001All right, I think we'll go ahead and get started if everyone's ready. Uh, good morning. Um, welcome to the second 988 technical advisory board meeting of 2026. My name is Steve Yarro. I'm the deputy director of public safety communications at Caloes and I will be the chair of the board meeting today. Um, we're going to hear some updates from the programs and the working groups under the technical advisory board. And so we'll turn our attention at this time to conducting the roll call and we'll start off uh start up with uh Eric Raflo Yuan. Are you present? Nope. Not hearing that. Uh Shi Selski, >> yes I I'm here online. Thank you. Diana Gutierrez, >> present online. >> Thank you. Amitrius Sydney >> here. >> Thank you, Jeff Abear. Not hearing an answer. Tracy Gonzalez.
002No answer. Aaron Riley >> and present online. >> Thank you. Serena Lewis, >> present. >> Thank you. >> Joe Sullivan, >> present. Thank you. >> Dr. Buouie >> present. >> Thank you. Lon Nwen. Not hearing an answer. Terry Galvin >> present. >> Thank you. Jamila Fields. No answer. And Ivan Bardwage >> uh present. >> Thank you. All right. By our count, we have a sufficient number of attendees uh present to establish a quorum and we will therefore move on to conduct the business of the board. Uh so we'll start with the next agenda item is the approval of the meeting minutes from the November and February meetings. I think in the November time frame, we had some edits after that needed to be uh included in the meeting minutes. So, those have been made. So,
003uh I'd be happy to accept a motion to approve the November meeting minutes if there was one. >> Approved. >> Right. I have a I have a motion. Do I have a second to that motion? >> Uh Terry Galvin. Second. >> Thank you. Uh we'll then move to uh roll call to approve the November meeting minutes. Sherry Suelski. >> I'm sorry. >> How do you vote as to the approval of the February meeting minutes? >> I'm sorry. Approve. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Diana Gutierrez, >> approve. Thank you. Demetrius Sitney approved. You Aaron Riley not hearing a vote. We'll circle back on that one. Uh Serena Lewis >> approved. >> Thank you. Dr. Buouie >> approved. Terry Galvin >> approve. >> And Ivan Bardwash >> approve. >> Okay. And then I'll circle back once more
004to Aaron Riley. Your vote as to approve the February meeting minutes or I'm sorry the November meeting minutes. >> Sorry about that. I will abstain. I was not present at the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh yeah. So we have a majority to cover that. So that means the November meeting minutes are approved. We will now conduct a similar exercise for the February meeting minutes. If I have a motion to approve the February meeting minutes as written, I'd love to hear it. >> Terry Galvin. Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Do I have a second to that motion? >> Demetrius Sitney. Second. >> Thank you. Having a a motion and a second, we will then uh move to a uh a oral roll call vote to approve those meeting minutes as written. Starting with Sherry
005Suelski, how do you vote as to the motion to approve the meeting minutes from the February board meeting? >> Approved. >> Thank you. Diana Gutierrez, >> approve. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sydney, >> approved. Thank you, Aaron Riley. >> Again, I'll abstain. I was not present at the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. Serena Lewis, >> approved. >> Thank you. Dr. Buouie, >> approved. >> Thank you. Terry Galvin, >> approve. >> Thank you. And Ivan Bardwash, >> approved. >> Thank you. With that, I perceive that we also have a majority voting in favor of that motion. and therefore the motion carries. The meeting minutes from the February board meeting are also approved. Both of which will be posted to our website after the meeting is finished today. Thank you. Um all right, we'll move on to agenda
006item number three. And this item is the Callowas legislative and governmental affairs update. All right. Thank you, Steve. Good morning. My name is Paul McInness. I'm the legislative coordinator uh here at Cal Oes. Um, I will give a few legislative uh dates that are upcoming uh just to be aware of um in the process and then give a brief update on a few uh state bills we're um tracking as well as uh federal uh legislation. Um and I'll we'll make the list available to um to the board following the meeting. Uh so uh July 2nd's the last day for policy committees to meet in the second house. Um and then July 3rd the um through August 3rd the legislature will be on summer recess. Um August 14th is the uh fiscal deadline. So that's the
007suspense uh day for bills to to pass that uh fiscal last fiscal hurdle. and August 31st is the last day uh for sess session. So it's the last day for each house to pass uh all bills. Uh the governor then has a month after that, so September 30th to um act upon all bills that are put on his desk. I'll now go into um just a brief update on a few uh state bills that we're tracking. So the first one is AB540. Uh, Assembly Member Gonzalez. Uh, this bill would require, among other things, Callowas to request through SAMA approval by June 1st, 2027 for a press option routing calls to a specialized center. The bill would require OES to deploy associated technology within 12 months of federal approval and require OES to establish criteria and
008administer funds to qualified mental health crisis organizations. Uh the bill does have an urgency clause and the and it's in the Senate rules committee currently for assignment. Next is AB1805. Um, this would revise the 911 uh state advisory board to add um a California Department of Technology representative. Would also make the chief um of PSC division a non- voting member rather than chair. Would authorize the hiring of independent um experts. uh would require quarterly NG 911 progress reports and would require a state auditor auditor um review beginning no later than September 1st, 2026. This bill also has an urgency statute uh urgency clause and is in Senate Rules Committee um awaiting assignment. Next is AB1832. Um, Assembly Member Ransom would require Callaway to convene state emergency planning agencies and the PUCA appointed 211 lead entity
