Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Christopher Mattos, Committee Clerk]: We are live. Alright.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Good morning. It is January 28, here in senate judiciary. We'll be hearing an update from RDEB. The quick note, I had to appear remotely due to a work obligation that required me being in person down here in Brattleboro. The reason I'm wearing a winter coat isn't because I'm eager to leave. I just forgot to turn the heat on in my office, just so folks know. And so Senator Norris can handle questions for folks in the room if any committee members raise their hand. And I will pass the floor to Susana. Thank you for being here.

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Thank you. For the record, Susanna Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity. But today I join you all as a member of the Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems Advisory Panel, the RDAP. I appreciate you accommodating a remote appearance for me today. I didn't want to be that guy coming into your committee room sounding like this. And so today I am speaking to you on behalf of the RDAP and would just like to give you a few updates on what the panel has been working on and what it would like to set its sights on in the future that may be of relevance to you all. So, first, organizationally, I'd like to give you an update on where the panel is. We have very enthusiastically welcomed four new members of the panel whom we are very excited to have, whom we believe will contribute to the overall well of knowledge and real passions and issues. Those new members include Flor Diaz Smith, Maggie Gangui, Karen Lastine, and Mia Schultz. I know at least a couple of those names you are likely familiar with. As a group, these new members include people who have expertise in juvenile justice, in restorative justice, in education specifically, which we believe is an important ancillary subject matter that feeds criminal legal involvement, and as such, it's really important to have people with that lens. And of course, in general advocacy and community organizing. So we're extremely excited to have them on board. We also remain without a chairperson, but the panel looks forward to electing the chair in the next one or two of our regular meetings. So that is where we are on membership and organization in general. I will say, just as an aside, it's been my observation that the group has been tremendously, I don't actually want to say discouraged, I think it's mix of discouragement and motivation, actually, strange mix of both of those ends of the spectrum, seeing what's happening at the national scale related to issues of disparate outcomes in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. And I think that this group really is important for the state of Vermont to have at times like these, to be able to contribute to these national and state level dialogues. I hope you all agree. The next thing I wanted to share is that the panel has put forth its biennial report. You all should have received it. It was filed on the fifteenth of this month. And I just want to walk you through the major components of that report. It is divided into three main sections. That first section is a recitation, a review of past legislative actions that the legislature has taken that are aligned with, or that perhaps sprang from audit recommendations, things like raising the age, and also. The creation of the division of racial justice statistics, so that first part of the report acknowledges the Legislature's advancement of those important policy aims. The next portion of the report is a renewal and recitation of other of our previous recommendations that we've made. This was a very careful decision because while it is always tempting to bring new recommendations and new ideas to the forefront each year. This panel felt very strongly that it stood by its reasoning from previous years, and that we still thought that those issues were germane to the state and still deserve to be looked at. I want to be really clear though about what I've just said. We, a group, stand by our report and our reasoning and want to uplift those previous recommendations from our 2024 and 2019 reports. But I do also want to acknowledge that not every single one of those recommendations was made unanimously by the members of the group. And speaking just as one member, that's okay. I think that what that demonstrates is the complex nature of the topic areas, but we still genuinely believe that they should be grappled with, regardless of where some of our opinions are appointing organizations. I wanted to say that and just give acknowledgement to the fact that we did wrestle with some of those issues and recommendations. And despite that, we still believe that they are worth the legislature giving renewed or continued attention to. The third part of the report highlights a specific recommendation that is a newer one, and this has brought itself forward. There is a bill that has been drafted to this point, and the ARDAP looks forward to supporting it however it can through the legislative process. And this would be a proposal for the legislative body to employ the use of an impact assessment tool when considering new legislation. I believe that you all have heard us discuss something similar in the past. The executive branch does use an impact assessment tool and has since 2020. The RDAP, because of its nature as a board that is specifically designed to focus on identifying disparities in the state's justice systems, we believe that it's important that that work be carried out, yes, of course, by the panel, but also by those who are carrying out and, of course, creating the laws that are going to be binding our communities. And so we are looking forward to being able to provide more information and more support of that, but you will see a write up of that brief at the end of this year's RDEP report. So those are the major components of that report, and I think my colleague from the Attorney General's office provided you some hard copies of that today. Mr. Chair, I'll pause here for questions. I did just have one other brief piece, but I know I've said kind of a lot just now, so I don't know if you wanna pause me.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Oh, thank you. It's a great summary of the report. If you see me looking over here, I just have it up on another screen. That's that's why I'm looking over here. I don't have any initial questions, but I know there are a few brewing. I guess, were there any questions in the room or anything? No. Okay. So I'll yeah, if yeah, if you have any additional testimony or if Todd wanted to chime in as well, happy to hear some thoughts there. Any additional thoughts?

