On behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to welcome all of you. My name is Kathy Ray, and I am the Chair of the Board of Directors. The Iris Network's Board of Directors has participated in the process of planning for the establishment of this residential vision rehab program for over five years. We are proud to see those plans come to fruition with the participation of our partners, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the State of Maine Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired, including our old friend Bud Lewis, the Interim Director of DBVI for the moment, and our generous capital campaign donors who are listed in your program. The Iris Network has made a tremendous financial commitment to the future by developing the Rehabilitation Center with the collaboration of our partners. We look forward to a long-term relationship with our counterparts in Maine's blindness rehabilitation system for the benefit of our future clients. Together we can provide the world-class services that Maine people experiencing vision loss and blindness deserve in the future. Now I'd like to introduce the President and Executive Director of the Iris Network, Jim Phipps. Thank you very much, Kathy. We certainly appreciate your welcome, but I want to add my welcome as well. We are very happy to have all of you here today, but I want to especially thank Commissioner Labreck and her party for their arduous journey from Washington. And no less, Commissioner Paquette for adjusting her schedule this morning. Commissioner Paquette is here representing Maine's Department of Labor, which the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired is a part. I also want to welcome representatives from our congressional delegation who have joined us today. And also we have representatives here today from the Maine State Legislature and the Portland City Council and staff from the City of Portland who have all been very helpful in piecing together the funding necessary for this project, which I'll talk more about in a moment. And as Kathy mentioned, this would not be possible without our generous capital campaign contributors. All of our, I want to welcome all of our distinguished guests here today. This is a team effort and we couldn't do it without each of you. Thank you very much. Today we're here to celebrate the Iris Network Rehabilitation Center. This is a real milestone in our work here at the Iris Network. I want to offer our sincere appreciation to the Rehabilitation Services Administration for its investment in establishing the Rehabilitation Center here at the Iris Network and to the State of Maine through the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired for our partnership, which makes that investment possible from the federal level. We could not do this without the support of Maine's Governor LePage and his administration represented today by Commissioner Paquette. We're very pleased to have the endorsement of the State of Maine for this project. Not only to make the Rehabilitation Center possible, but also for recognizing the need for both community-based vision rehabilitation services and center-based services. For the last almost 20 years, we and the Division for the Blind have worked to deliver vision rehabilitation services in a community-based program, but in 2009 the legislature mandated a needs assessment be done. And when we went out to the community and all the stakeholder groups, the feedback that the Division for the Blind received was that community-based services in and of themselves were not sufficient to provide the world-class services that our clients deserve. And the demand was to establish a residential rehabilitation center within the state somewhat to address the fact that residents from Maine experiencing vision loss were not at all interested in traveling to a big city to receive center-based services in a highly urbanized environment. So we have something unique to offer here. The program that we've designed is specifically intended to meet the needs of Maine citizens experiencing vision loss. And we believe that we've designed a program that's very different from what's available in other parts of the country. And we have, this organization was founded in 1905 to provide jobs for people experiencing vision loss at that time. And at that time a job was the social safety net available to people experiencing vision loss and blindness. And over the century and 110 years that have passed since 1905 our organization has evolved. And today we no longer provide jobs directly to consumers, but we train our clients with primary vision rehabilitation services and pre-vocational training so that they can compete effectively in today's highly competitive employment market or job market. During the last 110 years we've come a long way from the sheltered workshops of the past to the modern training opportunities that we offer today. The pre-vocational training that we provide clients to be successful in today's competitive employment market is second to none. But our services really depend on prerequisites that include primary vision rehabilitation. And I want to underscore the importance of those services because vision rehabilitation is not available through the health care system when most clients in need of vocational rehabilitation services come to seek those services. They've already dealt with the primary rehabilitation process and receive those services in a hospital or rehab center that's paid for through the health care system. When people experiencing vision loss and blindness approach the VR system they have no rehabilitation behind them already. So it is incumbent upon us to provide those vision rehabilitation services as a prerequisite and to also provide the pre-vocational services our clients need so that they have the full range of abilities to compete effectively in the job market. And we're proud to be able to provide those services to our clients. And this facility certainly enables us to provide center-based services. As I said, for the last almost 20 years we've been delivering services only in a community-based program because we lacked the facility necessary to provide training in classes to groups of clients. And we're very pleased that the investment made by the rehab services administration and our donors and the partnership through the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired have allowed us to modernize the facility. But the facility is just the tip of the iceberg. It is our program staff and their professional colleagues at the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired who deliver the world-class services that our clients need in order to approach the job market and be competitive in business and industry. And we're looking forward to a long continuing collaboration between the Iris Network and Mainz Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired in order to deliver those services. Together our staff and the staff at DBVI teach people experiencing vision loss and blindness the skills and techniques needed to be independent and competitive in the workforce. After welcoming our first class of students in the training center here just this past September, so just two months ago, we're now ready to open our doors to clients from our neighboring states in New England and throughout the United States. We're prepared to offer vision rehabilitation and pre-vocational skills training to people experiencing vision loss not just from Maine but from other states across the country. And we're really looking forward to the prospect of being a nationally recognized center of excellence for vision rehabilitation. And we have the, we and DBVI together have the staff that make this possible. We've purchased a stately 19th century residence that will serve as our dormitory about a half mile away from here in the community where our students will live while they're here in Portland. And with our 110 year history and experience, we are well prepared to provide clients to confidently re-enter the job market and lead full and fulfilling lives in the community as productive tax-paying citizens. And we're, that is our mission with this program and we really want to appreciate the endorsement of that philosophy that the investment in this program represents. So thank, I want to thank all involved again in making that investment. At this point, I'd like to welcome Andy Colvin to read a letter from Congresswoman Shelly Pingry to commemorate the occasion. So Andy, if you'll come to the microphone. Thank you so much for having me today. It's really been a pleasure to meet some of you and talk about your work and to take a tour of the center and see it in action. As a side note, I've been interested in finding out more about this organization. My nine-month-old daughter is named Iris. So now when we walk by on our way to the Seedogs game, I can tell her all about the great work you guys do. So Shelly is in Washington today. She will really enjoy being here, but she wanted me to share a short message. Dear friends, I'm honored by your invitation to speak today at the grand opening of the Iris Network Rehabilitation Center. I'm sorry I couldn't be with you, but I appreciate the chance to congratulate you on this joyous occasion and to thank you for all you do to serve blind and visually impaired manors. The Iris Network is an incredible organization with a fascinating history. Much has changed in your work since William J. Ryan founded this organization over a hundred years ago, but one thing has not. Your commitment to helping the visually impaired lead independent and satisfying lives. I truly appreciate what you do to help your clients make the most of the vision they have, access adaptive technologies and strategies, and simply find support among caring people who understand their challenges. It benefits us all by allowing them to make valuable contributions to our communities and economy. And as you serve many who lose their vision to age-related diseases, any one of us could be in need of your services someday. I think your new Rehabilitation Center will be a wonderful asset to your work. Among other benefits, its supportive environment and comprehensive services will help those who are losing or have lost their vision participate fully in the workforce. This ensures that they do not lose the pride and independence of earning an income and that our state does not lose their talents in moving our economy forward. I'd like to thank the main department of labor and the Rehabilitation Services Administration for their support of this critical facility, as well as the Iris Network staff, volunteers, and generous supporters for all of your hard work. May this center be a place of transformation and empowerment for many years to come. Best wishes, Shelly Pingreed, member of Congress. Thank you very much, Andrew. Appreciate that. And I would now like to ask Commissioner of Maine's Department of Labor, Jean Paquette, to come up to the microphone. Well, good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. And I have to say that when I entered the building, first of all, I was able to park right on the bricks right in front of the door. So that was awesome. When I entered the building, I thought, wow. And I came downstairs and was able to get a short little tour. I look forward to a longer tour at another time. But I have to say that it struck me very hard, I guess you would say, that four and a half years ago, I think it was, that when I started with the department, we were discussing this facility. And when we looked at the numbers and we looked at how much this was going to cost, it took us back a little bit. How are we going to do this? But I will tell you that the commitment from people like Jim and the staff and the people who support all of what we do with the blind and visually impaired, I am so proud today to be here to address all of you and say congratulations for this. I know that it is just the shell, but what goes on inside is really the work. But I am deeply moved to be honest with you. And I just want to say that I appreciate the fact that you have invited me here to make opening remarks. And Jim helped me with