could do a better job of a wrestling is always messy yeah clarifying you know sort of sort of my thoughts because I think that you know on one hand I I do feel like now I just feel like we're creating a really monstrosity of a bureaucracy and and I have concerns about that and you know and I think I just had a different idea about where the researchers came into sort of the the whole larger picture here but I don't have enough sort of like cohesive and cogent thoughts to be able to to share them with you right now so that's why I'm still wrestling so I might have to you know I might have to take you up on the Thursday deadline to see if there's something I can do that's a little bit more there Abby can I ask you to do some language there and put that in by Thursday is that a possibility yeah that's fine and you know it's really just it's about the methodology to help support it so I'm I'm happy to happy to do that okay and so I'm not I'm not dissing I'm just saying let's table it so we have something down there is everyone in agreement with that okay then let us continue uh god I'm like no hold on we're at Evan again Evan and right I wonder whether it would be possible to include these people in this last list at the moment in the first two lists it seems like there is some overlap and a 20 person governing body may be a very large group uh and Elizabeth says well you can read it Elizabeth you are capable of speaking for yourself yeah I was just agreeing in that it makes I I'm not necessarily certain that we should remove any of them which I think Evan might be suggesting but I was more agreeing with his comments to take this well what is now going to be the second list but is in here as the third list add it to the first one because it seems like they go together I'm gonna just remind us that Robin gave us a document that is in this folder that was from her experience on the oh god Robin what was it the human trafficking yeah task force right yes and that that's a very large body that broke into subcommittees um she put that in there specifically to address this issue so I want to just say you know if we're gonna talk about this there's no need to start from zero but that's already been put forth as a possibility and it was just a sketch of a document to be fair um okay yeah and I think it was just that it's the same thing that kind of Monica is struggling with that I think we're all struggling with is that this is getting to be really really big and what does that look like um and how does it work um how does it function and then how does it advise or direct I guess it's the word now direct um the Susanna's office and the people that she is going to be charged with hiring um and what's the best way to go about it I don't have any answers it just was um the time commitment for the people who aren't on the steering committee and who are co-chairs of the subcommittees for the human trafficking task force is less but they still get to um participate as um as they see fit and it's more self-selected instead of I mean I don't even think the thing is in statute um or it might be but you know who has to be honored isn't in statute um and so it just is one of the more participatory um task force that I've I've been on um and just also again brings in a lot of people who normally don't sit at the table um and who also from a data perspective it's been helpful because like oh you find all these other organizations who are keeping data um that might be you know from the perspective of human trafficking um on how to assist victims or how to identify um you know areas uh where people should be um targeting ads and so on um so we've put in some places here where we know that there are data um but there's lots of other people who are connecting who are collecting data um about people who are in the criminal justice system that aren't state actors or contracted with the state uh and so um having a wider net sometimes allows those people to come forward and say oh I do have this data and this is how I can share it with you or this is what we're collecting etc okay I just I'm going to just throw out that this is very unconventional to have a to be proposing a body the size and I also want to be mindful of the fact that we did it we've already done it and I don't think we did it because we were all drinking too much um I think we did it because it made sense um I also would propose that I think we should at least consider whether there is a connection between the forms of power that get exercised and the size of the body that exercises various forms of power I think that's an important question because I think that we subconsciously my suspicion is think that that's true and that's why we have as many people on this as we do now I can't answer that for you but I just want to throw that out there I think the idea was to do something different we're used to having all these bodies within state government that are smaller um I mean you should see the panic that comes on the face of people when they start talking about the criminal justice council oh my god it's only six people less than the entire vermont senate like and that means what exactly I mean I yes that's true but okay what is the effect of that I mean I'm more interested in that question and so I I have to say I'm less swayed by it's a lot of people I think there are different forms of power that get explored with more people and I think we've seen that with the criminal justice council I was terrified when they did that I remember I started sounding like some really really scary people that I don't want to have anything in common with when I'm like oh my god these people are not going to know anything about anything and it's going to just be a mess and it has not happened it has not happened and that's why I keep going back to the council because it in effect it does serve as a model for large groups and it's a recent model hey ton how many people are on the council you know roughly roughly 20 roughly 24 