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: I do have one question. On page four, we're just number five where it said reallocation of responsibility. It's a recommendation. Implement decoupling medical cert and law enforcement engagement. I wonder if you could expand upon that somewhat, as to what that exactly means. What's the purpose here?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Yes, Senator. So I think that from different corners of our group and from the different appointing entities, you may hear a little bit of different idea about what that could or should look like, but in general, the idea of decoupling mental health services from law enforcement engagement speaks to a desire to de escalate, or I don't even know the correct word, pre de escalate situations where people may have unnecessary contact with law enforcement during circumstances when what they're really experiencing is a need for perhaps medical or other forms of treatment. And so, of course, the report will dive deeper into it, but at its core, this would be a recommendation to reconsider how much we're really asking police to have to shoulder and whether or not those duties are better suited for people who are professionals in the mental health space or other related arenas. This isn't something that would not only remove some burden from law enforcement officers in terms of having to be jacks of many trades, but also would rightly situate response to mental health crisis with mental health professionals, and would reduce the likelihood of disparate or potentially lethal contacts with the justice system, which tends to impact low income communities, people living with disabilities, and people of color more often than other groups.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Thank you for that explanation, Phil. I was concerned, or just had to acquire because in Franklin County we have what's referred to as embedded clinicians riding with officers out there, it appears to be a rather successful program, and I don't want to trample on that. That's why I brought this question up here, Ms. Balaji. But thank you.

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Yeah, thank you for that example, Senator. I think that's certainly one iteration of what this kind of a recommendation could look like. It's been done in different ways in different jurisdictions, and we would be, we would be very happy to provide additional information if it would be helpful to contextualize different ways that that could be done.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: I think a comment or maybe a question here, Susana, is I can't find where I saw it earlier, but reference to the RDAP, the number of meetings you have and how it's challenging, understandably so, to keep up with the very rapid and chaotic pace of the legislature, you know, once we all gather in January. And so I'm wondering if you have additional thoughts on how things can change for RDAP so that the group's job is easier and there can be better collaboration between the legislature and our depth, especially once we get started and things become a bit more chaotic for everybody.

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Mr. Chair, thank you for bringing that up. We, a group, recognize that there is a fiscal reason for setting caps on meetings allotted to different working groups during the year. And yet the group has found it to be constricting in terms of our ability to give our deliberations and our work as much time as it warrants to try to stick within that 10 meeting annual limit. And so one of the things that we would really like to see is a lifting of that cap so that the panel is empowered to make the decision about how much time we need to give to something so that we can come back to you all with really well reasoned recommendations and other insights. I think that generally a common default tends to be monthly meetings for a lot of working groups. It's been my experience, the Office of Racial Equity sits on a whole lot of working groups, And over those years, the experience has been that the need to ramp up the meeting cadence tends to proceed submission of reports. Or if there are other emergent issues that come up, the group may need leeway. In addition, if we are to pursue a subcommittee model, which is something that the panel is very interested in, We're concerned that the meeting cap may end up being met much sooner in a year if subcommittees aren't supposed to be included in that as well. So I don't necessarily think that, and I would wanna confer with the group to be sure, but I don't necessarily think that just looking for a monthly meeting option is necessarily the most effective, because I find that those needs tend to ebb and flow throughout a reporting cycle or throughout a year, depending on what else is going on. And in particular, as you mentioned, during legislative session, we want to be able to be responsive to you all, but we like to employ a deliberative approach that allows members to be heard, and we don't want to have to overrun that by not allowing for meeting time during this session.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Thank you. Are there any other questions in the room or any additional testimony from Susan or should we hand it over to Todd?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: I did have one other quick thing and then I would welcome Todd to add or correct anything I've said. The last thing I wanted to mention was that the panel does watch the legislature, despite the logistical challenge sometimes it represents. And there are a few bills relevant to you all that I wanted to highlight that we have looked at and at one point or another, shown an interest in. And these bills, most of them, if not all you're familiar with already, of course, as two zero eight on proper law enforcement identification as two zero nine sensitive locations. The newer one s one ninety three on the forensic facility. And then there are a few that were not taken off the wall and did not originate in this chamber, but that the group did recently expressed some interest in conceptually, and those include H380, which is related to pretrial support programs and creation of a felony violation or felony penalty for violations of conditions or release. H382 related to data collection and H361 related to civilian oversight. So those six ish are just, one rough handful of bills that this group has demonstrated an interest in. And of course, there's a longer list that you all have been working on. But to the extent that you all find products input valuable, which of course I think is a given, then I think we would be interested in being able to engage with you on them.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Absolutely. Two zero eight and two zero nine, I mean, can start with those as we have taken them up here and we are working on them. I'm happy to welcome either testimony or any