a couple of things that he would like me to reiterate, some of which he mentioned a little bit earlier. But I want to thank you all for today's grand opening. Maine is proud of this investment in blindness rehabilitation. The Maine Department of Labor and Division of Blind and Visually Impaired value this initiative and its unique potential to improve rates of employment for people who are blind or visually impaired. The Iris Network Rehabilitation Center's success is due partially through collaboration with the Division of the Blind and Visually Impaired, along with the support of the Maine Department of Labor and Governor LePage and of course all the Iris Network supporters. The state of Maine served as a bridge between the Iris Network and the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration to make a world-class primary vision rehabilitation and pre-vocational training center possible here in Portland, Maine. As Jim mentioned, not every state has been able to make this commitment and we encourage the vocational rehabilitation programs from throughout New England and beyond to refer clients for primary vision rehabilitation and pre-vocational training to the Iris Network Rehabilitation Center. Because primary vision rehabilitation services are not available through the healthcare system, as Jim mentioned, the vocational rehabilitation system must start by providing primary vision rehabilitation if it hopes to make clients newly experiencing significant vision loss and blindness ready for work. This rehabilitation center focuses on employment, so people who participate are motivated to do so because they want to work. This is important because for Maine to prosper, everyone needs to work. Use of assistive technology and vocational preparation are key components being offered that will result in employment success when clients leave the program and return to their communities. Center-based services provide economies of scale that keep the cost of service delivery down by allowing each instructor to work with small groups of clients, thus avoiding travel costs and increasing student-teacher ratios. Residential rehabilitation immerses a client newly experiencing vision loss in the learning environment, thus increasing the speed of primary rehabilitation process and hastened the client's readiness for vocational training. So those are my prepared remarks. Now I go off script. I have to say that being part of this ceremony today, I was thinking about the fact that, you know, whenever you start a new program or there's a new facility or there's a new initiative, there's always bumps in the road. So I guess my message to all of you is we may have bumps in the road as we build this program, this world-class program, but because of the people of Maine who run these types of programs and who are committed to serving people with blind and visually impaired situations in their lives, I have to say that I am confident that as we move forward, we will be successful with this program. There is no doubt in my mind. And what's exciting for me is when I talk to my colleagues, my other colleagues in the other states, you can bet this will be on my agenda to tell people about how wonderful this organization, the Iris Network and the facility that we're opening today will be, and I will be helping to market all of this in other states through my networks around the whole country. So I just want to say... So I want to allow you to continue with the program, but again, I just want to say thank you for all the work that you do in supporting this wonderful organization and this wonderful new facility. I look forward to a more in-depth tour, if you will, but I also am looking forward to hearing from the participants and the staff on how things are going. So thank you very much. So at this point, thank you very much, Commissioner Packett. We very much appreciate your adjusting your schedule to be able to be here and to make those very warm, welcoming remarks. Thank you very much. At this point, I would like to welcome to the microphone Commissioner Labreck from the United States Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration. Commissioner Labreck just flew in this morning after having a flight canceled last night, and so this is quite a sojourn for her this morning, so we're very pleased that she was able to get here and be part of the program today. Janet. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Thank you so much. James, thank you for your remarks. Also, Commissioner Packett, thank you as well for your commitment and your support of the Irish Center and its endeavor as well. I'm very, very honored and was very excited to hear that you were going to be having your grand opening, and I committed myself to being here. I just forgot that December and May may not be like the weather in December in Washington, but the weather held up for us to some extent. That's why we actually got held up by our flight cancel last night. But I felt very strongly about coming here and being able to follow through with the commitment that I made to you all to be here and to personally congratulate you on this long endeavor that you have all engaged in through various partnerships and opportunities. The Rehabilitation Services Administration felt very strongly that as part of the rehabilitation network of services and grants that we all support for the 80 vocational rehabilitation programs around the country, that rehabilitation and certainly vision rehabilitation is one of those services that is absolutely critical to ensuring that individuals who are blind or visually impaired, that they have the opportunity to acquire the appropriate compensatory skills necessary for them to regain their independence, to acquire new skill sets that are going to be critical for supporting their independence, and then most importantly to help individuals both in their respective communities as well as in their role that they play in their families on a day-to-day basis. And when someone loses their vision and has experienced this type of life-altering changes, it is critical that the programs that are provided and recognized and acknowledged and support the services that are going to be necessary for individuals to become independent and productive individuals who can, in fact, contribute to the nation's workforce. And we know that the issue of employment is critical to the blindness community in particular because we know that the unemployment rate continues to be way too high for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. A part of that issue with that problem specifically, I think, relates back to looking at how we deal with blindness in general, how we deal with disability in general and our own perceptions as well as the attitudes and stereotypes that continue to prevail today as we talk about vision loss. And we think about vision loss from the perspective of we're losing something. And while that is true, we absolutely are losing something. We're losing our vision. I was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa as a young child as well and are at the end stages right now of retinitis pigmentosa. So when I started losing my own vision, I didn't think about it from the perspective of what I was losing all the time. I thought about it from the perspective of, okay, so I am losing my vision, but what mechanism, what training, what skills are going to be necessary to help me to get from point A to point B what I need to get to in order to be someone who can in fact contribute to the nation's workforce and who can be independent and who can provide the counseling and services that others need via support groups or other mechanisms that are in place in various states across this country. How do we best ensure that these services and supports continue to exist and that they remain critical to the essential, I think, role that rehabilitation plays in the lives of individuals who need it. And that in fact for rehabilitation services, it is a process and people have a tendency to think about rehabilitation as individual services, whether it's you need orientation and mobility training or you might need occasional assistance with a rehab teacher to come in and teach you how to cook independently, how to be safe in the kitchen, how to navigate other appliances in your homes. And actually rehabilitation is not just one service, it is a comprehensive network of services that support the overall health, well-being, safety, and desires that individuals have to really be productive and to be independent. Helen Keller was mentioned earlier about her contribution that she has made to this field and interestingly enough in my last role as commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission for the Wine just prior to being appointed for this particular position in 2013, Helen Keller also was the founder of the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind and one of the early founders of one of the first state agencies in the country to offer state vocational rehabilitation agencies to the blindness community. And so Helen recognized it back then, way back then that individuals who were blind given both the opportunity, given the skills, given the opportunity to acquire the appropriate types of training that will not only help with dealing with the compensatory skills, but gives you the confidence and the ability to move forward in your lives. And that's really what the rehabilitation program is today. And that's why the Rehabilitation Services Administration exists and that our program has been appropriated funds by Congress with the goal of supporting all of the 80 vocational rehabilitation programs along with the islands and territories to be able to assist states with applying for grants and having the vision in place and the supports and expertise in place to support what needs to be happening at the state level for individuals in their acquisition and their desire to seek out independence and employment. And so this center today, the fact that you are having your grand opening today is a result of a commitment not only from you at the local level, but a commitment from the Rehabilitation Services Administration to work with you in this particular state and your partners to understand both the implications as well as understanding what the outcomes are expected from this particular program. And that we all know that when individuals have the services and supports put into place, the expertise in the training available and then most importantly the resources that go along with that, that individuals have a much more optimal opportunity to transform their lives and seeking out services and going through the rehabilitation process to being able to eventually help others who have been at their place in point in time in their lives, at one point in time in their lives. We also know that the rehabilitation process also doesn't just look at the concrete issues regarding the rehabilitation issues that we all experience when you have a disability, but it also looks at the co-morbidity issues that can often occur in common with vision loss and other disabilities. And that there absolutely is a direct correlation to individuals who experience vision loss and the correlation between being able to maintain their day-to-day activities, to being able to function as independently as possible, to be able to maintain your own self-sufficiency when you're talking about the administration of medications, when you're talking about the roles that individuals need to resume in their household. And we know that when individuals, for example, who are diabetics, which still remains to be at the top of the list, unfortunately, for the number one reason for blindness and vision loss in our country, next to macular degeneration and cataracts. And this is important because without the skills and without the appropriate tools necessary for individuals to learn how to best apply their healthcare needs that they have and how to best position individuals who are dealing with diabetes to make the appropriate decisions, to have the information and resources critical for them to make informed choices about their healthcare needs in addition to