Judge Medley called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone in attendance.

He thanked Commission members for their attendance, participation, and commitment to the racial and ethnic fairness implementation. The meeting facilitator, Kathy Elton, was introduced. Kathy has been with the Administrative Office of the Courts for 13 years: 4 years with the Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation and 2 years as the Director of this program.

The goals of the Orientation were identified by Kathy as:

1. Start getting to know one another

2. Where has the Task Force been?

3. Where are we now?

4. Where are we going?

5. How do we get there?

Self introductions included identifying what dish you would bring to a potluck-a dish that would reflect your cultural heritage or background. The following is a list of Commission members and the agencies they represent:

Judge Tyrone Medley Task Force Co-Chair

John Adams Bar Association

Christina Barrera Advisory Council

Daniel Becker State Court Administrator

Susan Burke CCJJ Anti-Violence Coordinator

Paul Boyden SWAP

Mike Chabries Utah Department of Corrections

Kal Farr Utah Chiefs of Police Association

Verdi White Public Safety

(Proxy for Commissioner Bob Flowers)

* Sid Groll Peace Officer Standards and Training

Keith Hamilton Board of Pardons and Parole

John Hill Salt Lake Defenders Association

* Brent Johnson Administrative Office Legal Counsel

Sheriff Brad Slater Utah Sheriffs Association

Dan Maldonado Assistant Director of Youth Corrections

Ed McConkie Utah Sentencing Commission

John T. Nielsen Task Force Co-Chair

Representative Lamont Tyler House of Representatives

* Haruko Moriyasu UU Asian American Studies

Anthony Smith Indian Walk-In Center

Joan Smith NCCJ

Joe Tafua South Utah Polynesian Association

Judge William Thorne Utah Court of Appeals

Deidre Tyler SLCC Professor

Carolina Webber National Coalition of La Raza

Michael Zimmerman Task Force Chair

* Represents members not present at the meeting.

Please refer to the following handouts: flowchart of the Task Force, flowchart of the Commission. The Utah Judicial Council convened the Task Force by bringing key players from the agencies that comprise the justice system. There was a tremendous range of diversity of backgrounds, social identities, agencies, and viewpoints/perspectives. Throughout the Task Force process, outlooks were enhanced, although not necessarily changed. Still, the Final Report was unanimously passed, as it focused on institutional change throughout the justice system.

Please refer to the following handouts: Task Force Recommendations by Agency, Commission Resolution. Each member received a document with the Task Force Recommendations specifically targeted towards their agency. Document was to be used for the small group discussions (which we had to postpone). As we come together on this Commission to find common ground and work towards collective goals, the Commission Resolution is a tool to share ownership and accountability/responsibility. The document was discussed and then signed by members.

Resolution discussion addressed:

Access to data sources: confidentiality, prior contracts, and UT law are respected and honored by the Commission.

The Commission is not a report card agency monitoring individuals, rather a more global effort of affecting institutional change on a systemic level. The premise behind the recommendations was that agencies would institutionalize policies to push ALL individuals in the system to be fair. The scope is long-term.

The Commission recognizes the importance of addressing racial and ethnic fairness issues on an individual basis, but relies on in-house groups and other entities to monitor this. Our role is on a broader scale.

Please return signed Resolutions to Sandra Kinoshita.

5. RESEARCH: (Russ Van Vleet)

Russ Van Vleet of the Social Research Institute at the University of Utah presented on the research completed to date for the Task Force, Task Force Subcommittes, and suggestions for future studies by the Commission. Please see handout "Overview of Research...". Mr. Van Vleet asked Commission members to respect the qualitative data as equal to quantitative; endorsed the studies as "good studies" while acknowledging constraints such as time, access to data, and consistency of data as a few of the researchers' challenges; and gave multiple suggestions of where the research efforts can continue. He also strongly suggested that our agencies collaborate and commit to data collection and consistency for future research efforts. Much discussion was generated by this research presentation, with many questions regarding the methodology of the multiple studies. Mr. Van Vleet invites Commission members to discuss the studies with Conrad Carter and Sam Brown, the principle researchers of the studies. You can contact Russ Van Vleet at 581-4857 with any questions or to reach them. You can also access the research and subcommittee reports at: www.utcourts.gov/specproj/retaskforce/index.htm

The dialogue began to develop how the Commission sees its role, goals and structure.

ROLE:

Unity among different agencies, increased communication amongst agencies

Problem-solve as a team

Validating and checking current practices and what is already in place

Serve as resources/consultants

Central coordinating process-oversee/supervise the internal implementing committees within the participating agencies

Check in with agencies re: recommendations-get update on how/what agencies are implementing, how they have modified recommendations and why

National perspective-UT perspective vs. national legislation

Inform/include the public of projects, research, issues

Set standards for data collection, for consistency

Forum for community participation

Serve as a model for other institutions (ie. education, religion, etc)

How to incorporate/involve Advisory Council; engage communities from the dominant culture as well as communities of color, and the general public

How to reach those not on the Commission

Budgetary and legislative process (ie. local and national level have been identified, but we also must focus on state level)

Who is spokesperson? Publicity and media issues

Public reporting

Law Related/Continuing Legal Education involvement

GOALS:

Share solutions/strategies-how to do it

All entities focused on their own implementation efforts

Outreach to community leaders

Information to communities of color

Speak with one voice (uniformity)

Reinforce/support agency efforts

We are the system-do what we do well (including bureaucratic processes)

Understand what each agency does, their purpose, etc. The Advisory Council should specifically have this information available to them to bring back to their community involvements.

Have patience

How do we know when we get there? Process focus

Short-term measurable goals

Statistical information-defined & standardized

Challenge perceptions, to improve them

Identify key players through the recommendations. Who is on board, who is not? How will you implement, or why won't you?

How to present to community-media kit?

STRUCTURE:

Spokesperson?

Media contact individual? One suggestion was to invite the meeting host's in-house media person participate in that one Commission meeting.

How high profile do we really want this?

Responsible, two-way communication with communities of color

Coordination between researchers and Commission members

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

NEXT MEETING - WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2001:

at the Department of Corrections from 11:30am - 1:00pm. We will develop a mission statement for the Commission and have a presentation on the Department of Corrections' implementation efforts. Lunch will be provided, compliments of the Department of Corrections.

Commission Directories were distributed. Copies of your signed Commission Resolutions were mailed 10/01/01.