You are live now. Okay, welcome back folks. We're continuing our work. This is house corrections and institutions committee. We're continuing our work this afternoon. And we have with us our joint fiscal committee. Most important person. You're going to be really important Dan as we work through the session. One thing we asked Dan to do is to look through the budget adjustment general fund. Just to put in context. Our pieces that we need to make a recommendation for it has been sent to our webpage. It is under our date. If your date is already open with some documents you need to close it, refresh it. And open this back up for this. So, Dan, I'm going to turn it over to you to explain your document and help us figure out what we need to make recommendations to approach on. But also just introduce yourself for the record. My name is Daniel Dickerson with the joint fiscal office. And I did prepare a document that has the, the various items in the governor's budget adjustment request that fall under your jurisdiction. Before I jump into the document, I don't want to assume that everybody on the committee knows all the various ways that that funding or spending authority moves in the appropriations bill. Would it be appropriate for me to give sort of a breakdown of that as far as appropriations and reversions and transfers, or are you all pretty familiar with how that works. I think that would be better when we start looking. I know one thing we want to really look at is the bigger picture of the DOC budget. Later on, after we get through this, that might be a good place to have those kinds of conversations. Does that make sense. Sure. Some of that will, I think, be in play while I walk through the sheet but if folks have questions feel free to ask me and I can clarify on some things but going right to line one. This is 4.9 million. That would be appropriated to the corrections correctional services appropriation unit. This would be ongoing funding. And this is for the bonuses and other things to sort of make those corrections jobs more enticing and increase retention. So this is where I want to stop you. Is this 4.9 million on top of what is currently budgeted for their salaries. Yes. So this 4.9 is on top of what is current, what would currently be budgeted for CO's salaries and shift differentials. Now, my understanding was through the memo that this increase would expire at the end of March of this year. And you just said it's ongoing so the document that I looked at portrayed it as ongoing but I can certainly look back and find clarifications and I apologize if I ultimately ended up miss portraying that. No, it's, this is what we're trying to grapple with here I'm trying to find because we do have it in our documents here. Would it be on Tuesday. Yes. State of Vermont via CA DOC recruitment. It is effective for payroll period beginning up August 29 2021 through payroll period March 12 22. Okay, I, I apologize that I misstated that I have the document open now. So yes, this, this should be portrayed as one time money instead of ongoing. So it's a 4.9 plus increase to the DOC budget that they pay for salaries but it's only in effect until March 30 of this year, and it's from August 29 to March 30. Yes. So then what happens afterwards. It's March 12. March 30. It's both. During the period beginning up to August 29 through March 30 individuals hired. Okay, so they may have broken down separately. Madam chair, number five might number five in that memo might go beyond March. Who made the discretion of management. Otherwise be paid straight time for hours worked over schedule shall be eligible to receive time and a half that's your differential. That is for your different shift differential, I think. So part of it was for recruitment part of it was retention and part of it was your shift differential. So we're going to schedule tomorrow we have the commissioner of DOC coming in, and we're going to go through this. And we've also will be scheduling via CA to come in after the testimony from DOC for this. I'll tell you one thing. I can find out where this Academy was. Where up in Londonville in the industrial park. I went up this summer. Good. Good. All the new new people that will get ready to be graduated. Were you impressed. I was I mean you wouldn't even know it was there. Yeah, they do it right up the road from London state. I've seen them up there when my daughter was in college up there training. So Dan, we're going to look a little deeper into this tomorrow with the commissioner of corrections, but I just want to be clear that the 4.934 is on top of what they currently are budgeted for for salaries and it might be good. If, if you could find out what the current budget is for their salaries, just so that we can see what that 4.9 really how much more that is. Okay. Okay. The next line here is, it's the same appropriation line from the budget the corrections correctional services. This is the 6.3 million reversion of prior year carry forward to the general fund. The reason that this large carry forward balance exists is that correctional services was able to offset general fund with coronavirus relief fund money. Last fiscal year, which allowed them to save that general fund and carry it forward. It'll be reverted to the total general fund, although, as you can see in the line above it 4.9 million will come back to be used for those retention incentives, or the one time intensity retention incentives and FY 22. That's a good question, Madam chair. Yeah, I'm just reading. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, so this is for Dan. So if I'm understanding this correctly, this. There's money I understand the backfill from the CRF the 6,361. Is it fair to understand that backing cover some of these bonuses and some of these. I mean that's what's happening here right. Yes. Those those bonuses and incentives were able to be paid using those coronavirus relief fund monies, same as in the healthcare field and some of the other frontline fields. But the relief fund money, or the expiration date for using the relief fund money was December 31. And so we now have to switch to another source to continue that. That makes sense. So this 6.3 million was general fund that was replaced with the CRF dollars. Yes. And of that 6.3 of the CRF dollars 4.9 of those CRF dollars are being used to augment the salary. I wouldn't that I don't know the makeup of that 6.3 I guess. The reason I I made the linkage is just that you've got this 6.3 million that was not used in FY 21, it's going to be reverted or swept back into the general fund in FY 22, per the governor's budget adjustment request. And then, you know, it can, it can then be reallocated elsewhere. So if we were, if we were to say, or if we were to assume that, you know, the, the reverted money is then going back to corrections in FY 22, which is the way I sort of portrayed it, although it's not, that's not perfectly accurate, but but Yeah, essentially the money is going back into the general fund from FY 21 is now being redeployed to corrections and FY 22 to provide these one time incentives. Hopefully, clearly. So in essence, it's still general fund because a general fund got replaced and FY 21 was CRF. Yes. So this 6.3 was savings that we made in the general fund that they're now saying those general fund dollars can be used for the 4.9 million addition for the salaries. Yes. Okay. And that came out of correctional services so that is just regular correctional, the regular correctional budget. Correct. Yes. So this is something specific in terms of what happened in corrections, just their regular general fund appropriation. Yeah, and if, if you would like, I can, I can find the breakdown of how those federal dollars were used if I don't know if that would be helpful for the committee, the 6.3 million that in savings of the general fund that was deployed as CRF. I assume it's probably mostly, you know, retention pay salaries but if you'd like to break that I can get it for you. Let's hold off on that for now. I'm just concerned that what this is saying is the freed up general fund dollars was in corrections is going six 4.9 of the 6.3 is going to honor the contract that was agreed to between the administration and the union. Yes. Any questions on this. Okay, let's go to the next item. Items three and four are directly related. And this is going back to act 154 2020, which was the fiscal year 21 big bill language in that bill required that any carry forward from at the end of FY 21 in the out of state beds appropriation unit would be held. For FY 22 to be utilized for community based service programs within correctional services so so there was 417,000 in out of state beds. That will be pulled from that appropriation line item and be transferred over to the correctional services appropriation line item to be used specifically for the community based service programs. And we made that agreement. Don't think it was last session I think it was the session before that we made those agreements that whenever there's any savings in our out of state beds, we have out of state beds in Mississippi. And if we project, I'm saying this to remind everyone but also to help Larry come along. Every year in the budgeting process. There's a projection of how many beds, we would use out of state in Mississippi we pay an X amount per day per inmate to house them. If we project the administration projects, how many inmates we'd hold over the year and what that would cost so if you've got, say a $24 million line item in DOC for out of state beds, and you only expand 20 million that 4 million reverts back, and it adds back to DOC to provide correctional services and we the intent is really to go towards the justice for investment initiatives. Instead of just going to the bottom line. It is targeted. And that's what this 417,000 is. Kurt. Yes, my concern on this is that this is supposed to be additive over the years. So that if, if we make to 2 million savings one year that goes to justice reinvestment if the next year we make 4 million, there should still be there should therefore be 6 million, more than the base from two years ago.  