about their employment needs. And that when you think about all of these as they align together, they don't align separately. They come together as a network of services that need to be in place in order to address them both as individual services and supports, but most importantly, as a network of services and supports and skills acquisition that can grow with the individuals as they work their way through the adjustment process. And as they acquire the skills that they need, the literacy skills, whether it's Braille, whether it's technology, these are all skill sets that are critical to ensuring that individuals who are blind or visually impaired have the appropriate skills in place so that they can in fact be armed with the tools necessary for them to really take advantage of the supports and services and that they can then make informed choice and that they can then make their employment goals, establish those goals, not based on what they cannot do, but based on what they can in fact do. And that once they've acquired the necessary skills to navigate through the decision-making process that they are then growing with the skills that they are acquiring. And that today we have the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which was signed into law on July 22nd, 2014. And that was, as far as I'm concerned, a historic piece of legislation. And it's historic because it gives the opportunity for us to really re-examine not only the allocation of the resources, but to fully examine the areas where there are opportunities to think differently about how we apply the resources, but also to think differently about the set of expectations that families, our community, our teachers, our counselors and individuals with disabilities themselves come to the table with. There are a whole new set of expectations around giving people and providing the supports that are going to be necessary for people, not only to make informed choices, but to really think about those informed choices from the ability perspective, not from the disability perspective. It also charges us with thinking about how we collaborate and how we partner with our respective school systems and that we in fact need to do a better job of being more proactive about partnering together and doing it much earlier in the process. And that our individual peers, who many of us with disabilities have grown up with in our own communities who do not have disabilities, oftentimes have opportunities presented to them much earlier in life, including work experience. And that the premise of WIOA is to really hold us accountable and to bring us into the 21st century as we think about the legislation that will govern how we provide services, to whom we provide those services to, and to the extent possible looking at who those partners it should be at, who those partners are that should be at the table. We have new partners. Congress, I think, did an unbelievable job with identifying some very key issues that have historically impacted the rehabilitation community, the vocational rehabilitation community, the educational community, and I think the employment community. Because as you know with this piece of legislation, all of those entities that I just mentioned are represented through the partnerships. They're represented through the endeavors that people have at the state level to really think creatively and be innovative about the partnerships that you are engaging in. They give us the opportunity to really think about the resources in ways that we can utilize those resources that are going to clearly and efficiently demonstrate the utilization of these resources. And most importantly, I think that what it does is gives us the opportunity also to leverage the expertise that this field has had historically. And in some aspects, we've lost that ability to really claim that expertise and that we are the only entity in our country who provides comprehensive services. Across the age span, the lifespan of an individual. And the fact that we are the only entity that provides these supports in a way that is both individualized as well as customized. And that is incredibly important when you think about what your role here will be as part of your network of services. Because we're talking about collaboration, we're talking about partnerships and we're talking about ways to engage employers. We're talking about ways to engage consumers in a very different perspective. We're also talking about ways to really begin the process and continue the process of telling your story to your local legislators. And making sure that they understand what that return on investment is resulting in. It may not always result in a return on investment in cash, but it certainly, at the least, results in a return on investment in how we think about the commitment that we're providing to individuals who require our services, but also, most importantly, we are changing lives by giving individuals the opportunity to acquire the appropriate skills that they need to acquire so that they can, in fact, become economically self-sufficient. We are providing that foundation that supports their endeavor, regardless of what the endeavor is. We are providing the tools necessary to put that foundation into place in partnership with our consumers and partnership with other providers in partnership with the employment community and partnership with the educational and with the families that are definitely represented by the blindness community. And so I have no doubt that this program will continue to provide both unique customized as well as individualized services to the community here in Maine. I have no doubt that you will hear from other states that they are interested in what you will be providing and I have no doubt that you will be successful in your endeavor to encourage other states to take a look at your model and certainly to refer their consumers to come here and to participate in these services and supports that are available. So I want to acknowledge and thank you all so much for sticking to your commitment. We know there are bumps in the road but we know also through the provision of partnerships and expertise that we are positioned uniquely to make sure that we can in fact deal with those bumps in the road as long as we are communicating and as long as we are benefiting the blindness community. So congratulations to you all for an unbelievable job well done. Thank you to the legislature for supporting these individuals. Thank you to commissioner Prakat also for the support that this endeavor I think will make and will bring to fruition. I think all that was anticipated and expected of this type of a program. And thank you all most importantly to the staff here for continuing to be here, continuing to offer your expertise and demonstrating your commitment to the blindness community. And I want to wish you the best of luck and I'm glad I could join you here today after all. So thank you very, very much. Thank you.


Welcome to Digital Assets News. I get top stories in crypto, current digital assets, and bring them down to bite-sized pieces. This morning, I got a real quick article to talk about, and this is what I believe is going to happen. Band or band protocol is going to massively increase its position because of who it just partnered with. And I will get to all that in a second. But first, I want to say congratulations. We made it to the 12 days of Christmas. So we're going to be doing a quick giveaway, and just so you know, it's going to be for today the Shieldfolio or Stonebook. And real quick, if you're not familiar with it, this is why I like the Stonebook. It's because I've got a couple myself, and I don't like having pieces of paper and things just kind of laying around. Like everything in one book, especially one that is water resistant, smudge resistant, and you can put all your passcodes, your mnemonic phrase, and everything else.  So it's just nice to have around. And everything is in one place. I actually have two. One is at the house, and then one is in my bank, my safety deposit box with all the different mnemonic phrases. So we're going to be giving away four Shieldfolios. We're going to give away two on this video, and we're doing a video later, which I will give away another two. So in the comment section, all you have to say is Shieldfolio. That's it. That's all you got to say. Shieldfolio. Don't I want Shieldfolio? Or give me a Shieldfolio. Just put Shieldfolio, S-H-I-E-L-D-F-O-L-I-O. All right. Let's get into this real quick story. So band protocol. If you're not familiar, it's kind of, it's an article, such as Chainlink. And I really didn't pay too much attention to it, because, you know, I was, I got my positions a lot of different things, and I kind of let overlook projects, because there's only like a thousand out there. But this article made me sit up and take notice. This is from Trade the Chain, my man, Alex Maschioli. And when he puts something out, I usually pay attention. And it states, short-term alley sentiment is on fire, in reaction to the below news. And I'm like, hmm, what's going on? So this was interesting, really quick snippet. Band protocol has become the first blockchain firm to join the OpenAPI initiative alongside big names such as Google, eBay, IBM, and Microsoft. Band protocol announced Monday, that's right now. Matter of fact, it was just announced about an hour ago. It will help to create a common API standing enabling blockchain applications to easily leverage APIs and data. The potential benefits of the work I said to include new revenue streams for tech firms who can sell their data and price feeds to smart contracts. And I have to tell you right now, there is one thing that big businesses really like to do, find out new revenue streams so they can push up their price of their stocks and make their stockholders extremely happy. And who would love to do that? Well, maybe Google, eBay, IBM, and Microsoft, just guessing. This is what it states. Our mission is to define a common API standard for blockchain applications by collaborating with prestigious partners, did a pretty good job here, to bridge the gap between centralized data, APIs and smart contracts on the blockchain, said Soravis Srenewakun. I think I said that right. CEO of band protocol, opening API, a nonprofit foundation hosted by the Linux Foundation, confirmed the coin desk that band protocol is indeed the first blockchain project to become a member. That's pretty big. And on top of that, I also had a nice little email this weekend, I didn't really think too much of it. It was from my favorite exchange Coinbase. They said, hey, come over here and earn band with Coinbase.  And they're very nice, very, very good, very simple. And it tells you exactly what band is. I didn't do it because I got busy this weekend, but I'm like, eh, just kind of put it away. And like the card on my mind, I'm like, who cares? And of course, that all makes sense now, because in this game, the big players know exactly what's going on before you do. So I was like, what's going on here? Now, just so you know, band is already on Coinbase Pro. So I wouldn't be surprised if it comes over to Coinbase regular, I guess you'd call it. So I'm like, hmm, so when you take a look over here at CoinGecko, it'll tell you all the different exchanges that band is on.  I don't want to deal with that or buy it. I can't have access. But you know where else it is? It's on Voyager. And for some reason it's not listed here.  Because with these two pieces of information, I think it could be wrong that the price could go up. Now what is happening right now? Yeah, a little bit of an upswing, I would say.  