julio 24 you're muted thank you yes 24 so I just want to throw that out there as a thought yeah my my my also my two cents on this has just been that we our value added to the legislature is making sure they think of the not obvious choices and that is what we've done here um and I like your point a ton which is we are thinking about this as something that hasn't come before and we have been trying to actually be conscious when we think we are and making sure we're not just defaulting to what is known and familiar right um to make sure it works because that is what all of this is is to make sure we don't inherit the structures of what we're trying to find so it does force us to go through this sort of painful question of everything and I agree like lots of this is about just making sure the ideas are presented and I'm not sure people are thinking about all these people should be at the table um and I just think that there are lots of lots of ways to do something and numbers sheer numbers isn't a reason to not go forward with these suggestions so I'm for just keeping this not trying to whittle this down at the stage because I think the legislation go ahead and Elizabeth oh no no I stand go fine I was just gonna say um you know I I don't have any opposables to what to what you said I think your points are completely valid um I think my concern is just the organization of the three lists and I am wondering if the legislature will understand what the difference is between the first one through five and then the second what is now listed as third one through six and how um that's more of where my my comment is then changing anything about who it is or taking anybody away got it any other thoughts on that then I would say look at it and if you've got a really strong thought about it put it down sometime this week um and I say it like that not to be dismissive but to also know the legislative I mean we're getting really detailed and that's fine the legislature is going to do with the legislature is going to do so don't get too enamored of anything I I that sounds so cynical but we've got this much larger body that's got way more power and they're they're gonna we've done this right all of us have done this they're gonna do what they're gonna do moving ahead Abigail it is again you if you're coming perhaps clarify enrolls um yeah I so this is about sort of the the staffing right here um yeah to point out on the staffing so these are the four people that would be hired and they are data people to build the database um a manager to keep people on task and then an analyst to use the administrative data to create dashboard so this new body will be dependent on funding external researchers and evaluation groups to actually do their data analyses um the way this group is built there's no capacity for collecting qualitative data um and and or potentially doing sort of more advanced analytic techniques so I I think that's just one of the caveats that I would mention as I read the document is again this body doesn't have the methodological expertise to decide what is a good research question what is measurable how do we know that the research question is being approached through the appropriate data collection techniques um and and therefore it's just interesting to build in the necessity of hiring four people plus a dependency on a budget to hire someone else to do the work and and so I appreciate not wanting to get bigger and bigger but at the same time um if the one of the big insistences throughout the document is is this balance of mixed methods work between qualitative and quantitative and best method methodologies and practices um right now the system these four people aren't staffed for that um and and therefore you know it's important I think to highlight what they are staffed for and what they can do to make sure that these positions are are leveraging um their time most effectively to make use of these external sources and so I thought it might be helpful even just to point out specifically like you know hopefully one of these people is also creating data extracts and one of these people is also um ensuring that sort of all those multi-level data sharing agreements are in place thank you um etan so this was written by witchy back when we were still right up in the air about where this was going to go now we know where it's going to go um so I think um either and and I'm saying this because the words don't have specific meanings here architect and engineer either one of those is going to be somewhat replaced by ads like it or not um because ads is controlling the data um is the entity responsible in the executive branch um for collecting right they're the ones that are actually going to be building the system um or using one that's already built um so I do want to point that out that this was written before the legislature told us where it was going and I defer to monica on like what role ads is going to kind of fill I think they're really going to be the engineer that um I think it's fair to say that a researcher is also an architect in deciding which way to to construct a data set to answer a particular question um as to abby's concern that there is no one here to do the research I think that that was why we had put in later on that they would that is to maintain some sense of independence because that has been important that this is all not going to be done by state government that can be to the whims of the worst person impossible in power or a budget rescission where things just get cut I mean I imagine research dollars will get cut no matter what but um the idea that the analysis be outside is what people have been saying the analysis needs to be done outside of the office so that it maintains some sense of independence I think it's fair to say that having expertise on the governing board or something like that to to help the office evaluate research design ideas etc but how do you keep the independence that people have asked for now that we know