009to integrate 211 into statewide emergency planning. Among among other things, it would require um OES to enhance system capacity, publish a statewide needs dashboard, develop a line 211, 21 uh 911 and 988 protocols, and would create a 211 fund. This bill has been referred to Senate Emergency Management and Utilities and uh communications uh committees. Next is AB um 1872, Assembly Member Ta. This bill would increase penalties for repeat uh false 911 reports allowing later violations to be charged as misdemeanors or felonies. Would extend liability to property damage caused by emergency responses. This bill is um in the public safety committee. uh AB2041, Assembly Member Curio, would uh require public safety agencies uh that were not providing pre-arrival medical instructions by January uh 1st to report their compliance status to their local EMS agency by January
01031st, 2027. Bill is in Senate Health Committee and two more state bills. um AB 2093. Uh this bill would require the state 988 advisory group to continue meeting quarterly through December 31st, 2029. The bill would allow disbandment of the advisory group on or after January 1st, 2030. The bill is um Assembly Member Bower Cahan and it is in the Senate Health Committee. Then last state bill is SB985. Uh Senator Strickland. Uh this bill would require Callaway to provide quarterly reports to the legislature on NG 911 development implementation pro progress and expenditures. The bill is double referred to assembly emergency management and communications and conveyance. And briefly um just a a couple uh federal bills to go over. The first one is HR6505. Um, Representative Hudson. The bill would amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's
011authority to support expanded and coordinated deployment of NG 911 via new grant program to support implementation of NG 911. This is in the um House Subcommittee um energy and uh commerce HR7031. Um Representative Fulture would uh direct the Secretary of the Interior to upgrade National Park Service emergency communication centers to NG 911 capable systems. And this is in the House Committee on Natural Resources currently. And then uh one last bill here to share is S 2826. Senator Baldwin uh would direct um HHS to dedicate resources to support LGBTQ plus youth contacting the 988 lifeline among other things. And it's currently in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. So that uh concludes the legislative update pending. Any questions from the board? >> Any questions from the board members? Either here in the room or
012our board members online. It looks like we have one. Oh, Sherry, I think it's you. Uh, whose hand is raised? Is that right? >> It is me. Yeah. Just quickly, you said he said he was going to share these um updates out. When will that happen? There was a couple I didn't catch the numbers for. I'll send it after the uh board meeting completes and then I don't know when Samantha will send >> same day so it should go out later today. >> Fabulous. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Right. Right. Any other any other questions from the board? >> All right. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Right. We will move on then uh to our next agenda item which is the uh working group reports section and we have a few working groups
013and so we'll start we'll just go down the list here. It looks like the 988 and 911 interface working group is up at the top of the list there. Any report out from the interface working group? All right, hearing none, we will move to the next one on my list, the accessibility and equal access group. Is there a report from that group? >> This is on Buouie. We did not have a chance to meet um between the last technical advisory board and this one. So, nothing to report. >> Very well. Thank you. Uh the next group is the 988 consortium working group. >> Uh that is um the implementation working group. It the name never gets updated. Um we were uh we did meet one time. We had rescheduled our regular meeting to meet on
014the April 24th so that we could meet Tara um and >> have her attend the meeting. Um our updates are that while the reimbursement process um is is now working, it seems the centers are making their way through the process. Um it is still our intention to explore potential alternatives because the um existing system is still cumbersome. Um so but good news that people are making their way through all the checkpoints. Um we also wanted to uh reaffirm our um suggestion to the interface working group that um a formalou be the recommendation for the 911 988 transfer recommendation document. um we find that that is the better practice and we were hoping the language in the uh document would reflect um that that is a better practice. And then we have still outstanding um that
015we were not able to understand the current status of theou with vibrant and therefore the next steps of um pilot the next pilot stages which we assume we'll learn about today. Okay. That's my report. >> Thank you for that. Any any questions for the implementation working group from the board members? All right. Thank you. Yeah. And I have made a note here to have that uh the name reference changed. Um and I believe we'll have great success in changing it this this go round. So, thank you. Uh let's see. Okay, the next next one I have on my list here is the call handling solution analysis workg group. Do we have a report out from that workg group? >> We do. Uh Steve, um and I'd actually emailed Sam ahead of time to see if