I got to buy a ton of this stuff. That's not what I'm saying to do. Do not FOMO. That is the worst thing you can absolutely do. And this is not financial advice. This is just something that I see. I will tell you this, though. There is a couple of things you should do before you invest in anything, and that's called do your own research. There's five criteria that we like to talk about. And over at DanTeachersCrypta.com, 100% free website. In module four reviews, the very first one, I invited Ian Belinon, and he told me exactly the different criteria that he used when he found all those winners back in 2017. Now some people have a problem with Ian because of blah, blah, blah, whatever else. But I will tell you this, this was solid advice, and it went through the five basic things. The first thing is you take a look at the white paper. Make sure there's actually a use case. And with band, it definitely is. It is an oracle. There's not a single point of failure because blockchain are horrible at talking to other, and they need some type of API that will actually bring all that information from one to the other. So Chainlink already does this very well, and band has their own little spin on it. So sure. Then the second one is the team. If you take a look over at the website for band protocol, and you can find that on CoinGecko as well. If you just take a little CoinGecko, it'll say website bandprotocol.com. Go to band, scroll down, and just take a look at who the actual team is. Here's the three guys, and this is really all I found. And they're very smart. I mean, this guy, Stanford, Massachusetts, MIT. This guy, Paul, creator of crypto games with 800,000 users. Very smart gentleman, right?  And I don't really see it too much here, but I'm being very critical because that's just how I am. But again, when you team with somebody that, you know, with like Google, eBay, IBM, and Microsoft, maybe they're doing something right. It sounds to me. Also financial backing, I couldn't find any of that on the website, but I'm sure I just maybe I didn't look enough. And then activity, to take a look at the GitHub page to see if it's, first of all, it's open source. And second of all, if they actually have things going on, again, you can find that at CoinGecko. Just go down to source code, click on GitHub right here, and it'll open up. And yeah, they've got a lot of activity. Actually, this was updated three hours ago, updated three days ago, three days, three days ago. So they're very active in this community so far. And you can take a look at everything over on Reddit and their Telegram page and everything else. So they look very active. And the last thing is liquidity ratio, the daily trading volume divided by the market cap. So we use theta and the market cap was 750 million, roughly. The daily trading volume was about 98 million. And it was about 8%. So he was talking about just aim for around 10%. So we go over there and take a look at, man, it's actually very high. Their market cap is 154 million. And their trading volume is 86 million. That's crazy. So that also checks out. So if you want to do your own research, or you want to take a look, watch that video, go over to bandtagescrypto.com and take a look at that. But that's the five criteria, really, white paper team, financial backing, activity and liquidity ratio. Again, not financial advice, do what you want to do.  It's in the description of my videos, looks just like this. And it's the very first one, voyager wallet app. And then you can sign up. If you sign up using this link, you don't have to. But if you do, you get $25 for Bitcoin and Bitcoin and $25 to me. So use that as you will. All right. So that's it for today. Thanks for watching. Really appreciate it. And I'll see you on the next one later today. Thanks.


The long-awaited Samsung Galaxy S8 has arrived at Appalachian Wireless. Get yours for the introductory price of just $149.99 with a two-year service agreement. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless, an East Kentucky network company. The Mingo County Fire Chiefs Association hosted its 10th annual Mingo County Fire School over the weekend. 20 fire departments from three states were represented during the three-day event, including most of Mingo County's fire departments. Participants could attend several classes including arson investigation, modern fire techniques, automobile extrication, heavy machinery extrication, test-taking skills, and much more. A smoke trailer demonstration was also offered to those in attendance. The event kicked off Friday with a meet the firefighters community event and dinner. The event wrapped up Sunday with a certificate presentation. Sometimes we do offer required classes, but the ones that we predominantly have this year are just extra classes. Everybody gets a certificate that successfully completes the class. But it is training and we're required to have so much training per year anyway. This counts towards that. We strive towards continually growing the fire school and having more attendees and more instructors and offering different classes every year. Williamson Memorial Hospital also participated in the event by giving attendees free health screenings.


Good morning and welcome to House Judiciary Committee Vermont House Judiciary Committee. I am Maxine grad and I am the chair of the committee and we are continuing our testimony and discussion about the Vermont justice system. And I thought it would be helpful to invite Professor Robert sand of Vermont law school to talk to us about the justice system and the evolution of the Vermont justice system we used to refer to it only as a criminal justice system and Robert sand and if I can call you Bobby, which I'm used to has a lot of experience which I hope you will share with the committee. Not only as a professor but as prosecutor and really a scholar and an expert in the justice system so I really appreciate you being here and we've given you I realize that we're running late. But we did want to make sure that you had some time to, to talk to us and then answer any questions. So, welcome and thank you. Thank you so much for having me thank you all for your service during incredibly challenging times and thank you for the opportunity to wear a tie. It has been a long time since I've had one on for the record Robert sand, my preferred pronouns are he has Bobby is fine. I am a professor Vermont law school, I am the former elected Windsor County State's attorney, a position that I held for a little over 15 years. And I am the high bailiff elect for Windsor County. What you might ask does the high bailiff do and we do not have enough time this morning to discuss the myriad roles of the high bailiff, though I may if time allows share one thought at the end of my comments. What I thought I would do, assuming the technology allows something that I did at the start of the last biennium, which is a walkthrough of the life of a criminal case in Vermont. It is both pretty basic, but I think also quite illustrative of some issues that I know you will be looking at during this biennium. And I really hope if that's all right, as we go through if any questions arise. Please ask because I do think it's helpful for folks to have a common starting place. But with any luck. And Mike said this was going to work I'm going to try to share my screen. And we'll see. Yeah, well, the host disabled screen sharing. You need to make your co host. And if that can happen without crashing the system awesome and we can, I can certainly go to plan B. Your co host it should work now. All right, let's see. Let's go to that. And can folks see that I'm sharing my screen. Yes. Yeah. Okay. What I'm going to do is, as they say, rip a case from the headlines, move it to Vermont and walk through the life of a case. And I want you to assume that this is taking place in the remote, the most remote location within your county. So let's say that a person claims that will say that this is a woman that her cell phone was stolen. And she identifies the person who she says stolen. So we often refer to the person who is making a complaint as the victim. Of course, we don't use that term until there has been a conviction. And we oftentimes refer to that person as the putative or alleged victim or the complainant. But for purposes of this exercise, I put the label victim there. And then we have an accused. So let's assume that the complainant the victim calls a law enforcement officer who responds that officer will speak with the complainant that officer will speak with the suspect, and may then decide to make an arrest. So, putting on my law professor hat for a moment. Does anyone know the amount of evidence or the standard of evidence that a police officer must have in order to make a lawful arrest. There's a term for that standard or amount of evidence. I'm not sure I can see all hands so anybody has the answer or answer. Jump in. I know the answer. And the answer is probable cause to make a lawful arrest. Police must have probable cause evidence sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed. And that the accused probably committed the crime. It's not a huge amount of evidence, but it's more than a suspicion and what's the purpose of probable cause it serves as a filter. It's designed to keep out of the system cases that are based purely on suspicion. It requires some amount of evidence in order for a case to go forward. So the officer makes an arrest and comes back to the station and will typically ask a dispatcher or an administrative person to run a criminal history on the accused, and the officer will prepare a packet that will go to a prosecutor, and this packet will include a sworn statement called an affidavit of probable cause. It is very often reviewed by a superior officer, and then it is notarized. And this case has been logged in, prepared, a packet is prepared, and it gets sent to the state's attorney's office, where an administrator within the state's attorney's office will intake the case. So if you log it in, it very often then because this is a victim case is shared with a victim advocate who is embedded within our state's attorney's offices, and then it's going to be reviewed by the state's attorney or perhaps a deputy state's attorney. If I could, you said something about raising hands earlier, did you want to do it as you go longer at the end? I think, Bobby, I think you said people should jump in. Please jump in. Okay. Yeah, I just, when, with screen sharing, I'm not sure I can see everybody so. I see. Sorry. Right. Has his hand up. I do. Welcome, Bobby. Good to see you. Thank you. Nice seeing you. Yeah, so. Oh gosh, if I can remember. Okay, so law enforcement officer has probable cause requests dispatch to do the background check comes up with the guy, the person's history. And then that goes to where? So once the packet is complete, it goes to the prosecutor's office. Okay, so I guess my question would be, what is the reasoning for the history going to the prosecutor?  Why, at this point, why is that important if, in a sense, that's not an issue anymore. Or better or for worse, we tend to compound consequences within the criminal justice system. So that we treat an individual who is a first timer differently than we would someone who is a recidivist or a repeat offender. So to inform all of the players within the system about the context of the new offense, we have said it is relevant and helpful to know about the personal, the person's prior history. They also be relevant if that history reveals that the individual repeatedly flees the jurisdiction or fails to appear in court. That may inform what happens as the process moves forward. The General Assembly, somewhat reflective of your question, Representative Burt, has recognized that maybe people ought not to be haunted or shackled by their prior criminal histories and perpetuity. And so you've expanded your expungement laws and expunge records would not appear on that criminal history, but anything that isn't expunged would remain there. Great. Thank you. Thanks for your question. Alright, so the state's attorney or the deputy decides that filing a charge in this instance, a petty larceny would be appropriate that taking a tangible personal property with the intent to permanently provide the owner of that property with a value under $900. What amount or quantity of evidence does the prosecutor need in order to lawfully and ethically file that petty larceny case in court. What's the standard for the prosecutor. It is a rhetorical question and answer for you that the standard for the prosecutor is also probable cause a prosecutor may not ethically file a charge in court unless it is supported by probable cause evidence sufficient to lead a reasonable person believe that a crime was committed and that the accused probably committed that crime. Representative Burt. It seems like in the past when we talked about things like probable cause did the one time we put a percentage on it. A scooch over 50%. I mean, I'm not I know that there have been cases that are low to put a percentage number on the criminal justice system. And so it's, it is a probability. And I don't have a and I know pepper was listening and maybe when he talks he can share a thought but but I think generally it. The standard has been a probability and I think that the criminal courts have been low to give that a percentage. And I see representative bird you made it me you may have frozen so I'm not sure if you're getting this.  