where it's going to go um so that the analysis about state government actions remains independent so it was actually two points in response to abby one was now that we know where it's going to go does that list need to be done over anyways and then the other one is how do we maintain the independence now that we know where it's going to go ahead sorry I'm not sure who um I know Pat you've got a question and Monica I know you've got a question let I'd like to throw in um would it be fair to say and this is directly from wherever that is the staffing for the office this office should initially and I'm not going to get it right somehow put in their ad s um and make it very clear that there's a relationship there and then take number two the engineer and transform it into what you're talking about abby does that make sense um a couple things in response to that I think leveraging ad s to do more of the building of the office data set from a technical perspective makes sense and then if the analyst position that's listed here is to create the dashboard and work with that um you could have a methodologist here who um who could help with sort of research design and and question asking um it adds some capacity for data collection but not a lot so in particular I'm thinking of the qualitative data going out and conducting interviews and doing those kinds of analyses like when when we do that we tend to use teams of like you know two to seven people um and it's a ton of work so by definition then you would have to be paying an external agency to do it according to best methods so um I think switching um leveraging the existing ad s infrastructure is great at tapping into a more methodologist person if you still want to staff for here um but it does come with the expectation that this office is also funded to hire external people to collect and analyze data which it has won an independence but at the same time if it's on behalf of this group it's also it's independent but it's also at their like it's also at their direction which is a different level of independence than doing something in partnership like if you pay me to do something I'm doing it for you it takes away some of the independence different from if if you know I apply for a research grant and say hey do you want to work on this with me that's a true independent partnership which maintains that independence so I would see this body wanting to do both of those things one working with folks that you know they can pay to do things on their behalf but also being able to be a partner with folks um who who want to partner with them and use other funds to support that partnership I think the independence abbey that that I'm using is is not in the same way that you're using the language so the independence here was from state government um that's the governing board would decide the research questions to be asked and then engage with um a more democratized process of awarding a research grant to people like uh racial justice alliance or whoever um who you know will be collecting and say let's and doing um the interviews because do you really want the interviews to be stored in the executive branch and do you want that data to be there or do you just or is it better to have the independence away from that um so that the data are stored somewhere else and secure and um not that this outside person or persons you know in qualitative research or you know can show them in vivo stuff etc and this is how we came up with the decisions but the identities of the people who participated in the research are never known to the executive branch so that was the kind of independence that I'm talking about here so I think that makes sense to you know um to you know to when primary data collected they're done outside I think it's important to know then that's extra funding dollars um yeah which is a lot you know if you're staffing a a new office of four plus a requirement that to do the mandates of the office it has to be done by an external organization um and and I think that can be tricky and I think that when we talk about independence that's one component which is solved the way you described um but also we want to talk about independence in terms of the actual analytic results and dissemination which comes from sort of a partnership versus on behalf of and also um you know with all of this I think a great strategy and sort of the independence and transparency is is you know something that we talk about later in the document in terms of reproducible work which is completely and I think Julia was addressing this earlier as well like completely transparent in all of the methods approaches plans and analyses um everything open for for different different feedback groups okay pat can barely hear you pat better better okay I just want to apologize for being a part-time worker here but um reading through the things that I your document I have one kind of this relevant here and that is about um tracking things that are not just research questions but I I believe this body also wants to have a set of metrics that it maintains over time and operationalizes so that you can get trend data you can observe how things change for the better or worse over a time period so um where that resides that organizational memory and the continuity of certain core metrics that you want to identify and maintain and report on over the over the years and keeping the data flowing in in an operational sense um I I don't know how if you have a role for that um you know um in this in this section but I just wanted to throw that out there as a thought I don't see reference to trending or core metrics per se in this document let me one point I just want to throw in here Monica just before okay we I was really clear as a chair we're not going to get extraordinarily detailed with this because it's not what was asked and we simply don't have the time and haven't had the time to do it we're giving them an outline basically um and I just want to put