I don't know if it builds the base of their budget. But your savings are consistent year to year. In a way that in a way they are because if, if the, if at the beginning of justice reinvestment we had 100 out of state inmates. And the first year we dropped 10, then we have a savings. The second year we dropped another 10, we still have 20 that we're saving over that space of time. So we should be taking that and reinvesting it in the community services, the whole savings for every all of them over the years. That's the whole purpose of it. I don't know if it dollar wise if it works out quite like that. I don't know. I mean, that's how we perceive it, but I don't know if that's how it really works through. Yeah, well that should be the goal and that's what I'm trying to, that's why I would like to be able to trace that better and make sure that that is indeed what we're attempting to do. So we need to know what is being spent on the community services. Those grants and things to see whether that is actually increasing each year by the, at least by the amount that's coming back from the out of state inmates. My question was kind of kind of related and it might relate to Dan and when it's appropriate. I'll go for it. This is processing. Yeah, well, I think when I think back of what we were doing with justice reinvestment the idea was that we're going to invest the money that was saved from out of state beds into the services in the community. The way that I just heard Dan say this that this is going back to service based programs within DOC's budget, and that concerns me a little bit that it still is within DOC. I feel like we probably at some point could get some clarity on that and what our intent and purpose was for that money is it supposed to be for the community services that are within our designated agencies. Is it because I think it's about not having people go into an incarcerated setting to begin with or so I don't know or maybe it is appropriate for that to go to the housing, you know, transitional housing but I, I've, I've was hoping that this session we could get some clarity on what specifically it is into Kurt's point like that it's not just getting absorbed into that budget line so that it's a flat line but that it builds greater capacity. So the commissioners coming in tomorrow. Yeah, we going through this so that's a question to ask to these dollars stay just within DOC or is it a pass through of DOC to DMH and to contracts for transitional housing and that sort of thing. And we may not be able to do a deep dive on this and the short period of time that we need to make a recommendation to approach. That's my concern. So that may end up being a deeper dive after we finish this. We start doing a deeper dive in the weeks ahead. Yeah, I mean that's what I said this session and understanding our time constraints on the budget adjustment. I'm glad that and Kurt also flag your question that you could ask the commissioner tomorrow. Yes, I'll be asking Trevor the same question and, and the commissioner when he comes in. Okay, great. So basically it's a 417,000 that we saved on out of state beds this year. And that's going to revert back to DOC in one form or another to be used for things in one form or another, and we can get more clarity on that with the commissioner tomorrow, what those community based service programs are. Okay, does that make sense. Okay. Dan number five. Number five is a transfer of 1,877,092 dollars from the general fund to the correctional industries internal service fund to address a deficit balance. So, the way the budget adjustment request portrayed it's a, it's just a one time transfer to address that deficit in FY 22. So this one is a bigger issue than just transferring money. And we have from our correctional industries that is supposed to be self sustaining where they produce items that they can sell and then those. The sale, the money coming in from the sales will go back into the program to pay for the program. And we've got to really start looking at this correctional industries program. It's really been weaned down quite a bit. I think COVID has really impacted it as well. So this is putting 1.8 million of general fund dollars to backfill a hole in this particular fund. Karen. Yes, I think I would echo those sentiments, especially after we just had the conversation with BGS and, you know, addressing their deficit and kind of weird like what are the things that are in place so this stops happening. I would be curious to have those same conversations with VCI in DOC to look at what are they doing, or is this going to be an every year, there's going to be a backlog that we're going to have to backfill. So, I guess, is that a question for the commissioner which should be able to address tomorrow. I think I think this one in particular is going to take legislative work. That's beyond budget adjustment, because I think we really need to get into the community high school of Vermont and correctional industries because they're becoming linked now. There were very, very separate one was really just education and the other one was learning some trades or working in producing case goods that they could then sell and those revenues from the sales came back into the fund to buy materials and keep it going. And now those two programs have kind of merged. So I think it's time for us as a committee dealing with DOC policy that we really start looking at community high school of Vermont and the correctional industries and and how we go forward in the new model, and they may not be able to be sustained financially with a revolving fund. Kurt. Yeah, do we know if this is over, is this over years that this has been the deficit is a, or is this a COVID things. Is it just the last couple of years that we've encountered this deficit or is it ongoing. I don't know. I have no idea. I can look into that and get you an answer to that question. That would be good to know. These are the items that we need to make a recommendation, our recommendation to approach by next Tuesday. Another empty checkbook huh. Well, I'm wondering right off the bat, if this one is I said with the correctional industry that that are recommended to put this off and allow us to take a deeper dive into community high school of Vermont and correctional industries to really find out what's going on before we make a recommendation to back use general fund money to backfill a hole when we don't know how we're going to go forward with that program. Karen. I feel like that makes sense from where I'm feeling as well and I think Madam chair you said that we might be a possibility for later on in the session for us to do a deeper dive and just the DOC budget in general I feel like all these pieces are speaking to even more of that there's a lot of moving parts and I feel like personally for me I would like to have a better sense of the DOC budget in general to see how all these things put together. So we'll do that after the governor's budget is proposed on the 18th and 19th or 20th of January. See if we can do that and get it presented to us in a way that is not appropriations jargon. The issue there with appropriations they have individual committee members that take individual parts of state government and then sit down one on one with those finance folks for the respective departments so they do the deeper dive so the documents that come forward are documents like what Dan has put forward here so you don't get the story behind the line item where an approach they work one on one with that department or agency and they do the deeper dive so it's really hard for us as a committee to read these documents and know the best story. I agree with her I want to know how long this is going on but I hate to deprive them of doing this you know work, but it's not substantiating itself at 1.8 million if we're losing. And we don't know what work they're doing now. No, so it'd be nice to I agree it'd be nice to know and check it out and you can't keep going digging the hole deeper you got to fill it in sometime. Because they used to have a really large woodworking shop up at the Newport facility where they built a lot of case goods that were sold to nonprofits and to schools and these goods were like bookcases storage units desk chairs. And then they were sold and the money from those sales came back into the program. We have we still have the license plates. We used to have printing. A lot of printing was done so a lot of the, you know, sales from the printing were done. They made stuff in Windsor. They made stuff in Windsor too. Right. So a lot of that has been squeezed and closed, and we're telling them they have to be self sufficient but there's nothing there that they can sell to bring in the money. So we've got to really take a look at this program. Okay Dan and then six and seven is what we just spoke about the 20 and 30 million. I mean 20 and 10 million. This number six and number seven. So this is very helpful. This is very helpful. I apologize that I didn't have answers to all your questions. I'm going to try to get caught up on these issues quickly so that I can be more useful than I am currently. When did we get into the capital bill. Now this is very helpful. I mean this puts it in context. But we are going to, and I wanted to get this done before the commissioner corrections came in. So we didn't, we knew what to ask and not go in there blind. So this is very, very helpful. And so tomorrow afternoon we have the commissioner of corrections and Dan, if you're available you might want to zoom in if you're available for that. Anything else before we shift. Well, I would. I was just curious as to whether the fact that the 20 and the 10 add up to 30 and there's a JFO note about 31 million in reversions. So, I was just wondering where those numbers match for some reason. 