We'll come back to that in a moment. Okay, so it goes to court and a docket clerk is going to intake or input the case. The law enforcement agency input of the case, the prosecutor's office input of the case. A court clerk is going to input the case and it's going to go to the judge and the judge reviews the case now, which will be the police documentation and the prosecutors charging document, which we call an information. Unlike many jurisdictions that require grand juries at least grand juries for more serious cases. We never require a grand jury in Vermont and so prosecutors can file. Based on their own judgment, the what we might say are low level charges and can file the most serious charges in Vermont multiple homicide based simply on this document called an information filed on the prosecutors oath of office. So what standard of proof what amount of evidence does the judge need in order to decide that the case is properly and validly in court and the answer is probable cause our third instance where an actor has to say that there is at least evidence sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that crime was committed. Probable causes designed as a filter as I've mentioned to keep out cases based on pure speculation, but it is a pretty low standard and it's worth considering whether it ought to just be probable cause for the police probable cause for the prosecutor and probable cause for the judge. Nevertheless, the judge finds probable cause the case gets called and a defense attorney gets assigned because let's assume that our accused is indigent. Initial appearance or arraignment takes place the person gets released on conditions to have no contact with the victim, the defense attorney goes back to their office and the case gets logged in to that system as well. So let's see that's 123 that's the fourth instance that the paperwork is being logged into a system. Let's enter what's known as the discovery phase where information is exchanged, maybe motions get filed but let's assume that no agreement is reached, and the case is actually going to come on for a jury trial. Well, we tend to use juries consisting of 12 people often with two alternates, but to arrive at that jury, the court will call in in the panel as they say but I don't know 30 to 40 people. And that list gets windowed down to your 12 typically 12 person jury trial is held. Now the prosecutor has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to establish each and every essential elements of this crime, taking of tangible personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Let's assume that there is a conviction. And the court denies post trial motions, it comes on for sentencing the prosecutor asks for jail incarceration, but suspended, held in abeyance, the court agrees and the person is put on probation. That means that a probation officer is assigned a copy the paperwork goes to the probation to the officer, and that office as well will do an intake and log in all of the paperwork. So, I'm going to hold it there and just ask if it's right. And I'm also happy to volunteer, whether there are any reactions to the schematic and I believe that that does anyone have any reactions to the to the walkthrough. Rep. Cobra. I have a reaction. This is just looking at all of these players, right all of these individuals and who are involved in the system and sort of noting that the role for like the community is actually pretty limited in the system. Right. It's just like I mean I know that the prosecute the state's attorneys are, you know, there's people who are standing in for the community but the community itself that might be impacted beyond sort of one individual is is not. We could I guess we could debate about how well represented they are in the system so that was one reaction I had. One of the things we certainly know is that wherever this event took place whatever that remote location was in your county, we've outsourced it to a central location where the state's attorney in the criminal court is. So we. There's some authors who talk about outsourcing of harm and outsourcing of our response. We certainly do that in the traditional system. Anyone else. I think Barbara has her hand up. Oh. Hello. So it's interesting because my first thought was, oh it takes a village, but my second thought was one, what is the cost thinking of all the hours that go into it with the central goal of mostly trying to get the person into the criminal justice system rather than saying, Oh my gosh, why did you steal credit cards to get food and medicine for your children and again, just sort of thinking about if we took that amount of effort and use it in a different way, what would the outcome be and what would the recidivism right be. I hope those great questions permeate all of your discussions over the next two years. I think there are. I can't remember 12 or 13 responsive actors to this alleged defense here, and they are all funded through taxpayer dollars. Because it is worth pondering. Do we want this to be how we're spending taxpayer dollars and off there to be other other approaches. What we know is well I guess I'd say this, given how much humanity has to respond to, to one single criminal charge. I think we need to be think carefully about, is this the kind of case that properly should be in the criminal justice system, because it, it, it's expensive it's time consuming. We haven't even talked about how many touches each person has to that case, we've just talked about the number of people involved. So, thinking carefully about whether something really needs to be a crime or not is, is, is appropriate. What is also suggested here, and by some of the comments and questions is the real import and value of having off ramps. Are there ways that a person can be diverted away from this centralized system in a way that allows for accountability in a way that is meaningful and valuable for the complainant. But perhaps also in a way that ends up strengthening community and strengthening relationships. What we know is that different prosecutors use our existing off ramps to different degrees and different extents. And I know this committee in years previously has spoken about this issue of geographic justice. And that's really, that really is a factor. We don't have one criminal justice system or one criminal legal system. We have 14 systems, one for each county. And I know you'll hear from Willow Farrell I think maybe tomorrow from diversion, and she may be able to talk to you about the different utilization rate of those off ramps by county. And it is worth pondering if the exact same behavior happens on one side of a county line versus a different side of a county line, should the outcome be dramatically different. The aspect of this is the utilization rates of Department of Corrections resources to include probation. One county is using community based responses, but another county is using probation or correctional responses, and those use rates are dramatically different. And effectively what is happening is that the taxpayers of the low use rate counties are subsidizing the use for the high use rate counties. So if County A only uses corrections 10 times a year, and County B uses corrections 40 times a year, since we have a centralized system, effectively the taxpayers of County A are helping are overpaying based on their county to subsidize County B. And maybe there are dramatic differences in the types of offense, or people who commit offenses between County A or County B, or maybe it's just a philosophical difference. So it's worth looking maybe in combination with institutions, are their disparate use rates and for corrections resources, and is that do you want to address that in any way. I know last by name representative Kimball had legislation that would look at creating a formula, and a county could use corrections above and beyond their allocation. But if they were to do that, they'd have to independently raise some revenue. I promise you if you were to do that incarceration rates would drop dramatically. But as long as we collectivize how we're paying for it. There's not really huge incentive for any particular prosecutor to be really careful and judicious necessarily about corrections and I'm not suggesting and I know peppers probably fuming now that prosecutors willy nilly are sending people to jail that because that absolutely isn't happening. But it is true that there are disparate use rates. Two more things I want to say and then I'll stop laughing. In the scenario that I shared with you. The accused, the defendant was assigned counsel a public defender. If however, and represent Gosling I'll get to you just one second if the prosecutor had said that they were only seeking a fine. And if the judge said, the court will only impose a fine when you get sentenced. Our accused would not have been entitled to a public defender, even if they were indigent, because Vermont law says you only get a public defender for a quote serious crime close quote. The law went into effect in Vermont at a time and we did not appreciate the lifetime disabilities that a criminal conviction can create. Harkening back to Representative Burnett's question earlier. Many states say any indigent person charged with a crime is entitled to a public defender. And I hope that the committee. The last biennium will repeat what it did last biennium and H 342 and amend Vermont law to say that if something is serious enough to be treated as a crime. We think it is important that an indigent person have the benefit of counsel. The Defender General testified during the last biennium that since they already represent the vast majority of indigent people. This change in the law would not have a dramatic impact on their workload, but from a standpoint of fairness and justice and belief in the presumption of innocence. Every indigent person regardless of the nature of the crime in my judgment should be afforded the right to have a public defender. Representative Gosling. Thank you. Is it that what you're talking about isn't that the reason why we have for 14 different states attorneys though that represent each county. It is true that we have that and a and a byproduct of that is that the individual states attorney puts his or her on to the justice system with it within the county. And so maybe you could maybe that is a good thing, or maybe if in fact we are striving for a justice system, we will find ways to create greater uniformity, so that crossing the county line doesn't yield a dramatically different outcome. There are some states I know New Jersey comes to mind that I'm not advocating this, where the AG appoints each of the county prosecutors, and the goal there is broader uniformity. I think there is benefit to individually elected prosecutors because the county then gets to operate a little bit like a laboratory, much like the states do in relation to the federal government. But I think there's value for all of you to be aware of what the differences in approaches are across county lines, because you may decide that there is enough disparity enough difference in approach that finding ways to create greater consistency and greater uniformity is worthwhile. I don't know if that's responsive to your question or not. Well, it is but in my mind is a reason why we elect county attorneys or, you know, I mean, I think each each county population made up of the people that are there is vastly different. I mean, Washington