that out there for everybody to remember um that we as a group have a tendency to get into the real deep nitty gritty which is really gratifying but it's also sometimes problematic so I just want to raise that that's all um I would just say at the highest level just at the highest level they have that continuity there I okay Monica I'll try and um take what you just said to heart aton because I I think that's actually where we are kind of running into this sort of issue is that we're we're getting very detailed in the report and I think it's back to what Robin said and I might I think I mentioned this last week too is that um you know once we heard from representatives Christy and Lalonde about where they were going um in terms of placing the office I really did think that we had to look at this section again and think about the recommendations we've made here in terms of the staffing um because I always thought that that was personally I thought that these things were a little bit too specific and that we needed to be a little bit more general around the fact that we need people to do this type of work we need people to do you know um project management or um help with um analysis I do think this body is responsible and it even says earlier in the document that it does its own analysis it's not completely dependent on outside researchers to do research um it will publish reports it will do its own analysis and so I think that we got ourselves into a little bit of a corner here by saying these are the four people that we need to have and if we perhaps um took it out and made it less specific that we may be able to add more around like the types of responsibilities and roles and skills that are required than the names and title the position titles and I do think that um I know we're not going to talk about money here but um the whole venture is going to cost a lot of money and I know we say that they you know the legislature is going to need to go talk to the various departments about how much money is going to be required in order to do this um when it comes to ADS you know I I don't really want to speak for them they have a role they'll talk about what their role is going to be um they will also that's where a lot of the money is going to go to would my final well and I think I should look at Suzana's current job openings that she's filling and how those would interact conscious also was something that she said in the last meeting is that with this move to her office this now makes criminal justice the overwhelming focus of her office um and so not wanting to poach people from another role but since we know where it's going to go what works best for her so we're going to take positions one through four and instead put in language about what needs to happen I think that's probably well that was that was my suggestion but I don't know if anyone agreed with that no I agree with that Monica I think that's probably a better idea um knowing also that sometimes language and state government gets tripped up and if we use the wrong language then um someone's going to say no right um so if we use the wrong we use the wrong job title do you know what I mean then someone might say no you don't need that you don't need this position at all so if you don't tie it to a title necessarily but a a role um a series of you know qualifications broadly defined or things along those lines okay um I would like to get this figured out because and then and perhaps given the hour stop at D and take that up for next time um because there's a lot to go um so we're gonna take a gap at the four positions and then send that out probably tomorrow to this thank you you're welcome you know thank you bovin if if you do that my my comment to you about taking into consideration the openings that Susanna is hiring um you know I I think I think my reaction to that is let's not try to anticipate everything that that we don't know about that's outside of this data entity I know that last session we got a lot of questions a ton and I or where I would when I was present at this when questions were being asked there was constantly this push for yes but how many people do you think you need and like how how many like are you talking 20 are you talking to are you talking to and so I like I agree with you I like where this is going which is you know let's let's change the one two three four but I do think that when we talk about and and more uh pros the uh descriptions of what we want captured the skill sets how we want to make sure there is flexibility to to get that build in the independence that we have always been stressing with with how we uh capture the analysis part of this all this stuff I I love all these ideas being charged but I do think think about how what's sort of a bare minimum because I think that will be asked we don't have to answer it but we will be asked whoever goes up there what do we think who how many people will it take forget about who's coming into Susanna's I think the presumption is it's going to be if it is in fact chosen to be in that office it will have to be we fashioned anyways so yeah and I think the you know unfortunately because ADS has not participated in these meetings that's really the big question is how much is ADS going to charge you um in addition to I agree with Monica that that's going to be the overwhelming charge of this besides the external research dollars um but you're not going to get there for a while anyways unless you start funding qualitative research right away that was the other sorry no sorry but back I didn't know you were done no and I was just uh Robin you reminded me another question I had when you said that ADS has to be at the table given that or part of part of that staff given where we know this is heading I actually don't know why that would be why they couldn't still be sort of an outside I just didn't understand that um so they that's their job no I understand but if it was in a different entity oh they'd still be there