31 million every versions. That was on. It was a JFO note that came along with that email that you forwarded from approach. Yeah, I have no idea. I don't mind me speaking up. I think the new spending throughout state government reflects not only the 31 million in reversions of unspent money but it also reflects the, the July 2021 state revenue forecast which projected general fund to be much higher than it had been forecast to be back in January of 2021. And I can't I don't have the number off top my head of what the general fund grew to but it's the, the new spending is not just from reversions it's also from that new, the updated revenue forecast. So the update of revenue forecast you could end up with FY 22 with a surplus. So what the administration is doing is wanting to spend that surplus and FY 22, instead of having it roll over to FY 23. In simple terms. That makes sense. So it's possible that that 31 is related to the 20 and the 10, and they're just trying to keep it within the same budget year. Okay, well, not be that specific 30 it could be the forecast that they projected for revenues for the general fund budget are coming in higher than what they had anticipated so your budget's going to have a surplus at the end of 22 so they may be trying to spend that surplus so that it doesn't go into the FY 23 budget. This is the reversion is from 21 the 30 with the 30. But that may have already been accounted for in their budget adjustment proposal. That's what I'm saying it might be the 20 in the 10. That's what I'm saying it might be the 20 in the 10. No, what I'm saying is that 31 reversion may have already be accounted for in the governor's original budget proposal in the middle of December. Okay, I don't know. I have to jump off so I can go to Senate appropriations. Thank you for having me. Thank you Dan will see a lot more of you. Okay. I've been here for years and if, if Phil, if you could put up on the screen, the memo that came from the advisory committee as to what the recommendation is was for you, I will, I will admit Eric, Joe, he said, Joe said us that. I know I want to put it up on the screen so everybody can see it so people really clear what the memo says. So we can see the language if you have it on your iPad or whatever you can bring it up as well. But I think the language is really important for people to see. Oh, are they voting? What are they voting on Eric? They're just voting on whether or not to keep on talking or to take a break. Oh, really? How come there's three people in the committee room? Wait, what are you? I'm seeing the State House rule three. That's us Alice. Can you hear us? Yeah. I'll get you guys. Okay. We're sitting in room three. Okay. I heard Joe Benning talking about a vote. I was thinking it was his committee room. I'm going to turn him down. I'm in two committees at once. He's now. Speaking with Matt Valerio about courthouses and John Campbell and a cavalcade of interested parties in reopening courthouses. We're doing too much. So anyway, one, can you, Janet and Trish, it's really hard to see you in this little block, but you're there. I wanted to show the committee the language that the advisory committee voted on on a vote of 10, 0, 3, in support of. And this would be the language that we would use as a basis. And it's the advisory committee recommends to management and joint rules. That the FY 22 budget adjustment include 1.5 million. In general funds to issue, or it could be just in funds, they can figure out where the funds would come from. To issue a request for proposal for programming and schematic design development for expansion of the State House. And that this include the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion. And that would be sort of the scope. If we make this recommendation to approach that this look like. One thought that we had this morning is trying to figure out who would put out the RFP and who gets the 1.5 million. Some folks, I think, I think the committee. Committee was split where some folks felt that should go to bgs other folks are feeling well we don't have enough information for that. Maybe we should do it internally but can we do it internally and then I think everyone was sort of thinking that there should be a partnership for this. We have in the past added projects in the capital budget that did not come through the governor's proposal. And this is where people right now hung up why isn't the governor supporting this. This is basic civics, we're a separate branch of government. The governor is a separate branch of government, the judiciary is a separate branch of government. And in the past have directed money towards projects, the bgs that were not in the governor's proposal. We have done that with DLC, we've done that with some projects within bgs. We've done that with some projects within forest and parks, we've done that with some projects within agency of natural resources. The governor does always support projects that we do. Sometimes they're silent on them. We get a proposal from the governor but the legislature change can change those proposals it's a legislative branch that appropriates the money. So, we talked about a possible partnership so if we did a partnership we could have the money go to bgs to do the RFP and be the lead agency. And this expansion but they would have to also consult during partnership with our sergeant arms and with tradition, that may be one option for that so I just put that on the table here. I'm going to raise some hands up so I'm going to go to Michael and then Kurt. Thank you madam chair. Based on that note I sent you when, how would we like to work test the money from the administration, so that we can, because I know you said this morning and several as express they'd like to hear what's going on with them speaking of the administration, how would you like to handle that. So we have to speed Michael reached out to the administration, during the break during lunch break to find out what the scoop was. Maybe you can share with us what the scoop is. What they, I talked to Kendall Smith, and she indicated that we, or that she would like to, she spoke with I believe, Secretary Clouser, Secretary, the administration would like to testify with us to let us know their position on the house expansion and let us know where I, you know, obviously what the governor's thoughts are on the monies that we're considering for this, what their perspective is so that we can hear, I guess the rest of the story. Okay. Sorry, I just, I just want to see how we would get them into our community to testify. I see like several people are interested. Or am I mistaken. Well, I'm not sure. I think we should know the whole story I mean there's got to be some reason why they don't want to do this and, like I said, we couldn't get a better opportunity or time to do it and there's got to be something out there or some reason why they're going against it. And I don't know what it is but. Well let's noodle that thought a little bit. Kurt. What's more confused this some this memo is a recommendation to joint legislative management committee and the committee on rules, not to us. What is the committee on joint management and rules. Are they going to make a recommendation to appropriations or something. The discussion in the advisory committee, the, the advisory committee needed to make their recommendations to joint management as well as joint rules they had to do that for figuring out how we were going to come back into the building in January. And then we did that. And that was done in August. And then in September we started working because the other part of the advisory committee's work was to figure out if we do an expansion, how we do it. Do we not doing expansion, but our requirement for the advisory committee was to make a report to management and joint rules. So that's how this memo is drafted. So what did and joint rules has been so consumed with number one getting us back into the building. When the session started. Number two, the advisory committee when we spoke about this said, we can go directly to members can go directly to appropriations committee for this. It's clear that with Senator Benning and myself on the advisory committee that we would relay that information in November December to the respective chairs that this is a recommendation that the advisory committee is making. We know the administration is not going to put this request in budget adjustment, we knew that back in November, but they didn't support this. I had conversations with the respective chairs. And this was back in November. When budget adjustment was proposed by the governor, middle of December. A week or so after that I had a conversation with representative Cooper and said, how should we proceed on this 1.5 million. And she said, talk about it with your committee and come in with a recommendation. And that's how it's played out. And part of it is because joint management and joint rules just didn't have the bandwidth to deal with it because they were struggling with getting us back into the building. Okay. Okay, thanks. Questions. So are we going to get them in here or not. Let me talk to the administration Michael and figure out. All right, I'll wait to hear from you. Thank you. Questions. So if we submit language. If we do this and submit language to budget appropriations. This could be the starting point for some of the language. So, questions, thoughts. Do people want to do an expansion of the state house. Well, I can, my thoughts are, I'm kind of going along with representative Morgan. I want to hear more information about it before I can make any kind of decision on this. I do think drive this. It's a legislature that's going to drive what our building is going to look like. Yes, but Absolutely. However, if we give a task to the administration, they are very capable of dragging their feet. If they're not in favor of it. And it could very well take beyond 2025 or 20 whatever the deadline was for some of this, I think. So we want to, we want their enthusiasm, their backing for it in order to get it done on time. So it was a committee as a whole supportive of expansion of the state house. Ellis, could we just take the document down so we could see each other a little bit better. Is that possible. Yeah. So I've asked that question but I know that we've got three hands up. So Larry, Linda and Sarah, you're muted Larry. I think, like I asked before, I would like to hear from the administration what their reluctance is to go along with this recommendation that we're willing to make. And what is his alternative use of that 1.5 million that we do not know about. They may not be willing to come forward with that information in terms of what they want to use the 1.5 with, because they have not presented the FY 23 budget yet. Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Yeah, but that's the way, you know, the emit like with the capital budget when we did the update on projects. The EGS was limited in terms of what they could talk about, because there may be some changes in the FY 23 capital budget that comes through with the governor's proposed budget. So they may be in the same bind here with that 1.5. But they can't be fully open with it. At this point. Linda, and then Sarah, and then Karen. Thank you. So I think there's confusion at least. There was from my part, I'm not saying because I want to hear from the administration that they're driving it. Be getting information about cost estimates that they're concerned about why they don't want expansion. It's just information that it doesn't mean they're driving it. So getting the most information in the short period of time is going to help us make strong informative decisions. It has nothing to do with the legislature versus the administration.  Okay. Sarah and then Karen.  