County certainly is very different than then. I think that's true, and I'm not suggesting absolute uniformity. What I'm suggesting is awareness of the discrepancies and disparities becomes worthwhile and figuring out perhaps how to incentivize behaviors or outcomes that you think support the system as a whole. When I was a deputy and a state's attorney, my office got funded based upon the number of cases we filed. I don't know whether that's still the case and maybe pepper can address that or or John Campbell, but think about the incentive that that creates that creates an incentive to file charges and in some instances, multiple charges. We could say you are going to be funded based upon how many cases you're able to resolve at the community level without filing them in court. So we can incentivize the kind of behavior that we want. Final note, perhaps about high bailiff because it is it's related to a representative Gosling's question. The high bailiff is some of you may know, historically does very little the statutory role is to arrest the sheriff. And that needs to happen and to serve in that role until a replacement is is made and it is not uncommon for the high bailiff to do absolutely nothing during the term of office, which is why I feel ideally suited for the job. I do think there could be a role for the high bailiff. That role could be to report on the state of the justice system within a county. You're going to hear lots of reports you've probably already received lots of reports by individual actors within the system prosecutors defense corrections diversion. I have an entity within the justice system who puts the package together to say, here's the state of the justice system within the county. And I think that creates a difficulty to say, well, how does Chittenden differ from Rutland, how does LaMoyle differ from Bennington, and it might be useful to have an independent actor within the system, like the high bailiff deliver a biannual I always get biannual and biannual every two year report to you about the snapshot of the justice system within the county as a way to get a better sense of how is the justice system operating statewide and how is it different across county lines. I know Representative Gannon had a bill last year to look at the high bailiff I'm hoping he will introduce another one and perhaps this committee working with institutions. I think that's the right committee or government operations. If that would be useful, we'll think about a redefinition of the role from for the high bailiff. Happy to answer any questions and I know I've probably run over. So actually, before we call on Martin and coach just want to say that James Pepper very graciously said that he will wait till after the break, which I appreciate because I know we started late and, and, and I did put in committee discussion time and as a buffer after the break because I had a feeling that there were lots of questions for you for you Bobby so again thank you. Thank you, Pepper. Okay, so Martin and coach, and then Bobby I'll let you return to be a professor and calling folks and then Barbara is okay. Yeah, thank you it's always good to hear from you, Bobby. So, there is an effort right now to improve the data that we get on the criminal justice system. In fact, we should see at least probably two bills that are going to be coming our way. One following the Connecticut, what they're doing down in Connecticut, another probably more of a just very general open ended short form bill as I understand it. I want to comment on that I mean there's the justice reinvestment. One of the initiatives was a work group that came together and has come forward with the report that came out in early December I'm not sure if you had a chance to see that. There's the primary author behind that if if an organization or group can be an author but the idea is really to identify all the high impact high discretion decision points of prosecutors and courts and start collecting data on all 14 counties and and work from there and so you just presented a slightly different idea of the high bailiff having some role in all that and I wonder if you have any comments about that other initiative and how what you just talked about could fit into that and maybe this is not the time and when we get those bills that's have you come to talk about it so any of it. They sound really complimentary to me. And I, if I'm being candid, accurate data is probably ought to be the number one priority. The system has operated on anecdote for such a long time, and our systems have not communicated particularly well, you know, part of the schematic is the number of times, the exact same information is getting logged in by multiple players. There's some inkling that there may be an effort to to address that, but that feels really important to me. I do think that that you will lose some shading some nuance some flavor, if it is data alone, and I think that a high bailiff. High bailiffs could collectively sort of round out the picture, but it certainly would not. If you had to pick one or the other I would say the data driven information will be more useful more illustrative and more important for you all. And just one quick comment, one of the interesting things that came out during discussions of that group because I sat in on those was in a recognition that stories are really important to go with that data. I mean those anecdotes are stories to really give the data a little bit of flavor and so maybe that's a bailiff's in part role in that. We have this independent actor within the system who does nothing. And maybe there's something they could do. And if it is unfair to impose a new responsibility on the current crop of high bailiffs, you can make an effective date. It's a it's a weird thing it's a two year term. It could become effective two years hence representative Christie. How are you doing buddy. I'm good nice to see you. Good to see you. I'm sorry I was late we had the caucus meeting, and we're probably going to be adjusting times as we go but this one was pretty cool.  It actually makes sense. But then we have to look at some of the other questions that I that I heard around, you know, the why, and the fact that we have these 14 different, you know, entities. And we almost have to look at the history of where all of that came from. And in order to have a good understanding of why, you know, and actually it goes back to reconstruction. And after the Civil War, because that's when the country through the states, you know, and you start breaking it down started to have those county seats. The country was so big. And we became very concerned about local control, which we still are, and not just in Vermont. It was, it was the ethos of America. Okay, so, so all of that stuff started a long time ago. Things have changed, obviously. And with that, our thinking should. But it hasn't. So so a lot of these these systems are antiquated for lack of a better way and I think that's the thing I've noticed in my short tenure, you know, at least in the body, you know, looking at the, the statutory structure. So, personally, I'd be very open to, you know, taking the data that is critical. And then, you know, taking the dialogue and overlaying it and looking at how do we restructure that for the best information, especially for the legislature. Because what we get is either or, it seems, you know, either we get a lot of testimony about stories and not enough data to really back it up, or we get all of this data and not enough stories to back it up. You know, it doesn't seem like we get a consistent blend, you know, of it. And that's why we asked for these different reports, you know, because we didn't get what we were expecting from one or the other, you know, and that seems to be an anomaly that we deal with as, as the legislature so. But you're, I think that idea, for me, at least it resonates. So, so thanks for sharing that. And thanks for stepping in and, and at least for Windsor County and running for high bail. Thanks for coming. If I do want to respond or if not, I'll move to Barbara. Great. So Barbara, let's take your question or comment and then we'll, we'll break it at 10. So Barbara. Thank you. Thank you. It's great to have you come in chat with us. So, I have a two part I have two questions and I'm hoping that they're not going to be super long, but it seems like one of the issues is as a criminal justice system, or 14 systems. You don't have a clear underlying philosophy that doesn't conflict, because obviously retribution conflicts with rehabilitation deterrence. I mean, it just seems like it's a mush, and so you could sort of just ride one of them. But then you're not dealing with the other ones and until we have a clear underlying philosophy as a state it seems we're going to be all over the map. So one of the things that's been great at Vermont Law School. I started the Center for Justice Reform and we have the first restorative justice master's degree at a law school in the country and one of the courses that has been percolating is a restorative rewrite project, where we would take historical documents and rewrite them in a restorative fashion. I think it would be a really interesting exercise. If you all could go on a retreat and try to write a preamble to the Vermont criminal code. If you could agree, what should the underlying philosophical underpinnings be of a Vermont criminal justice system, because if I don't know. Many of you I haven't met before today, but if you all could agree, that would be quite an amazing document. And you are right. We don't have a unifying philosophical statement or purpose. And as a result, we do have a bit of a hodgepodge of as Coach Christi was saying some sort of really old fashioned antiquated laws of contemporary laws. It would be mixed terminology, and it lends itself to disparate outcomes. If we had a unifying philosophy on a unifying, I don't know mandates a little strong but direction, I do think that would be helpful and then really an interesting exercise to try to create that document. Thank you. So my other question is this, we keep hearing about the lack of, you know, with coven, there have been people awaiting jury trial for really, really long time. And I'm not seeing or hearing from people that have come to testify so far, basically you're like that's how it is. I'm wondering if you could comment on your view on the fact that we have people sitting in jail, awaiting a jury trial that is going to be a while still. I'm going to initially slightly answer different question which is, I think we have learned that we don't necessarily need to impose bail on as many people as we historically did. And so that's probably a good lesson. I feel enough removed from the day to day operation of what's going on in court to not have really great insight into pre trial detention. I don't think we are casually doing that. I think the court and prosecutors and defenders have an obligation to look really hard at people who are so called the detainers being held pre trial, whether there are community based approaches that would allow them not to be held, both because being held in a correctional center is a huge imposition of liberty, and there's now this dramatic public health overlay to being incarcerated in light of COVID. But I don't feel comfortable like saying there are particular cases where the pre trial detention is not appropriate. Thank you. So committee will take a break now until 1015 and then, and then Bobby would come back and we could spend about, you know, another 1520 minutes or so with you, and then we'll move on to to the state's attorneys. Okay, so you'd like me to come back after the break. Does that work for you. I'm happy to do that. Okay, great. Bob, did I see your hand up or Oh, Mike, in terms of there's some question of whether or not we could, we could on live or if we have to sign in or out again I know we got a number of zoom links so Mike what's I'm going to leave this one open through the break and we'll continue I won't shut it down until lunchtime. Okay, great. Thank you appreciate it. Okay, so, so why don't we turn off our cameras, take a break and then and then let's get back by by 1015. Thank you.