except that you know this is now within the executive branch so this is their job if it had moved to the Secretary of State's office it would have been they believe me they still would have charged you um they're not going to get away without charging anyone here um I suppose I guess what I'm saying is a different thing which is when you when you come up with with sample language for us to work from to not presume ADS is part of that staff because we've never presumed it wherever whenever we thought about this entity we sort of just thought about the duties and so I just ask if you when you draft this to not identify well I guess then the question becomes is is it the will of this committee that you um want to duplicate the staff positions at ADS to do the work that ADS would be doing here I don't so so let me see if I can just clarify this for a minute so and Monica help me out here because you work with them all the time so in the departments there is an ADS staff that is purchased by the department to work with that department on data stuff and so because Susan because the office of trying to get away from Susanna shop because the office of racial equity is part of state government it's entirely possible that they would need an ADS person in their office to create that liaison role back to ADS to do the work so I actually Monica I don't know if they're considered a staff of DOC but they they maintain their relationship with ADS as a staff of ADS but they're kind of purchased by a department to do the work that needs to be done around data and whatever other things ADS does for folks data and infrastructure right so all of the computer infrastructure all of the servers all of the wires you know all all of that hardware piece is ADS and when you're moving data through those systems through their servers through their computers through their wires and because the state owns data and that is part of their role is to keep the state data safe and protected they are part of the process so I do think and again it's it's not my place to speak for them I don't I don't want to I do think that they're it's well past the time that we started to sort of say to ADS like yeah and we probably don't have time but they're you know and I don't think we need to put it in the report that ADS needs to be in charge of something what I think we need to recognize is that behind that we will have people in the office Suzan's office or wherever it goes and if it's in the executive branch there will be some relationship with ADS yeah and you know because that I'm just going to point out that the ADS employees within the department so I'll just use the Department of Public Safety for a second here Betty Wheeler is one of the ADS employees for the Department of Public Safety and up until the creation of ADS she was a Department of Public Safety employee she is the person who knows Spillman inside and out and does analysis for the fair and impartial policing and they have another guy there that does some dashboards and so on and so forth so they have that subject matter expertise in the department now nobody exists in this world yet that has this subject matter expertise so I think being able to hide being able to put that analysis position in the office and away from ADS is it protects you there but they do own the equipment Abby just sort of to be clear in my head I think it makes sense to say that you know the intention of these hiring and creating this new body is that they will do analysis it wouldn't make sense to create this body not to do analysis and so I like the idea of creating the body and if regardless of what happens and if they're ADS or non-ADS you still need to build the office dataset which are those engineer and architect positions you still need to create and manage the data sharing agreements which is like the project management position and then the analysis position that exists right now I would think would be more limited to data dashboarding and creating extracts but not not qualitative data analysis I mean you again would be limited to one person doing data analysis so I think it's also just would be good to be clear in the document exactly what analysis this team of four will do versus what will they have to contract out for because I think that is a bit gray in the language because there's a lot of language around you must do this and this but if this office is created and staffed this way it also must have external capacity and that might not exist so I think I would be cautious about that okay um I want to wind up here um Robin you're going to look at the responsibilities and I guess talk with Susanna and about her positions and what about that no no I think I think I've got the really clear request from Rebecca not to do that to keep the separate and I agree with that I mean there is a kind of real politic of what how Susanna would like to see this shape out but um you know that could be the committee room okay um what I am going to do is be the chair and there's a fair number of comments that stretch on from here I'm going to ask the authors of these to look over them and make recommendations that we can all look at and debate um literally write it um and put it in there as you know in the comments like real verbiage that can be included because we don't have time that's just a fact we don't have time so if the report comes out and things are just not clear on it that's the way it's going to be um there's just no time to do a lot more than we've done um as we started we didn't think that this was enough time I think that was right um the legislators don't think it was right even though they're the ones who did it um so I'm going to simply ask that people really clarify their thinking as much as possible because this is taking a long time and we don't have it okay be happy be happy all right um we have 15 seconds so with that in mind good night thank you very much for everything and uh see you all next week thanks a ton thanks everybody night