016I might share a couple of slides. Um is that is that still possible? >> Yes, I I believe it is. >> Perfect. Okay, let me see if I can take the lead on this. Give me just a moment here. >> Yes, we see it now. >> Wonderful. Let me just turn that into slideshow and um Oh, are you seeing like the actual slideshow or are you just seeing my whole screen? Yeah, we're seeing the the PowerPoint with the uh slide up and then of course we still have all of the slides showing on the left side. So if you wanted to put it into display mode. >> There we go. Perfect. Does that is that better? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Thank you, Steve. Um okay. Um so we actually have had a chance
017to meet twice uh since our last meeting um that was in February. And for those of you all that remember, this was a work group that was formed based on a motion that was presented in November to try to um explore some of the the challenges and concerns with the um C call handling system or the lack of clarity as to where things were headed. Um so we last meeting in this in the Callowas meeting we myself and Demetrius were elected as chairs and then from there we worked to solicit group members which you can see are listed here on this slide. Um and we also met twice on May 8th and on June 5th uh to further speak about um the call handling system. Um so when we met we realized there was a
018lot of concerns and a lot of things to think about especially given that you know this process I think has had a lot of stakeholders that are involved that have various questions and thoughts and opinions and also given that um there have been some delays and you know some some unforeseen um things that have happened in the in the rollout process. We recognized that we thought it was just really important for us to sort of set goals as a workg group um as to or or perhaps recommendations as to what we think might be a process for moving forward. Um so what I'd like to do today is just present what what we came up with because what originally we had thought we might do which was to determine if the cal h uh the
019cal I'm sorry this the call handling system that's been developed so far um met all of our requirements. we we recognized that maybe there were some bigger questions. Um, so let me go ahead and and and go to the next slide and I'll show you where we landed. Um, sorry, for some reason this doesn't want to advance for me. There we go. So, we really kind of come up with five goals or or recommendations that we thought were really important um to determine before we could really move forward. Um the first was really trying to better understand what is the actual requirement of cales in developing a system. Um in many other meetings that have been happening you know for 988 throughout the state and budgets and other hearings that have been happening the term
020interoperability has been being used but I think a lot of different people have different definitions of what interoperability might mean. And so it it felt to us that that stakeholders that are involved in this process really need to come together and define that term. Um we also recognize that there's a lack of clarity regarding the legal and contractual requirements of the use of the cal of the CHS by the 988 centers. Um then once we got those two things clear, we believe that it's important to go back and determine what are the requirements um of this of the the product that um has been built or or perhaps needs to be refined. Um determining what's the best vendor to meet those requirements. And also most importantly, you know, I think one of the reasons why
021we've gotten to the place that we're at right now is because there's been challenges with transparent communication between all of the various stakeholders that have been involved in this process. And so we're recommending improvements in communication between Callowes, 988 centers, and the other stakeholders that are involved in these decisions. Um, we went uh a little further to dig into some of these uh goals just a bit more. So um you can see them on the next slide. For some reason, this doesn't want to advance for me. There you go. So, when we were trying to determine, well, what is actually meant by interoperability? Uh, we thought the best place to go was to go back to the law. Um, and you can see here, I'm not going to read this for you. You all can
022pull this up yourself. Um, but it it it doesn't really get into the nitty-gritty details of what interoperability means. And I think as a result, uh, you know, perhaps various stakeholders have been looking at interoperability through their own lens. Maybe this is defined somewhere somewhere else, but we've not been able to find any clear definition of what interoperability really means. Um, and so we thought that, you know, that is something that probably needs to be established and very clear so that we all know what we're trying to get out of a system that's being developed. Um, secondly, um, if you take a look more closely at this concept of interoperability, we started to think about, okay, well, what does interoperability mean? What is what is the the functions of interoperability? Um, and is it simply
023to transfer calls back and forth from 988 to 911, which is one uh version of interoperability that I've heard? Is it to have a more ro a more robust system for doing that? Perhaps sharing records, having a joint CRM. Um, if you might dig deeper into that. Is it is it to have an information and referral database? Is it to have a mobile crisis outreach dispatch function? Is it to have a data warehouse? So what exactly are the functions of interoperability? And if so, what products are needed to ensure that there is interoperability? Um and is callas responsible for all of those functions or is it just this most basic definition of interoperability? Um, and we also were wondering, could an alternative be that there there maybe there doesn't need to be one system that