Good morning everyone. Let's go ahead and get started. It's a few minutes after 8. We're going to start with Dr. Sean Kaluci. He's one of our path and research fellows and he attended medical school at Baylor. Good morning everybody. Can you hear me? I'd like to present some research that I was involved with during my last year as a medical student at Baylor and it's carried over into my time here at Moran. It's a multi-focal intraocular lens exchange. It's a case series of retrospective chart review. My mentors were doctors Doug Koch, Bose-Hammel and Mitch Weikert, a one-time cornea fellow here at Moran. I have no financial disclosures and Dr. Weikert has involvement with Alcon and AMO. So this was a chart review of 45 eyes of 32 patients who wanted their multi-focal lenses removed. All four types of lenses were involved. The Restore, Resume, Array and Technus lenses and they were removed between July 2005 and March of 2010 at Baylor. Multi-focal IOLs were first introduced in the 1980s and they went through various incarnations in the following two decades with the goal being to allow cataract patients to see at distance and at near at the same time without needing additional reading correction. They depend on the brain's inherent attitude for multi-focality and the different models of lenses have different refractive or refractive properties to put two images on the retina at the same time. So this is the Restore lens by Alcon. It's a hydrophobic acrylic one-piece with a near add of four diopters at the center. And there are concentric, appetized rings that surround it, appetized meaning a gradual tapering of the diffractive steps with the goal to create a blended transition from intermediate to distance vision at the periphery. In the middle is the Resume lens by AMO. It came out in 2005. The center has a near add of 3.5 diopters and there are five alternating rings of near and distance refractive power. It's a three-piece silicone lens and this is just a revision of the 1997 Array lens also by AMO. And then here on the right is the silicone three-piece Technus lens. It's the most recent and gained approval in the U.S. in 2009. It has a four diopter at the center and it had been available in Europe for several years prior. So there are many studies out there that conclude that multi-focal IOLs are advantageous for providing superior near vision without correction, without glasses when compared to monofocal IOLs. Many studies also say that you get increased spectacle independence with the multi-focal IOLs, comparable or increased patient satisfaction and they don't affect distance visual acuity either with correction or without correction. But adverse effects are also well established. Decreased quality of vision, glare, halos and dissatisfaction with multi-focal IOLs have been reported in many subsets of patients in many studies. And the decreased contrast sensitivity and the perception of optical phenomena results from the division of light energy between the distance and the near focal points. This has resulted in a trend that's been well documented by my bosses, doctors, mammals and warner, in their yearly surveys of the ASCRS surgeons. Every time a lens is taken out for any reason from an eye, a surgeon can fill out a survey and send it to our lab. In the first year of the survey dislocation was the number one reason for removing the foldable IOL. And this is still the number one reason but now glare and optical aberrations have supplanted the other reasons as the number two reason for taking out a foldable IOL. And there's been a concomitant increase in multi-focal IOL removal since that time. So with that in mind we wanted to look at a group of patients, 32 patients who wanted these multi-focal IOLs removed and gather the preoperative subjective and objective information, surgical information and postoperative information on these patients. Who were they, what were their complaints and how was their vision before and after IOL exchange. Information was gathered from the chart, visual acuity was converted to log mark to allow us to perform t-tests. Post-exchange visual acuity was taken at least six months after IOL exchange. In the patients that had additional treatments after IOL exchange we waited three months at least after their most recent treatment. Many patients were from out of town and phone calls were made to their primary ophthalmologist if they had left town immediately after IOL exchange. A survey was also mailed directly to the patients, 22 of the 32 patients responded and we wanted to find out what were their expectations for the multi-focal IOL, how the IOL fell short of their expectations, what kind of discussions and counseling that they had received from their private ophthalmologists who gave them the multi-focal, what kind of hobbies and occupations were adversely affected by the symptoms and their quality of vision before and after, and if there was a trend in their personality type, if more type A's or type B's wanted the multi-focals removed. Before IOL exchange the patients averaged 65 years old, they ranged from 47 to 78. There were 27 females outnumbering males, there were 5 males and the majority were restore lenses, 31 eyes, but there were also 7 array lenses, 4 resume lenses and 3 technus lenses. Of the 45 eyes that got multi-focals, 42 were a cataract extraction but 3 were actually refractive lens exchanges and these multi-focals have been put in by private ophthalmologists in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and one case in Mexico. 17 patients with bilateral multi-focals got the same implant in both eyes and one patient received a restore lens in one eye, 2.5 years after a monofocal in the other eye. According to the survey, 41% of patients decided they wanted a multi-focal because they expected perfect, spectacle free vision at distance and near. Another 36% wanted acceptable spectacle free vision at distance and near, while the remaining 23% of patients would have been okay with using spectacles on a certain occasion. A majority of patients felt that their physician did not discuss with them the possibility that there would be blurring fuzziness as Dr. Manlis calls it, Vaseline vision with the multi-focal lens, but at least more than half did feel that they were warned of glare and halos. Patients were subsequently referred to Baylor for IOL exchange at an average of 10 months after they had received a multi-focal, but one patient came as soon as one month after and one patient waited as long as 60 months after. Of note, about a third of the patients presented within fewer than 12 months. There were no systemic diseases that could affect the lens, the lens capsular cortical visual processing, but 10 patients did have remarkable ocular histories that could affect visual acuity with or without a multi-focal, including glaucoma, fuchs dystrophy, AMD and vitro macular traction. 15 patients attempted treatments to try to improve their visual acuity after they had had the multi-focal. Patients with PCO got YAC capsulatomies, three patients got corneal transplants, two patients had Lasik, there was one laser iridoplasty for glaucoma, and there was medical management for blepharitis and punctae epitheliopathy. Chief complaints from the chart, the most common chief complaints by far were poor visual acuity, blurriness, fuzziness, and optical phenomena like glare and halos. There was quite a bit of overlap, many patients complained to both, and complaints were homogenous among the different subsets of patients, whether or not they had ocular history, PCO, YAG, or donesis. All four types of multi-focal IOL elicited complaints of poor visual acuity, and all four types elicited complaints of glare and halos. A majority of patients felt that they experienced significant blurring at distance, intermediate, and or near, and in the survey we defined the word significant as impairment of most or all activities. And another 72% of patients felt that they experienced significant impairment due to halos and glare around lights. It was essentially a three-way tie for the most compelling reason for these patients wanting their multi-focal lenses removed. A poor distance vision, poor near vision, and glare halos. And in a follow-up question, six patients noted that night driving was specifically impaired as a result of the glare and halos around lights. Many hobbies patients felt were infected by the poor quality and vision. The most common was reading, but also sewing and computer work came up, as well as painting, photography, golf, hunting, fishing, cooking, gardening, and tweezing eyebrows. One patient noted in particular that the glare from the metal tweezers made it very difficult for her to tweeze her eyebrows. 