I think one of the things that hasn't come into the committee yet today is, you know, the concerns that we've been hearing from legislators about how to adapt our workspace. You know, schools and other space, you know, businesses, everybody's had to adapt work workspaces and frankly, I think the cafeteria is a place where we're going to be living in a new time of living with this virus or the next one. Our cafeteria is one of the areas where we're so crowded. And I think, you know, I want to be able to get more information to be able to have the possibility of addressing this. This doesn't mean that we're at this stage that we're approving every like to move forward. It's about moving a process forward in a way that can utilize some one time funding and work with a construction timeline that can make that happen. So I'm interested in hearing if there's time to get some more information. I'm totally open to that. But I, I think the, the, the legislative branch is responsible for, and this is our committee's jurisdiction, you know, the, the, the to make it, you know, to, to upgrade the, the, our facility. And this is, I see this in the context of, you know, we're upgrading HVAC, we're doing a number of things. And it seems to me that there's advancing, there's a real advantage to getting this works, the thinking, the planning piece started so that we do have a better, we've schematics and we have better, more detailed information so we can decide how to best move forward. Karen. Yes, I think representative coffee shared a lot of what I was going to reflect on is that this is a starting, a starting point for us. And I guess the other thing that I'm hearing is, I think you said the vote for this was 1003 which also, if maybe you could help remind us who those stakeholders were that voted for that so it's not coming out of nowhere there's a group that is saying that this is important for us to pursue and at least consider here in committee and the piece again that it's not not saying that we are but we're getting the design getting more information. So, I guess I would be leaning towards following what this committee was asking us to do. And I think if we can get additional input from the administration before then I think that would be great to hear the full story of it. And it sounds like the committee that gave us this recommendation also did a lot of work to and came to that 1003 vote. So, I'm the jogging my memory here Karen. So the committee was made up of four members from the house for members from the Senate and some outside folks. The outside folks were the sergeant and arms and Janet helped me here because I'm memory arts council, the sergeant and arms. The friends of the State House. The arts council. And bgs commissioner bgs. And then there were eight from the legislature so that was 11 folks. I'm missing some people. Pardon. Perkins for the Perkins with the historical society. We had 11 members. So I have them here, you represent a man so represented Bartholomew, Senator Benning, Senator Clarkson, john dumbbell from the friends, Jennifer Fitch depart. And the commissioner, Senator Ruth Hardy, Karen middleman, and Steve Perkins, Anthony Polina, and representative show. So the three that were absent were Karen middleman with the arts council. Senator Hardy. And the commissioner bgs was not available that day she had conflicts. Eric was sitting in her place but he did not have the authority to vote. There were previous votes that were taken on different items. And in the commissioner bgs was present and the commissioner voted no and was the only one to vote no and I can't remember what those items were we can pull that up but I can't remember was I back in October. As we were working towards this. So it was a unanimous vote in favor. No one opposed and three absent. The arts council was absent bgs was absent and Senator Hardy. So I don't know if that helps and some of the 10, some of the 10 wanted a broad expansion. We wanted to go out in wings on both sides of the state house. Others want to keep it more refined. Just do the four bow the cafeteria. And that took about a two months worth of discussion to get to this point in the administration was not supportive of any of that. During all of those conversations and votes. Curt and then March. I noticed this on the memo that the it's only the first paragraph that was voted on. And what you just said about the difference in the committee about the kind of expansion. Did there was their consensus among the committee at the end that it should be a cafeteria on the second floor and why didn't they include that in the motion. The motion was, we were focused on trying to jumpstart the process. So the motion reflects the paragraph beneath it. Did the, the 10 people agree that they wanted the library that they did. They changed their mind. I'm not the library that the cafeteria on the third floor or were some of them still wanting to expand sideways. They came to an agreement. The pair the second paragraph, we agreed to that and the way that gets carried out is the language in that first paragraph to jumpstart that particular process with appropriating 1.5 million to get the RFP out there for programming and schematic design to carry out the paragraph of moving the cafeteria to the top floor and converting cafeteria space to committees. That was voted on the first paragraph was voted on, but there was, there was a wide agreement that there should be a cafeteria on the third floor if there is expansion. Okay. The key was that the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion. That was the key. We're not there to do the broader expansion. Let's just do this first part. And when you do the first part, you build in some of the mechanics for the ability to expand down the road. And in order to get that going, we agreed to jumpstart this by asking BAA asking the appropriations committees for 1.5 million. And obviously this plan was put in place a long time ago when they built the cafeteria with the idea of building a second floor. So it's nothing new. Correct. It was that right now we're in a position where we really need it and we have the money to do it. And then we're carrying that same thought Marsha that they did back in the mid 80s. When they built that addition with the cafeteria future legislators may want to further addition so let's build the cafeteria as a weight bearing floor so they can put a floor above it. So, we're taking that same concept. And then we're saying if you build this floor above the cafeteria, and you do this construction, build in the infrastructure for possible future expansions. We don't know what those future expansions will look like but at least build in some of your mechanical infrastructure for that. And then the question is, and I think heard is later that well, we've got a limited timeframe in terms of we want to use those are for dollars which we talked about as a committee last year. And remember, in May, we talked about that 113 million that would be for infrastructure capital infrastructure, and we wanted to divide it equally, pretty much as we could between the administrative the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch, because we knew that we were going to talk about an expansion. So we're just carrying that conversation to this. Correct. We have a limited amount of money, we have a limited amount of time by the federal requirements to get that out the door. And we want to make sure that BTS if they're the lead agency or department that they're going to do this as a priority. So that's where we are. So anything else on this, what I will do is I will reach out to the administration. To see if they're willing to come in and testify. And then I will see what when that would be available. And that to be on Tuesday. Unless there's time tomorrow but I don't know how much time we're going to be. I know we're on the floor tomorrow, but I know that they're anticipating having some training sessions after the floor until about noon time, and then we're scheduled. I think was, is it I don't have the agenda in front of me or we at one o'clock or 130 tomorrow. We are at one o'clock tomorrow. So let me have a conversation with the administration. See if they're willing to come in or who will come in. And see the timeframe for that. Does that make sense to the committee. So I think our work is done for the day. Time is at 330. Anything else. Actually, there is some. You're looking for topics. I'm going to follow along the line, and maybe not within the next two weeks, I'd like to get the full story on the, on the battery and the generator. And why, why the batteries been moved and things like that. And also, there was talk in that joint meeting of judiciary and the Senate over there when they were talking about the Beckett. There was, there were several remarks that, well, maybe we could put youths like that temporarily at Marble Valley. And I'm wondering if there's any feasibility to that because it would definitely I mean if this is really a crisis and people were talking crisis. I know the word crisis is used, maybe overused but if this is a crisis if we can make a change to Marble Valley that would take some kind of youth at least temporarily it would be better than having them in emergency rooms. I think I hate to put kids in their prison and of course there's a site and sound separation and all that sort of stuff that has to go on. But I also seem to remember hearing that it had been done before at Marble Valley so I think if this is a crisis we should look into that. So let's spend five minutes just seeing what other items folks would like to maybe start talking about next week. Anything raising to the top. I know we had some things doing a deeper dive on the budget but that won't really happen Karen until until we get the governor's proposed FY 23 budget, then we can really see what's at stake. I know some folks wanted to track the joint the justice reinvestment to investments I think again that's going to be more with the FY 23 budget, I would think. And then the overview of federal dollars for capital items that might be something that Dan and Becky could work. I'm thinking is having Becky come in next week. We talked about this with Phil, just sort of going over the language in the capital bill that we passed, particularly these types of policy language that we put in, just as a refresher for that. And do that next week. So that would cover a little bit of that we're going to have a lot of conversation about federal dollars being used for capital, we're going to have a lot of conversations for that. And some of that will also be in the governor's recommended capital budget adjustment. I'm asking about how, how, how the capital budget adjustment works. So the governor's budget presentation and a couple of weeks will cover both annual appropriations and the capital. He will have his FY 23 general fund budget he will have his FY 23 transportation budget and he will have his FY 22 FY 23 capital bill budget adjustment. Okay. And pay attention to how this worked last two years ago. Karen. Yeah, so these aren't any immediate need I'm just thinking for the session in general of when do we or do we get updates on the bills or initiatives that we passed last session. Just hear where those are at. I think that would