024does all of these things, but maybe there are pieces that need to be connected perhaps through APIs uh that work together so that there's a system that allows the best platform to do these different roles to function um together. for for goal number two which was clarifying what are the legal and contractual requirements for the use of the products by the 988 centers. You know I think that you know many of the centers have asked repeatedly like what are we actually required to do? Um and you know I think there's been conversations like there's going to be a product that's developed that's so fabulous that it won't really matter what you're required to do or not required to do because everybody's going to want to use it. And unfortunately that that hasn't come to fruition
025at the moment. um you know there's been lots of delays with products and it's been challenging to see whether or not we believe that they'll meet our needs. We did go back the only thing that we could really find on this was going back to our contract center our our center contracts for 988 which had one little fragment of a sentence that said once operational the subcontractor shall utilize the 988 customer relationship management system to communicate with 988 contacts and collect contact data. So, it's interesting because this is talking about a customer relation management CRSM system. Um, the the name of this workg group is actually the call handling system workg groupoup. Um, we've we've talked about call handling as well as as CRM. It's a it's an example of the various components or pieces
026that are needed to do the 988 work. And so I think that you know defining what these pieces are and who's responsible for providing uh the technology to support that is is really important. Um so um I think that it's going to be important for us to be clear on is there a mandate for centers to implement new products? If so, who is governing that mandate? Is it Calloes? Is it DHS, HSS, DHCS, HHS or someone else? Uh if there is a mandate, what exactly does it require? Um, are we supposed to be using a product that allows for interoperability? If so, how what is how is that defined? Are we supposed to be using a the call handling system that's been developed by NGA 911? Are we supposed to be using a CRM system
027as referenced in our 988 contracts? And exactly what one is it that we're required to use? If so, um, and then what happens if a center does not want to implement these products? Does that mean that we are not allowed to be part of the 988 system? Does that mean we face funding issues? funding concerns, but what actually happens if we choose to stick with the tools that we already have, which brings us to goal number three. Um, I I put in parenthesis re-establishing the technical product requirements. Um so way back when when this product when this project first started um the 988 centers came together to to develop a list I've mentioned these before of over 175 technical requirements um that we thought would be important in a system that would be being developed.
028Um, but we recognized that at that time there still was no definition of interoperability and so that may redefine what those technical product requirements are. Uh there was also lack of clarity um in what we were needing to do. So we believe that goal one and goal two needs to be established before we can go back and reestablish whether or not the original technical product requirements were the ones that are needed. Um so we need to agree upon um what problem are we trying to solve? What tools are needed to solve it? And then what are the technical requirements of the needed tools to do that. We recommend that once goal one and goal two are determined that we do go back to the 175 requirements that were previously provided to Callowas and build upon
029those because it was a great uh start and and while there may need to be updates made to those, we think that those would be a great starting point. We also want to recognize that because this process has taken so long um that the world keeps moving, things keep changing, new requirements are coming on for the centers uh on an ongoing basis. And so the the 175 requirements that we presented years ago are likely outdated by now. You know, people are trying to look at uh solutions related to dispatching mobile crisis teams. Uh there's a lot of advancing technology that could help us to do our work uh more efficient more efficiently, tools that could help with uh doing quality improvement reviews. None of that stuff was included in those 175 requirements because it was
030just so long ago that that technology didn't exist. And so we believe that um we need to ensure that whatever product is being developed that there's a clause and that there's an opportunity for us to know how is this product going to be continually adapting to meet the the ongoing and changing needs of the centers as well as new technology that could allow us to do our work better. Uh goal number four. So once we achieve one, two and three, we recommend then that we determine how are we going to evaluate who is the best vendor to provide this service. Is it not NGA 911 the the vendor that was is currently being utilized for 988? We've got some concerns about that. We've learned that the termin there's been a termination of the NGA 911
031contract for 911. What were those concerns and might these concerns be relevant to 988? Uh we are another life-saving crisis uh service that's very important that um there's re reliability, dependability, and that the the product does what it needs to be doing. And so we feel like we need to understand what were those concerns that led to the ending of that contract and how might they affect uh their ability to meet the needs of the 988 centers. We also are curious um you know initially if NGA 911 we were we understood was chosen to be the vendor for uh 988 for many reasons but for one reason that it would be more simple to uh do interoperability because of their nextgen 911 work. If they're not doing that work anymore then what does that mean