57% of patients called themselves Type A, or very detail-oriented, and another 24% called themselves somewhere in between, while only 19% said that they were not compulsive about details. I thought the occupations were also very telling. These patients consistently tended to be well-educated, skilled, and specialized. There were two real estate agents, a symphony musician, a jeweler, an interior designer, a business developer, photographer, funeral planner, salesperson, housewife, and 11 retirees, including a secretary and artist, a business owner, gift shop owner, electrical engineer, economics professor, teacher, insurance manager, airline pilot, and salesperson. Uncorrected distance visual acuity before IOL exchange with their multi-focal was extremely variable. It averaged around 2040 across the IOL types, but the orange bars represent standard deviation, and so it approached 2070 in the restore lens at times, and even 2100 in the resume lens. Best corrected visual acuity was a better and a little bit less variable. It was averaged around 2030, and of note, 17Is were correctable to 2020 with the multi-focal IOL, but these patients all mentioned Glaren Halos and their chief complaint for wanting IOL removed. Uncorrected near acuity before IOL exchange was extremely variable. It averaged around 2040 or J3, and there was a wide distribution of uncorrected near acuities from J1 plus all the way up to J10. Best corrected was much better with the multi-focal IOL. Patients could be corrected generally to J1 or 2025. This is the surgery itself to take out the multi-focal. This is a patient with an intact capsular bag. The haptics of a restore lens are being loosened from their fixations in the capsular bag. Then the lens is bisected and removed with forceps from a 3mm wound, and then an injectable foldable monofocal hydrophobic acrylic is put in the capsular bag and centered suturless. 31 eyes had intact capsular bags and could receive their monofocal replacement in the bag, but when the bag had been yagged, surgery was more complicated. Ten eyes needed the sulcus, three eyes needed the anterior chamber, and one eye had their replacement lens sutured to the iris. A variety of anterior and posterior chamber models were used. Four eyes needed additional intraoperative procedures, including limb blur relaxing incisions for stigmatism, capsular tension rings, anterior vitrectomy, and posterior, pars plan vitrectomy for some vitreous prolapse. After IOL exchange, additional treatments were needed, including yag for PCO. At times it was left over PCO from the previous IOL, or it was new PCO, PRK, and more relaxing incisions for stigmatism. One patient had a pressure spike post-op, was treated with alpha-gan, and that resolved. No patients had CME post-op, and one patient had a retinal detachment, 16 months post-op that required a pars plan vitrectomy. She had axial length of 24.68, which was bigger in terms of the patients in our study, but it wasn't huge. Uncorrected visual acuity, we added the red bars to represent after IOL exchange. There was somewhat improvement, but it was still extremely variable in all lenses. Best corrected was more consistently improved across the lenses, particularly in their restore and their resume groups. Of note, though, three eyes did lose at least one snail in line of best corrected visual acuity, but the other 42 either remained the same or improved. Best corrected near acuity also consistently improved, particularly in the restore group. And this is a busy slide, but I just wanted to point out the P values, that uncorrected distance acuity did not improve with statistical significance after IOL exchange, but best corrected distance and best corrected near did. The subset of patients with donices before IOL exchange almost reached statistical significant improvement, but five of seven eyes did achieve at least one snail in line of improvement. According to the survey, an overwhelming majority of patients were pleased with IOL exchange. They felt that their symptoms improved. 14% were displeased with IOL exchange, but the majority were pleased, or extremely pleased. So in conclusion, I think patients with and without ocular comorbidities who receive multifocal IOLs with cataract surgery may complain of poor visual acuity or optical phenomena such as halos and glare. And these complaints may not resolve with the adcapsilotomy treatment of ocular comorbidities, including invasive treatments like coronal transplants, or refractive fine-tuning like Lasik or spectacles. When the complaints are intrinsic to the multifocal IOL, surgical lens exchange is the only definitive treatment, although it is a relast resort, and it's helpful to not rush to yag the patient because then that would make the IOL exchange that much more complicated. It's a technically challenging procedure. It may require intraoperative, betreptomy, or follow-up treatments. In this particular group of patients, uncorrected near acuity and distant acuity were both very variable with the multifocal IOLs. Distant acuity did not approve significantly after IOL exchange, but best corrected acuities did improve after IOL exchange. Most patients were alleviated of their complaints. So I think the bottom line is that not all patients will be satisfied with the multifocal IOL. Half of our studies had very high expectations of perfect spectacle-free vision at both distance and near. And while it's true that in some studies as many as 84% of patients have achieved spectacle independence, it's probably better as Dr. Mifflin says to undersell and maybe offer a discussion that reflects some studies that say only a third of the patients will achieve complete spectacle independence. So with that in mind, I think our study adds to the 2040 literature that say that 2040 uncorrected distance vision is a common and expectable outcome with the multifocal IOL. 65% of the eyes in our study saw 2040 at distance, while only 25% saw 2025 or better. So putting my English major to use, if I were counseling patients, I would tell them that a multifocal IOL provides the ability to manage the majority of one's daily and social activities with more spectacle-free function than the multifocal IOL. And the ability to enjoy a combination of uncorrected distance and near acuities in the area of 2020. I would also watch out for patients with an occupation that require optimal contrast sensitivity, like the jeweler in our study or the symphony musician or the artist, any former myope that's accustomed to perfect near vision before Presbyopia or a self-described perfectionist who has high standards. For some patients 2040 could be just fine without glasses they could get by with a near vision of J3, but for other patients this isn't good enough and they would need glasses anyway. And if they need glasses with the multifocal then that kind of depletes the purpose of getting the multifocal, and then all of a sudden they're left with the intrinsic trade-offs, the glitter and the halos, the poor contrast sensitivity, and they could be left wishing that they had their vision before they'd receive the multifocal, particularly if this was a clear lens exchange or an early cataract. So finally I would like to just offer suggestion if I were seeing patients in a cataract clinic one day, if a certain patient walked into my office what would I give them? This is my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the other authors in this study. So this is the lady from the Devil Wears Prada. She's a fashion designer. She's keep reading the newspaper, the fine print, keeping up with the current events in the magazine, fashion articles. She does the designs, the materials, the fabrics, details, details, details. So I would consider her a less ideal multifocal candidate. This is a realtor. She's driving patients to properties at night. She's checking her blackberry, checking her email, typing up property listings, typing up contracts for the properties. A lot of computer work. I would call her a less ideal multifocal IOL candidate. This is a fitness trainer. Let's say 8 a.m. she wakes up and she goes swimming, then she teaches a 10 a.m. step class, then she gets lunch at the cafe, then a 2 p.m. step class, then a 3 p.m. Pilates class and a 4 p.m. personal training session, then goes home, has dinner with the kids. There's nothing about her lifestyle that requires perfect immaculate vision at all times. So she could be a more ideal multifocal candidate. This is an extreme example that's loosely based on somebody that I know personally, my friend's dad, who absolutely loves his restore lens. He's retired. He's at a guitar store on a Wednesday afternoon. There are really only two shirts you can wear to convey that you're laid back. A Hawaiian shirt and a leopard print shirt, and he's actually wearing both at the same time. So he might be a more ideal multifocal candidate as well. These are my references. Thank you all very much. Dr. Mamelis. And I think, I don't know this for sure, but at the private ophthalmologists, they may have been yagged with as little as 1 plus PCO, while the patients had very severe symptoms.  And if that was attributed to 1 plus PCO, it's probably important to weigh the physical findings with the severity of the complaint. Dr. Ambadi. That's based on the patients in our study that tended to see 2040 without correction. That's correct. That's correct. We don't know the mean of everybody. I did. Okay. Ten of the 45 had comorbidities like those. And those tended to have worse vision with the multifocal. Ten months on average, but it ranged from one month to 60 months. Dr. Mamelis. I agree. Thank you. Thank you. That was an excellent talk. It's obviously a very important topic.