be, I don't remember the numbers or things but you know things with doc and all that just to hear where, where they're at that would be great. Yeah, we talked about that Sarah Mary and I talked about that we did. We had the big corrections bill that was setting up the monitoring commission and looking at that and then we also worked with Human Services Committee on the forensic unit. And then we also did some work on the probation earn time for earned. I forgot what the term was but for probation that there would be some initiative there for people on probation and maybe if they be apply and conform to all the conditions of probation would be completed for them and that's sooner. Midpoint review I think. Yeah, midpoint review. So we've got those we talked about that. And I'd be interested in hearing about the HVAC status of the HVAC work. We're scheduling that Eric, we talked about that at noon and Phil's going to reach out to Judy about the HVAC just to give us an update on the work that's been done this year. So we talked about that so we hope to do that next week. Can't get into the FY 23 appropriation just give us an update on what's occurred over this past year. Great. Can French Freeman be part of that Eric or is that, can that be done with Joe and Tay maybe. Probably, I think Joe and Tay can probably get you where you need to go. So we've got that scheduled. Anything else members trying to figure out next week. At this stage it might be fine with just Joe. Yeah, we'll do a deeper dive into it for sure. Yeah, we realized after the fact that we missed that in the go around to the spreadsheet. And the batteries and seems like there was one other project that was of note but not necessarily. We'll come around to it I'm sure. Anything else. And don't forget Windsor you have a report in place where we've scheduled that we're scheduling that the wins the report on the Windsor correctional facility the task force. And I recommended to fill that he reached out to you Eric. I think that should be Tom Kennedy. Yeah. Connect with Tom on that. I'm going to play in some other conversations that are going to occur during the session.  Have you seen the bill. What bill. There's a bill. I've only read through it once but I think it would compel us to fit it up as a temporary youth facility. Within 30 days of adjournment. Senate bill. I think it was toppers. Topper McFawn. Okay because we'll be introduced tomorrow. Yeah. You'll have to be fit up and open 30 days after we adjourn the bit ambitious. Anything else. No wonder Eric you don't have time to work with that addition on the state house. I just do as I'm told. By many people. Including us. Hey Eric. I have a question for you. Do you know a Justin Steyler. Justin Steyler. He works for you. Yeah. He's my neighbor. He's my neighbor. Oh, okay. I'm sure. Oh, he's in operations, right? Yes, he is. Yeah. No, no, no. This one's, this one's my neighbor. Yeah, he's actually been working on the, on the workplace integrated management system deployment. He's, I've been on a lot of conference calls with him. It's past year. I used to babysit his dad when he was young.  He was working on a software for project management. That was a number of years ago, right? We have. We have a couple of big software deployments going on right now. One of them. The project management one is in collaboration with V trans. They have an existing system that they are. They're, I believe, going to be migrating to a web based version, which is going to make it possible for us to have access to it. So we've been working with them on that. And then we have the workplace integrated management system, which is sort of a. A whole organization backbone that starts with work orders and ends with capital planning. And we're going to be unleashing the, the operations and maintenance module. Hopefully in February. So that's the one I'm thinking of. Yeah. Yeah. And then the next one after that is lease management and all of our CAD drawings and everything is slowly moving into this system over the course of a couple of years. Okay. We gave approval for that and the money what three years ago. Two, three years ago. It wasn't less sessions. The sessions are running into each other when you've. Been zooming her. Three times here. So anything else before we finish up. So thank you folks on YouTube and we will see you tomorrow. Tomorrow at one o'clock.


This is covering the spread part of the Fandall podcast network We have got a fantastic week of football ahead of us not just in the NFL with the Thanksgiving Slay coming up But also in college football the game coming up on a Saturday, Michigan versus Ohio State We're gonna break it all down in a single show for today We're talking to Dr. Ed Fang about both college football week 13 and NFL week 12 to get you ready For which should be a stellar week on the grid iron This is covering the spread right here on the Fandall podcast network and Fandall research My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a managing editor of digital media for Fandall research Joined here as I have every Wednesday by dr. Ed Feng you can find his work at the power egg comm and check them out on Twitter at the power Egg Ed Thriller week of football coming up. How you doing today? I'm doing fantastic. I'm a little bum that I think I'm gonna be in a car for the first quarter of Ohio State At Michigan for some reason some youth soccer thought it was appropriate to schedule a game at 11 a.m On Saturday morning I kind of presumed that no games would be scheduled at all because of the holiday weekend, but I was wrong And that's in Ann Arbor now, which makes it even a bigger. So no, it's it's close to Ann Arbor It's not actually in Ann Arbor. So There should be no traffic coming back to to get into you know, my couch and settle in for the game But But yeah, should be a good one. Would you consider something your son 10 bucks to fake an illness? Oh No, he wants to play that's good Good for him for having credibility and having integrity. I don't but good for him So I'm happy for him, but gonna be a great weekend We got that game coming up some pretty good NFL games to honestly It was hard to whittle down the rundown because like could have three or four games in there talk about the NFL We're gonna talk about college football first breakdown, Michigan, Ohio State We're also I'm talking about a pretty big game for Florida State trying to remain undefeated and we'll get into the NFL and other bets Ed likes for this week all here in just one second But first you want some thoughts on the thanksgiving slate in the NFL I had one bet in that in the first look show, which was up on Tuesday That's up on the covering the spread podcast feed also Tom Vecchio breaking down player props for all three games That'll be in the covering the spread podcast feed on Wednesday I'm not sure if it's up right now when you're listening, but should be up pretty soon So find that in the covering the spread podcast so you can find on fan dual TV plus as well All right here in the same feed if you want to play some TFS and Thanksgiving We broke that down on the heat check fantasy podcast Which you can find in the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed on the family YouTube page and over on fan dual TV plus as well Score early this NFL season with fan dual America's number one sportsbook right now new customers get $150 and bonus bets with any winning $5 moneyline bet That's a hundred and fifty bucks if your team wins if you've been thinking about joining fan dual There is no better time to get in on the action. The app is so easy to use There is a wide range of betting options including spreads player props totals and more So visit faddle and kick off the NFL season faddle official partner of the NFL must be 21 plus and president select states Fan dual is offering online sports waging in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas star casino LLC first online real money wager only $5 pregame moneyline wager required $10 first deposit required bonus issued is now with trouble bonus bets that expire seven days after a seat See terms at sportsbook.fandual.com gambling problem call 1-800 gambler or visit fandual.com slash rg in Colorado, Iowa Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia call 1-800 next step Or text next step to 5334 to an Arizona<PHONE_NUMBER> Or visit easy PG.org slash chat in Connecticut 1-800-9 with an Indiana 1-800-522-4700 visit chaos gambling health commie, Kansas 1-800-777-770 stop in Louisiana visit MD gambling health at Oregon, Maryland 1-800 gambler.net in West Virginia 1-800-522-4700 in Wyoming hope is here visit gambling help line ma.org or clay hundred three two seven fifty-fifty for 24-7 support of Massachusetts or call 1-800-777 open Y or text open Y in New York Let's get things off here by talking about the game It is Ohio State at Michigan where right now Michigan is a three and a half point favorite at fandals sportsbook And the total in this game is at 45 and a half now You've been talking about this game for a while the show talking about where your numbers would have this game if already played at that moment and It's finally here. So what do your numbers say about Ohio State at Michigan right now? This is really a story about whether you want to look at season long type Metrics versus whether you want to have a model that just a little more aggressively for what's happened recently When you look at the season long numbers, Michigan's been the better team this year I take, you know, for example, you know, I take margin of victory I take things like success rate adjust for strength to schedule put them together in the ways that I think is appropriate You know in terms of the waiting success rate means more than just margin of victory in games So so when you do that Michigan comes out ahead over the course of the season You know by the data based on the current season I have Michigan about three points better than Ohio State that would make them about five and a half point favorite in this game at home The problem is what I found the better way to do it in college football is to actually adjust to more recent More recent games. So my model tends to just Basically adjust every week Depending on what happened in the results and I think that matters for Ohio State They were awful at running the ball earlier in the season After the Penn State game, they were in the hundreds somewhere when I look at Russian concess rate adjusted for opponent After that Trevion Henderson came back. He is a Heisman caliber running back a talent Someone that we knew was going to be good coming into the season Ohio State's been much better run the ball 48% success rate since then which is significantly better than where they were and You know, they've