032for for the work that of interoperability that um is needing to be provided for 988? We suggest that once we define goals one, two, and three, uh, we consider not only NGA 911 as a potential vendor, but we look at other potential vendors as well. perhaps some of the systems that are currently being utilized by 988 centers or perhaps centers could have the opportunity to continue to use components of their current systems and instead interoperability might be defined as connecting those components to the component that would allow for that direct transfer back and forth. There's also a free free free platform that's available through Vibrant. um that might be something that we want to consider uh to see if that is something that could be helpful for us. There's there's other products that are out
033there. So perhaps we may need to be looking at a potential RFP to consider now that this process has taken so long who is the most appropriate vendor to do the work that we've yet to to clearly define what that work is. And then lastly, um I've mentioned this when I began, um but we really need to be looking at improving transparent communication about this process. Um many of the centers have been on hold for many years wanting to understand what is it that we're going to be required to do. We've stopped doing things to allow us to improve our technology because we're waiting on a system that has not not come to fruition for us. um and we don't really know how to move forward. Um so we're wanting to understand how can we
034improve communication amongst stakeholders to ensure that there's timely, transparent and collaborative communication. How do we inc improve communication such that key stakeholder feedback is valued and incorporated as appropriate? We've given feedback multiple multiple times on the cow h the call handling system and we never know if that feedback is being utilized. we don't get we don't get response from that. We um sometimes hear that it's out of scope of the contract and it's not part of what needs to be developed um based on the contract. So there's been a lot of challenges with communication and most recently communication has just stopped. Uh and then lastly, how frequently should there be formal communication? I believe that these meetings once a quarter are not enough. Um for a while we were having monthly meetings. Those have gotten
035cancelled. Um, so we really do believe that there needs to be some sort of mechanism for clear and consistent direct two-way communication between Callowes, uh, whatever vendor is providing a product for 988 and the centers and perhaps other stakeholders because I've also heard um, you know, assembly members and others trying to understand what is going on with the platform. Um so the thing is is as I mentioned when I first uh proposed uh this workg group I said we can't do this by ourselves. This is not something that a work group can go ahead and walk away and come back and give you all the answers. There are multiple stakeholders uh that need to be involved in answering these questions. And so I leave it to the group here to ask how do we answer
036these outstanding questions that I've posed? How do we achieve a consensus and buyin um where there's disagreement or confusion about these potential systems? Where do we go from now and who leads this process? Thank you. >> Thank you for that update. Um I think it's clear that there's an analytical approach that's been taken to dig into this issue that I speaking for myself only. I appreciate that approach. Uh, breaking it down and documenting all of the different angles is, I think, something that's been sorely missed up to this point and will pay a lot of dividends as we go forward. Um, I did want to hopefully get one clarification. Um, you referenced at one point, um, there was a a center contract that made reference to using that you shall use the CRM product. And
037I'm just want to make sure I'm understanding which what contract are you referring to when you say the center contract there? >> Uh, all of the 988 centers have contracts uh with AHP, the administrator of the funds for 988 for the state. Okay, that's what I was expecting. So, thank you for clarifying that for me. Just wanted to make I I probably wasn't the only one who had that question. So, >> no worries. I should have included more details there. >> No, >> if I if I may provide some background context to that. Um, this was maybe a couple of years ago. It's hard to remember. Um but for in order for SAMA to move forward with anou process for the statebased platform they wanted reassurance from the state that um all centers will be
038using the same platform that the state is building. So therefore we needed to um put that into the contract for 98 centers in order for um SAMA and Vibrant to continue moving forward with theou process with the state. So, if I'm understanding that correctly, it really then is a SAMA requirement. Um, and did they give an indication like because I presume right now since all of the centers are receiving calls directly from uh from the federal level basically, right? All calls go into that point and then they're distributed out to the call centers from there. So they're already transferring those calls, if you will, to each of the call centers. Why do they want to require all centers to be on the one platform? >> This is to establish theou so that Samsung Vibrant would
039route all 988 contacts to the California statebased platform. >> Yeah. Yeah. And well, I got that. So it but it implies that they want a single destination that they would prefer not to distribute them to the individual call centers. Is that your understanding? >> That that is correct that yeah they want it to only go to the one statebased platform. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. I'd like to comment on that. I certainly can't I certainly can't speak on behalf of SAMA. Um but that's not my understanding. Um and sorry Dr. Buouie to to counter that. I think that this that SAMA this is an area that we'll have to get clarification from probably from SAMA but I believe that in order to implement a unified platform a state must show that that's a requirement of