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: sort

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: of analysis that our DEEP wants to do. But then I also recognize you're constrained by the one month meeting, and I'm not sure off the top of my head when your next meeting might be regarding some of these bills. At least it's my hope that two zero eight gets voted out either Friday or next week. So that's one of the pieces, but two zero nine and one hundred ninety three are bills that we are continuing to work on and make some refinements to. But but yes, overall, yes, we would certainly welcome your input on these bills that we're working on. What so I guess what would be the best way to get your input on these bills?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: I don't if again, just a suggestion from one member. I don't wanna speak on the groups for half for for certain, but our next meeting is the February, which is going be the tenth, which is past the date that you said you'd like to have this this completed at least on one or two of those bills. So I imagine that if the group is amenable, perhaps something in writing before. Before your anticipated work date would be helpful. But I also want to be mindful of open meeting laws and what it means for us to communicate as a group like that in a written setting. So I think we would have to have a discussion about it.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Are you able to represent whether or not RDEB has specific concerns or recommendations that they wanna see, at least for 02/2008, which is kind of on the shorter timeline of things or just general support, opposition, anything like that?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: I've been working really hard to separate my causes of racial equity temptation to speak on it and the RDAP one. So I will say no, I don't feel comfortable making representation on the panel's behalf.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Yet. Understood. Okay. All right. Just taking some notes here. Any additional testimony, Susana, or would you like to pass it to Todd?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Not for me. Would welcome if Todd had anything to add.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Thank you.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: So it appears there's no further questions here, chair, and our assistant attorney general is is ready to go and anxious to get into the office.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Sounds good. I I see him Good

[Todd, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: morning. The records are available since I'm in front of the general at the office this fall. I actually have not the director Dix's summary. If you haven't answered questions on on the or more other elements related to.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: I had one. Let's see. I gotta find the page. RADAP's recommendation. It goes back between these. I can't find out what it was in reference to what I had mentioned to this, but the director and that also had to do with removing or the elimination of school resource officers. So

[Todd, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: as Susana testified, this section of the report is really a restatement of the 2024 recommendations from our end. And so I don't actually have the bad was not on our map of 2024. So what I have to share with you is just what the 2024 report said. And as Susana said, a lot of these recommendations were not unanimous recommendations. They were not consensus based. They were voted on. So I can happy to get you a copy of the 2024 report, which actually has an entire table laying out the votes of every single member. So for example, your question on decoupling mental health, there were a number of abstentions from entities like the attorney general's office and states. Right? It's a bunch of of different entities. Just didn't consent per se on that question. I can go back and also look on a school resources officer question, but I feel very confident that that was another recommendation where there were a certain number of yes votes, certain number of abstentions, and I think came no votes as well. Essentially, it was to remove law enforcement personnel from schools in the school resource officer category. So so I'm wondering rather just if you that's something

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: you said or put it on our big page here so people can see that. That would be great. Back to you, Chair Hashim.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Thank you. Todd, did you have any testimony that you wanted to add or was it just questions? Couldn't fully hear when you sat Apologies,

[Todd, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: Chair. No, I have nothing to add to what Director Davis said. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: I don't have any other questions at the moment. Think yeah, I don't have anything. Does the committee anybody else have anything that they wanna add? Comments or questions?

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: It appears not.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Fantastic. Okay. All right. Well, thank you both for coming in and for your testimony and answering some of the questions that we had. I think this is a work in progress. And I know that in the past, collaboration and communication has been difficult, not for malicious reasons, but I think that as we mentioned at the beginning, once the session starts, it's very difficult to stay in sync with a lot of the groups that are meeting outside of the session, when the meetings are only once a month and we're meeting constantly once January starts. So that's definitely something to contemplate as to how we want to improve that collaboration and communication. And it's definitely something that's very important to me. Senator Vyhovsky, I see your hands.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky, Member]: Absolutely. I share the chair's commitment to working on building that collaboration. I wonder from both of you serving on the RDAP, Director Davis and Todd, if it would be helpful I assume that those meetings are in statute to be once a month. Would it be helpful to have more frequent meetings? Or given your respective workloads, would that actually not be so helpful?

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: The statute does limit the panel to 10 meetings per year, and we have tended to structure them as monthly meetings with break in the summertime. And the group being a bunch of passionate nerds would like to meet more often. I don't think that we have a specified number that we're looking at. I think we're just looking at quality rather than quantity and the ability to address issues as needed. So any I think speaking from my perspective as a member, any sort of relaxation of that, recognizing again, I do recognize that there's a sort of fiscal impact with the per diems, but if there's a way to have that broader leeway, particularly as we think about things like subcommittee structures, which is a bit newer for the group, then I think that would be helpful.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky, Member]: That's really helpful. I I never wanna put more work on you without you telling me that you might want that. I think and I'm not entirely sure, but I think that type of structure of a border commission would actually go to my other committee, and I'd be really happy to talk with the chair of that committee to have you come in and see if we have a vehicle at this point to perhaps, grant some flexibility.

[Xusana Davis, Executive Director of Racial Equity; Member, RDAP]: Thank you, Senator.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Fantastic. Well, thank you again to both of you. Committee, just as a heads up, we are voting tomorrow on the Supreme Court justices. Discussion starts at 10:35, and hopefully we'll be voting around 11:15,

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: but

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: obviously depending on how long or short the conversation might be. So just wanna make sure that you all have that on your radar. Any other any other issues that we need to discuss before we adjourn, generally speaking?

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Not generally speaking, but once we go up, well, I've just got a question about the the agenda for tomorrow.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: For tomorrow?

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair]: Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair]: Okay. Alright. Sounds good. If there's nothing else committee or, MRE

[Todd, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: weekend