gone from you know in the hundreds to 64th and in rushing Success rate adjusted for opponent and I don't actually think that 64th is indicative of how good the rush offenses right now they've been really good against some decent competition and You know, this this is basically we all know what they can do throwing the ball And I think their offense is good But it's it's even better now Given that they've had Henderson back given what they've done in the last four weeks since he's come back I have The model of that reacts more aggressively Actually, Ohio State is slightly ahead of Michigan. It's kind of a essentially a push and You know, my my model says Michigan by a point and a half at home So I actually do think there is a little bit of value on how to say plus three and a half. I Not exactly where I thought I would land on this game about a month ago But things change in college football and I think there's a really good reason why things have changed For this Ohio State team. They're they're just running the ball better. They They have that in their arsenal where where the run game was just awful earlier in the season Yeah, right now the plus three and a half at Fandals sportsbook is minus 112 Is that enough where you would take Ohio State here at do you think that? You believe in that aggressive model enough to pull the trigger because if it's a blended model between the two We kind of use wisdom of the crowds within yourself three and a half is basically spot-on But you've tested the aggressive model. It is tested better. So is that enough three and a half for you? Well, I mean, I think everyone needs to make that decision for themselves personally. I'm the skin fan I'm hoping that they're gonna win So I have that Ohio State money line because I think there's value there I'm more than happy to hedge emotionally hedge in these types of games when I think there's value and so that's what I personally did So you get the emotional hedge you get value based on your model But you're not kind of got any people where they want to go. So if you think that You want action on this game and you want good value Ohio State does sound to be that at plus three and a half minus 112 As I had mentioned it does like the money line as well at plus 134. I was watching the game last weekend and like Didn't McCarthy do seem a little bit off to you like is he a hundred percent right now? Because it seems like it wasn't the full McCarthy as we've seen like earlier this year and a times last year Right, I mean, I think he's got a little bit of a leg injury Obviously, he can play and he is going to be 100% available against Ohio State undoubtedly I Think you know, I think he had a peak in that Michigan State game where he was absolutely brilliant He threw a ton of passes against Purdue and actually wasn't great in that game wasn't particularly great last week Is it the injury or is it just you know? Typical ups and downs of a college football quarterback. I don't really know. I expect him to be pretty good on Saturday I expect I'm a pretty good game And we'll see that we'll see where that leads them did help your under on JJ McCarthy 230 and a half no sweat there as he was at 141 so pretty easy win for you with that one So Ed is on Ohio State here for the game on Saturday Let's talk about another key game coming up this week That is Florida State at Florida and right now at six and a half point spread favoring Florida State The total in this game is 49 and a half now Florida State already locked in to play Louisville in the ACC Championship next week But they got to win that they want to make the college football playoff and they need to win probably in like decently convincing fashion as well So facing Florida here Florida has had a pretty rough year so far Ed But can they keep things close enough here to cover at home? Yeah, we'll see Florida State is Duking it out with Washington to see which team is the bigger fraud as an undefeated they're both outside of my top 10 and Yeah, I mean look I don't really know what to think at all about this game because of the quarterback situation Jordan Travis is out for Florida State Tate Rotemakers is gonna be their quarterback Grand Mertz for Florida has been really good. He's out Max Brown is Gonna be their quarterback. So what do you make of two backup quarterbacks that had almost no numbers? I don't know They're both three stars So I feel like you're kind of guessing here. I mean my numbers pure numbers wise I make this Florida State by about four a little bit of value on Florida I'm not sure that there's any value in this but if I wanted to have some fun with this game I would definitely bet Florida Money line Kind of root for the for the chaos scenario. So yeah, you know, I mean Florida State like they really have dropped Right. I mean, I think they kind of reached a peak maybe weak one against LSU and I think they've been good since then but Hasn't really been particularly impressive shouldn't have beaten Clemson and The defense is actually pretty good. They they're fourth in my success rate adjusted for opponent The offense not so good. Now. They don't have Jordan Travis. So I honestly don't know what to make of the side But if I were better, I would just have some fun with some Florida money line I mean, it's it's back a quarterbacks both teams at least and if you're showing a value on the Florida side a plus 198 like that's not a bad route to bet this and again, it is It's a Florida State team that is undefeated but has had some Funkiness in there for sure. So I think that's a pretty fun way. So potentially Checking out the dogs and both these games Ohio State money line checking out the Florida Florida money line as well Plus 1808, I think that's a fun way to attack the college football side of things any other college football bets You're eyeing for week 13 Ed. I Couldn't find a market on this, but I would definitely be looking to fight fades in Florida State receivers Keon Coleman, I mean who knows what Tate rotamaker is gonna do I think Coleman is the stud on that team with with all the crazy catches that he's had this year I can imagine if that number is anywhere close to That's probably not gonna be a hundred, but if it's high, you know kind of take whatever his Average has been in ACC games And see see if it's high So that's a bet that I'm looking for I haven't found it yet, but I will I will be looking for it before Saturday Yeah, and markets tend to be posted later Friday for the most part So circle back for that to see if you can get some value on that checking on unders on the Florida State past catchers given the quarterback situation for Florida State Let's talk now about the NFL because we got some fun games there as well And honestly Ed a surprisingly fun one in the AFC South where Jacksonville is going to Houston to take on the Texans Right now spread there is one and a half total is 48 and a half and the Texans already beat the Jags once this year They're at home this time. Can they get the job done again and honestly take a lead in the AFC South? Yeah, that's right. They smoked them the first time around, right? Yeah so This is an interesting game in terms of how you wait kind of preseason versus data from the current season Obviously if you were gonna do this by preseason metrics didn't think much of Houston You'd make Jacksonville more of a favorite than they are when you take data from the current season Success rate your surpass attempt things that I look at I'd actually make Houston a two-point favorite here So they're slightly ahead of Jacksonville based on the data from the current season So, you know Jacksonville by by one and one and a half is the market right now It's obviously going to be that's kind of splitting the difference between that You know my numbers have Jacksonville by about three I would I would lean this way towards Jacksonville Just continue to be impressed with Jacksonville's defense tenth of my adjusted success rate fourth in coverage grade Cornerback Tyson Campbell did not play last week against Tennessee may not play here So but otherwise, you know both teams have a relatively clean injury list Which is kind of shocking at this point in in the NFL season So, yeah, I mean I would lean towards Jacksonville here Obviously, Houston and CJ Stroud have have been incredible this year But it's not like he hasn't had his his bad moments as a rookie this year So I would lean towards Jacksonville here at a minus one and a half. I Took the Texans money line again I think we've talked about this here on the show Ed, but I've bet the Texans money line every single week this year Not like seeking it out, but I've shown value every single week 11 consecutive games showing value my model on the Texans money line and I know why this is the case It's because my model heavily weighs passing efficiency and they've been the fourth most efficient passing offense in the league so far this year now I think that the case against that would be the Jags Didn't as a Jones for a long time didn't know the left tackle for a bit too So like they've had weird injury stuff for this year that has weighed them down And when they had say Jones back last week the offense shredded and the Texans past defense is not very good So they could do well from that perspective here so I think that's the case against my bet of the Texans money line, but The Texans have also dealt with a lot of injuries. They didn't have Nico Collins for a game Didn't have tank Del for a couple of games Larry me tonsil missed a bunch of time like they've had a rotating door of both wide receivers and offensive linemen and CG Started still been efficient throughout all that so I Respect the Jags the Jags for the Texans last year where I bet their money line pretty much every single week So I've been on the Jags before but here I do go at the Texans personally It's gonna keep on riding it until they really give me a reason not to basically but like I Do understand the the mindset of we could be waiting too much What's happened so far this year Stroud could regress we saw some of that last week two or three picks in that game That could happen. So I understand the other side, but also I'm just gonna you know, keep on riding until it breaks I guess. All right, sounds good. Alrighty other big game I want to talk about for this week in the NFL is going to be the bills at the Eagles with this spread has tightened a bit It's now bills plus three total is 48 and a half for this one And you and I both been on the bills plenty so far this year and they're facing a team that we've been pretty skeptical of But who did beat the cheese on Monday? So does our optimism around Buffalo and skepticism around the Eagles translate to this game as well or are we changing tune for this matchup? My