040the centers but I think SAMA is ambivalent as to whether or not um calls are routed to individual centers or to a unified platform. I think that that's a clause that they needed to put in in order to be able to permit routing of calls not to the centers but to one one state platform. >> Okay. So they might have made that a requirement because it was indicated to them that it was going to be a consolidated statewide platform and so they said if that's the case then this clause must be in there. >> I think it would be important to clarify that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to understand where that I was coming from and and I think um this is a good good dialogue to have around this. But
041but again I I I commend the approach here. I think um it is very critical you know particularly with goals one and two of your analysis to get those uh adjudicated early on so that you know obviously we don't want to waste time doing a bunch of other work if those two don't lead to the need to have goals three four and five. Um with that I'll open it up to the other members of the of the board here for comments on this uh this report out from the working group. Any comments from the board? >> This is just to wrap back to that conversation by the way. So it was an actual meeting with SAMA Vibrant, CAOES, CAH HHS and DHCS and came to the agreement that in order to move forward with an
042MOU between the state of California and SAMA Vibrant, we needed to have that clause in there. I can't remember exactly when the meeting was. I can find out exactly when maybe in moving forward and if you need to clarify we need to set up another meeting to sit down because now there are new leadership at SAMA as well as at OES. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think that's probably an accurate uh statement that further clarification is needed from all of those parties at once like get essentially consensus from all of them that that's what's required. Um and your point about the turnover among leadership is is well taken as well. Um enough time has gone by that I think enough you know several people have moved on to greener pastures. So uh I definitely think
043uh your recommendation to do that is one we'll look at. Uh any other comments from the board on this topic? >> Uh Terry Galvin uh Sherry and and working group members. Excellent work. Really really great work. Um, I just want to make sure that we don't leave this item without having next steps or Sherry, please let me know what you would like to feel complete today. It seemed like you were asking perhaps for some next steps around one and two. >> Yeah, thank you for that, Terry. I I mean, I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. Right now, this working group is composed of of crisis centers and amitrius. And, you know, we I think we've posed the questions. We've posed possible answers to some of them, but but it's unclear who
044is actually the authority on some of this and and so, you know, we we don't know how to move some of this forward. I think it's a discussion that's that involves multiple stakeholders. And so I I I I put it back to this board as a whole to say how do we how do we move this forward and make sure that this doesn't get paused or or stalled. Um, you know, the working group is is more than more than happy to give our opinions on some of the questions that are asked here, but we recognize that we're not the only ones and we're more than happy to review the requirements. Um, but again, you know, the requirements to do what exactly? Because I the only thing that I can find that's required of a system
045is interoperability and and there's a lot of different versions of what that is. So I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking I guess Callowas uh as as leading this um initiative, you know, how how do you suggest we move forward? >> Well, I think um you know, arranging the hierarchy of goals the way you did made a lot of sense. Um because I think the first order question that needs resolution is what definition of interoperability is that section of government code attempting to refer to when it says we shall produce a system that is uh that creates that interoperability between 988 and 911. Um and I think you know having looked in in the section of government code I believe you referenced you did the same in your workg group >> uh you
046don't find anything and so it leaves sort of open to interpretation um situation where what does interoperability mean and I think that's how we got to um this this path that we're in here where u we have differing opinions I think we can borrow borrow um some definitions of what interoperability might be by looking because it's interoperability between 988 and 911. And so I I would suspect there might be a definition on the 911 side that would inform what we should be thinking of when we think of interoperability on the 988 side. And so uh because those would be the two you know siblings in this if you will um then they should agree on you know what that definition so definition is. So, I think we can uh do a little research here among
047among the staff uh at OES to dig up uh what the 911 side um uses as a definition for interoperability and um and then we can take that and see how it would work, how we feel about it working on the 911 side as a definition. And if we then all can agree that that's going to be our working definition of what nine or what interoperability is uh in the absence of some higher authority telling us what it is then we can adopt a definition and and use it as a working definition until other until told otherwise. So that's what I would recommend is coming up with that definition. So, I think um I'll have my staff dig up what that definition might be so we can at least know what the 911 side thinks.
048>> And then the second question or the second goal that you had um and remind me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the question ultimately boiled down to is there a requirement to use um the system? Is that is that the correct goal number two that you had? Yes, it is. >> Yeah. And so I don't know um I don't have an approach to figure out that part. I recognize that it is at least in the existing contracts uh that you referenced. Um but I feel like there's probably a little bit of leg work that needs to happen. Um I think that that Dr. Buouie referenced uh in terms of getting to consilience on what exactly is the the idea behind that clause in that contract and trace it back to its uh back
049to its source and and question some of the assumptions that went into that. Um so I don't know. Um that'll probably take a couple of conversations before we could even have that larger conversation with our federal partners. So, um I think we'll make a note here to have uh uh amongst the state partners maybe a conversation at our monthly meeting to discuss um discuss that topic. >> Thanks Steve for both of those things. Um so I think I I appreciate that you agree that the kind of the structure of the hierarchy is a good one. um because I do think it's important for us to define some of these things before we jump straight into trying to get the answers to what is a platform that's needed. Um so but I so I I think
050that one and two are most important. Three and four maybe are a bit on hold until we determine one and two. I think five has what's led us to where we're at right now is lack of transparency and communication and action. And so I guess I'm wondering um you know how how do we make sure that you know it seems like we have these meetings and then things go silent and then we have another meeting and uh a lot of us aren't don't feel like we're included in some of of the conversations and the discussion and the dialogue and and so I guess if we're talking about defining interoperability it feels like you know we need to determine well who's whose voice is going to be heard in that definition and how are we going
051to do that? um if we're going to determine what was meant by uh that clause in terms of what the centers are required to do, the centers would very much like to be a part of hearing what those answers are. So, how do we keep this process both moving forward and transparent? >> Yeah. Well, so I I think one of the one of the things that hinders um pure transparency and again I mean that we could spend some time defining that term as well. Um bec I'll take it with what I perceive to be the traditional definition of transparency which is you want open communication. Um, and so what I'm hearing is that you don't feel like you've had open communication coming from Caloes on certain things. Um, and I I think there's a couple
052of parts to that. one uh obviously this is a board and and it it uh complies with and adheres to the rules of Bagley Keen concerning open meetings and therefore we would not want to inadvertently establish a quorum of members um without having followed those rules and so that's one thing that hinders our ability to communicate with you as directly and openly as I think you might like. Second, um, and it's sort of a correlary to that one is we also cannot have what is referred to as a serial meeting. And, and so, you know, absent establishing a quorum, if we went and had the same conversation with each party to this board, we would essentially be violating those terms as well. So that's the reason why we establish work groups um that have no
053more than two members on them so that we can get the work of the board done without infringing upon the obligations that Bagley Keen holds us to. So those are a couple of things that come to mind. Beyond that, um, you know, I think we have staff here, um, that have specific roles, um, that, you know, we've been given position authority and, uh, and funding for those positions for specific things. and to divert them from what that we were authorized them for to do other things would be a violation of another section of government code which I'm not going to do with the staff that I have now. Uh so there are a couple of things that are the legitimate purpose of Callowes and therefore we're happy to do those. I mentioned a couple of
054them a minute ago and you can expect to hear from us um once we have those conversations and develop uh the information that we committed to doing. Uh more than happy to send that out um in a way that doesn't infringe upon the rules of Bagley Keen but also is communicative uh in between the 12week cadence that we have for these board meetings. Steve, are you guys um is Calloas staff considered a member of this board as staff or I guess what I'm wondering is could some of this work be done within the workg group and perhaps you or someone that you designate join this workg group and and we move forward some of these items through the work group. So no um the Callowas staff are not um you know provided as members of
055this board or staffing to this board. Um there are a couple of things a couple of positions that have some related duties and um you know they're used in that way and so but again I think what you're looking for is a set of analytical staff to devote their attention to the tasks of these work groups. And that's not what the purpose of the staff at OES is. >> Help me understand that, Steve, because the the things that are defined in the work group support what's in AB988, which I believe is why there was a director hired. So, help me understand how that that is not in support of their roles. When the leg legislation comes out, um, we are given an opportunity to read through the legislation and determine what workload stems from that