numbers have Philadelphia by 2.9 points. So I'm pretty much right on market gun to head I would definitely bet Buffalo. I I think they've had a lot of bad luck with turnovers I just do not think this defense even with the injuries. They've had is like one of the bottom five units I'm pretty sure I said that last time we talked about Buffalo as well And I suspect that a future podcast episode On the football analytics show is gonna be the case against Philadelphia. I just think this team is very overrated I mean you look at the 33% passing success rate they had against Kansas City just the Absurd amounts of luck they had in winning that game Justin Watson just unable to catch a football Even though he's that's exactly what he's paid to do MVS dropping a pretty much a sure touchdown. I really like Buffalo Sorry, I really like Kansas City. One is two and a half in that game. I would bet that again immediately right now No questions asked So yeah, I mean I just you know, I I I'm probably gonna stay away from this game, but you know, I think if we I Think if we made this spread like for this again in about four weeks I think it'd be much closer to a pick Yeah, I took the bills plus three and a half when it was there For the same reasons you laid out like this offense is still very good They're the fifth ranked passing offense when you adjust for schedule just in 2023 and that that's looking at a model That doesn't I think it overweighs turnovers and it's a model where they should get dinged as a result of that So I've got two models as we discussed here on the show One model that weighs passing efficiency a bit more heavily than the other one does So I tend to discount that one of Philadelphia and look at the other model which views things a bit more holistically and That model the one that should favor them a bit more still has This spread at 1.9. So it has Philadelphia favored But even the one that that likes them more it still has Buffalo like the tiniest tiniest bit Better than them actually I guess it has equals a tiny bit better because it's a 1.9 I've got home feel at 1.8. So they're basically the same team in that and The plus three is minus one or two so I Do feel like Buffalo is the right side in this game I feel good about the movement so far getting into three when I got a three and a half I Agree with the overall handicap you were discussing the bills defense has been better than I thought they be with all the injuries Kudos to you for pinpointing that earlier on where you said hey, I think they're better than what they've done so far and they've Been pretty solid even accounting for schedule because that Jets game is is what it is but like you got it for schedule. They've been good to Like you got to take care of visiting at Zach Wilson. They did so they did and like Tim Boyle was actually worse than Zach Wilson Yeah So like we talk name junk about Zach Wilson all the time the spread in the Dolphins Jets game. Yes two points. Yep Exactly, and it probably should have moved two points Right like it. I mean, I guess they've just had it with Zach Wilson, which I completely understand Sure, he has not been able to reproduce the magic from from the one Kansas City game and But Tim Boyle, that's really your next option. I mean clearly Jill Flacco was available and The explanation here is they're tanking and they knew that they started Trevor Simeon. They'd win so like We know what the answer is we know why they went Tim Boyle It's because they were afraid of how good touchdown Trevor Simeon is and like I get it I get that too. You want a tank? You got to keep Trevor Simeon in a bottle until you're forced to use him I get it But that's the true explanation here. Obviously. Well, they just really want my under nine and a half wins to cash I don't think you don't worry about that one. I know I know it was a little bit worrisome for a bit But I think you're gonna be a little worrisome for a bit. Yeah, for sure.  I Think I think I'm gonna be alright. Yeah, what do I have that spread out this week? I Guess only 9.3 so Whatever other model has way more gross than that, but still, you know Gotta love the the line the line giving Zach Wilson vindication as he steps out the door Likely for the final time. That's all that we have here for us day on Covering the spread but Ed busy week as I know Thanksgiving is a huge week for you So what you got going on over at the Power Inc? Yeah, I'm really excited about a podcast I did it's all about I talked about some of it here, obviously Because Jim you had to ask me about Michigan at Ohio State but it's about a 10 minute episode and I've been trying to kind of do some audio experiments where Basically, it kind of feels like an audio book but not boring and there's some jokes in there Maybe some invitations of Ryan day pretty fun story about Jack Harbaugh So check that out at the football analytics show and only take 10 minutes to your time I guess I presume I guess I need to post it. I haven't posted it yet But I'll be up by the time this podcast is up And then yes, you know still writing my newsletter this week five nugget Saturday So if you need some action on this Thanksgiving weekend, I will have you set so check that out at the power rank Com all right find the podcast as well at the football analytics show Ed enjoyed the soccer game on Saturday Hopefully it's speedy so you can get back in time Or end of the first quarter, but enjoy all the football talk to you again soon. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well Happy Thanksgiving to you Jim. All righty fine Ed on Twitter at the power rank I am on Twitter at Jim Sonnis you can find me on threads at Jim dots on us and find Fandor research at Fandor research again if you want the thoughts and Thanksgiving check out Tom Vecchio's podcast here in this exact same feed Talking some player props for all three games. Happy things giving to all of you We'll be back with you once again Monday to break down bears at Vikings Here and on the Fandall YouTube page and on Fandall TV plus. Happy Thanksgiving. We'll talk to you all again soon This has been covering the spread right here on the Fandall podcast network


An important concept in mathematics is that of a set. So definitions are the whole of mathematics, all else's commentary. We should try to define a set, but it's so basic a concept that it's not possible. And this leads to another important idea in mathematics. It doesn't matter what something is, what matters is what it does, and how it relates to other things. And so we define a set consist of elements, which are said to belong to the set. And rather than defining what a set or elements are, this definition says that this concept of set is related to this concept of element by the idea of belonging to. And let's introduce some notation. If x is an element of a set A, we write x is an element of A, where this is sort of a stylized E. There are two common ways of describing a set. We can use list notation where we list the elements of a set and enclose the whole in a set of braces. So A might be the set whose elements are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42. Now an important idea here is that list elements should not be repeated. We'll see why that's a requirement later on. The other way we can describe a set is to use what's called set builder notation and describe an inclusion rule that is used to decide whether something is an element of a set. So we might say that B is a set of things where what we're looking at is not number. It's important to understand the difference between the two forms of notation. So for example, let A be this set and let B be this set. And let's list the elements of A and of B. The first thing to recognize here is that A is given in list notation. So its elements are going to be the things separated by commas. And so the elements of A are this block of text, the odd numbers between 0 and 10, and this block of text, except 7. Meanwhile, B is in set builder notation, and so its elements are things that are odd numbers between 0 and 10, except for 7, and those are the numbers 1, 3, 5, and 9. So here's an important concept. The empty set designated this way is the set that contains no elements. In list notation, we have our empty set, and we're going to write down everything that's in the set, and once we have that list of everything in the set, we'll throw that list into a set of braces. Now, given any set, there are some standard questions you should always ask. One important question is, does the set contain any elements? So let's consider, let's list the elements of the empty set, this set, and this set. Definitions are the whole of mathematics. All else is commentary. This is the empty set, which doesn't contain any elements. Now, this set consists of something enclosed by a set of braces. So it's evidently in list notation, and the elements of this set are the things inside the braces. This set contains the element, the empty set. And finally, this is also in list notation, and this set contains the element 0. Once we have sets, we might try to compare them. So given two sets, let a and b be sets, we say and write the following, a is equal to b when a and b have the same elements. We write this, and we read it as a is a subset of b when every element of a is also an element of b. Hey, it's useful to make one for the distinction, a is a proper subset of b if a is a subset of b and a is not actually equal to b. And to emphasize this, we sometimes use this notation or even this notation for a proper subset. One other feature, if a is a proper subset of b, we say that b is a super set of a, or that b contains a, and we write it this way. Just as a note, we don't often use this notation or this terminology. So let's consider a couple of sets and let's find the relationship between the sets a, b, c, and d. So definitions are the whole of mathematics. All else is commentary, so we'll pull in our definitions. And we see that b has elements c, d, and e, and d also has those elements c, d, and e. And since they have the same elements, then they're equal. And one of the things that this means, if b and d are equal, but the only difference is the order in which we list the elements, it follows that the order we list the elements in a set is not important. Now if we look closely, we see that every element of b is an element of a, but a is not equal to b, then b is a proper subset of a. How about c? Well, we might notice, first of all, that c is not equal to a and not equal to b. Not everything in c is in a, so c is not a proper subset of a or of b. And in fact, we might observe that while c has some elements in common with a, it's not equal a subset or a superset. And so you might ask the question, what is it? We'll take a look at that next.


We have reached the final way station in our journey into spatial data science ethics. Our path led us through a spectrum of perspectives on ethics in the geospatial technology field. We surveyed major ethical, legal, and policy issues, which are often intertwined. We read about the emergence of critical GIS and considered its relationship to codes of professional ethics. We analyzed ethics case studies to hone our moral reasoning abilities. We explored perspectives on ethics in the related field of data science. We read about the nature of this new-ish field, as well as the ethical challenges it presents. We analyzed and discussed long-form case studies, which required us to elevate our moral reasoning abilities to accommodate cases presented in greater detail and nuance. Most recently, we considered ethical concerns in the emerging field of spatial data science and from the perspective of organizational ethics. We considered formative thoughts about this new space for collaboration at the intersection of GIScience and data science. We read how the practice of data generation through establishment of correlations across data flows yields unprecedented information about individuals and is responsible for their increasing anxiety and sense of helplessness. Thumbnail cases about a couple of big data analytics firms showed us how easy it is to get in ethical trouble in this field. And another company exemplified the challenge of creating and using geospatial technology for good. In this final lesson, spread over the last two weeks of the course, your focus will primarily be on completing and presenting the term project you selected earlier in this semester. But in this concluding presentation of mine, I want to leave you with thoughts about how an ethics of digital care can help us deal with the stresses of lives and work that are suffused with digital technologies, including geospatial technologies. To begin, I'd like to return to James and Stuart Rachel's overview of moral philosophy. I can almost hear you thinking, here we go again, more old white guys going on and on about moral reasoning. Fair enough. But as the Rachel's point out in Chapter 6, most moral philosophers have been men. To make amends for that inequity, I now ask you to consider a moral philosophy called the Ethics of Care that's associated with feminist scholars. The Rachel's observe that the idea that women and men think differently has traditionally been used to insult or belittle women. However, they add, these days, most feminists believe that women do think differently than men, but they also believe that women's ways are not inferior. On the contrary, they write, female ways of thinking yield insights that have been missing in male-dominated areas. Thus they continue, by attending to the distinctive approach of women, we can make progress in subjects that seem stalled. Ethics is said to be a leading candidate for this treatment. As ethicists are wont to do, the Rachel's use cases to make their points. One case is Heinz's dilemma. Heinz can't afford a medication that is his dying wife's only hope. So he considers stealing the drug. Should he? A couple of 11-year-olds, Jake and Amy, respond to the dilemma in revealingly different ways. Jake, thinking like a male, as the Rachel's infer, sees only a conflict between life and property that can be resolved by a logical deduction, namely, to steal the medication. In contrast, Amy responds to the personal aspects of the situation, as females typically do, the Rachel's inference again. I think there might be other ways besides stealing it, Amy says. They should really just talk it out and find some other way to make the money. The Rachel's note that most moral philosophers have favored an ethic of principle, like Jake's response, over the ethic of intimacy and caring that Amy's response represents. But then again, the authors emphasize most moral philosophers have been men. Men's theory of obligation, the Rachel's generalize, portray the moral agent as someone who listens to reason, figures out the right thing to do, and does it. Sounds a bit like Michael Davis' seven-step guide to ethical decision-making, doesn't it? In contrast, feminist thinkers like Virginia Held argued that caring, empathy, feeling with others, being sensitive to each other's feelings, all may be better guides to what morality requires in actual contexts than may abstract rules of reason or rational calculation, or at least they may be necessary components of an adequate morality. We'll return to the notion of an adequate or minimum conception of morality a little later. At this point, however, after the preceding theoretical background, let's turn to the book Slow Computing by Rob Kitchin and Alistair Frazier, two human geographers at the National University of Ireland at Maynooth. Kitchin is especially well known for his early publications about the web, including The Atlas of Cyberspace, in 2001. Slow Computing follows the example of Slow Food, which describes itself as a global grassroots organization founded in 1989 to prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteract the rise of fast life, and combat people's dwindling interests in the food they eat, where it comes from, and how our food choices affect the world around us. Another more recent spin-off is Slow Scholarship. The manifesto shown here describes it as a similar response to hasty scholarship. Slow Computing begins by stating the obvious. We lead digital lives. Among other troubling statistics Kitchin and Frazier point out that over 80% of people own a smartphone, with the average person checking it about 50 times a day. Is this just the way things are now, they ask? Should it be like this? In this book, they write, we make two related arguments. First, how we interact with digital devices does matter. Digital technologies are accelerating and fragmenting our everyday lives, and the data our devices gather are used to profile and target us. Second, we should step back, even if just a little, to try to seize some self-control. Slow Computing is one possible way you can be more careful about leading a digital life. But it is more than that. Slow Computing is also about seeking and making changes to how our digital society and economy operate and are organized. In Chapter 6 of Slow Computing, Kitchin and Frazier present an ethics of digital care that provides a rationale for the movement they hope to inspire. For us, they write, the principles of slow computing are normatively rooted within the ethics of digital care, self-care and collective care, designed to re-imagine and remake our digital society and economy, so that it protects and enables personal and societal interests. They point out that German companies, including Volkswagen, Alliance, Telecom, Bayer and Henkel, have implemented slow computing practices such as the right to disconnect, because they have realized having less-dressed workers improves productivity, promotes innovation, reduces employee turnover and lost days, and increases profit. As you can read in this Wikipedia article, legislation related to working hours and privacy has been introduced in France, Italy and Canada, among other countries. Kitchin and Frazier's ethics of digital care consists of two primary pillars. The first, they say, is about an ethics of time sovereignty, which they define as the power and autonomy to dictate how our time is spent. The second pillar they write is about data sovereignty, which concerns authority and control over the generation of data about us, the data captured, and how those data are used. Smart cities is a spatial example discussed in Chapter 6. Corporations and the state both promote certain digital futures, Kitchin and Frazier write. For example, smart city advocates produce slick videos and glossy adverts, forecasting the potential benefits of a city saturated with ubiquitous computing. They aim to enact so-called fast urbanism, from fast-track planning to the adoption of real-time management systems. As I've noted elsewhere, John Jyn and colleagues published an illuminating paper about how the Internet of Things enables planners and engineers to design smart cities. Illustrated by a case study involving noise mapping in Melbourne, Australia, Jyn and the team discussed the data collection, data processing and management, and data interpretation aspects of an IoT-enabled urban information system. GIS plays a role in their framework specifically for the integration and visualization of geo-referenced data. Considering the mass of data throughputs generated by the IoT, Jyn and colleagues observe that to make sense of the information and convert it into knowledge, state-of-the-art computational intelligence techniques such as genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms and neural networks are necessary. Machine learning, they conclude, will help achieve automated decision-making and provide useful policy. Their vision would seem to exemplify fast urbanism. And ethics of digital care, Kitchen and Fraser argue, promotes turning the driving logic of smart cities technologies away from speed, efficiency, optimization, and technocratic governance towards fairness, citizenship, social justice, and the public good. They call us to envisage what we think an ideal slow city should look like at some point in the future and then try to work out the steps needed over the intervening years to make that city. Another spatial example occurs at the intersection of big data analytics and crime prediction. Predictive policing systems in the United States have been critiqued for practicing racial profiling and perpetuating institutional racism, Kitchen and Fraser right. They argue, there is clearly a data justice issue here in terms of being able to identify, contest, and prevent any discrimination within these systems. This leads the authors to conclude that there is an urgent need in our view for public debate about the ethics of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data usage. The best surrogate measure I found of public debate at this moment may be a 2020 article by Leila Aucci and colleagues in the journal AI and Society. They used the Lexus Uni database to uncover articles in newspapers, magazines, and web blogs from 2013 to 2019 that dealt with artificial intelligence and ethics. Ultimately they identified and qualitatively analyzed 254 articles. Overall they noted a contrast when compared to television and movie portrayals of AI which often sensationalize the dangers posed by AI. They went on to conclude that the public debate on the ethics of AI is in its early stages. However it appears to be fairly sophisticated and a crucial recommendation is to increase the breadth and depth of public debate as well as participation of relevant stakeholders. You, my friends, are relevant stakeholders. You are alert to the ethical and legal issues that are bound up with the technologies and practices in spatial data science. You have woodshedded your moral reasoning skills. You should be prepared to assert leadership roles in your organization related to ethical concerns. Consider the impact at the organizational level of one company's project selection guidelines. Let's return, finally, to James and Stuart Rachel's notion of a minimum conception of morality. As I hope you'll recall from that reading and an earlier presentation, they argue morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason. That is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's action. In our emerging context of spatial data science, it seems to me that giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected is an opening for an ethics of digital care, collective care, and self-care. I hope that's something you'll want to help implement in your work and workplace. Thanks for your thoughtful attention to this and to my past four presentations. Take care.