056legislation. And when that happens, we then quantify that into a certain amount of effort that needs to be, you know, done by a certain level of position in civil service. We quantify that. It's called a workload study. and we turn that into we need x number of positions at these levels and that goes into the package and when it gets approved we get appropriated uh funding for that and we're given position authority for that. Once we have position authority and funding then we solicit uh applications to hire into that position and we assign them those tasks that were uh determined in the legislative analysis prior to approval of the legislation. So that's the process. If if at any time we had looked at that and said we need to have a a fleet of analytical
057staff to do the work of work groups that the board may come up with at some point in the future to address future workload. Um I don't think we would be successful getting that through the budget process number one because it's a vague um you know reference to potential work that may or may not materialize. And so, you know, uh, generally speaking, we don't get approval for ideas that may or may not happen. And so, when workload arises, then, um, if it's the legitimate purpose of Callowes to do that work, then we would need to then go forward with a budget change proposal to try and get those resources if we don't have them in hand already. And that's the I think what you're describing is the the work groups have some need to have
058analytical staff do work and but it's not OES that has the need to have analytical staff do work. It's the work group that has that need and the work group is a subun. >> I I I have to disagree with that. I think we're back into people having different interpretations. But and I'd love to hear other people's uh thoughts on this because I'm what I'm curious how many staff does Callowas have devoted to 988? What is their workload? What are they doing? Um because I haven't seen a whole lot of of um activity and one of the primary roles of Callowes and 988 is to implement this system and this entire work group is focused on the system. So, I just don't understand how you're saying that this is to do extra work that is
059outside of what Calloas has already been charged to do. Um, and and maybe we're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess, but I'd love to see what other people might think about that. >> You want some comment? >> Yeah. Any other comments from the board? >> No. Okay. So, um, Sherry, we're going tohead, uh, go ahead and table this discussion. uh the uh duties and purposes of Callowas staff. Um yes, to facilitate the the board meeting. That's that's accurate, the technical board uh advisory board. Um but we can look into this more uh at a a later date. Right now, we're not going to um discuss assigning staff to other purposes than what they're currently doing for a litany of reasons. Um >> would somebody be willing to answer the question that I
060posed of who are how many Callowasa staff are devoted to 988? >> Uh not at this time but we can discuss that at a later date. I'm happy to present on that next meeting. >> Fantastic. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh any other any other questions or comments on the uh report out from the call handling solution analysis work group? >> Uh I guess I have another question. I'm sorry. Um is there a reason for us to pull this group together to meet again or should we be waiting for an update from um Callowas? >> That's a discussion for the board. So, um, and that's the working groups are, uh, set up by, um, are obviously they're established by the board, but, uh, they're set up at your discretion. So, if you want to meet, again,
061that's up to you. That's in your purview. Um, and if the board would like them to meet for a specific reason or to uh, pause, that's up to your discretion. So, Terry Galvin, I I would uh Sherry, I would like your team to decide whether you find value in meeting while you're waiting for um the information that Steve said that he would provide, which is the um the information they can find on interoperability and the requirements. So, um, perhaps we could end with maybe a timeline where we think that might be that you might be able to provide that information so they can decide whether they would meet in the pull together a meeting in the summer. >> I think it's reasonable for us to be able to provide that information inside of three weeks.
062>> Okay. Thank you. That's great. Okay. Um, next bullet point here on this topic is are there a a discussion around whether there are other working groups that are needed uh to do the business of this board? So, I open it up to the board members. Uh, has anyone an idea of another working group that might need to be commissioned here? All right. Not hearing any. Um I don't think I see any hands online uh from the board members online that want to make a comment on that point. So we will then um we'll then move on to our next agenda item. And with the next agenda item, agenda item number five is the 911 988 transfer recommendations document. And so I think last time we met um we discussed the document that existed and
063uh we did not uh end up taking a vote on that at that time and uh so I open it up to the board members um for discussion around this uh transfer recommendation document. any any comments or uh next steps you'd like to to take concerning this document? Uh Terry Galpin, I I would like to note that there was additional um um public comment related to this um that was provided and so I would like as a board for us to discuss um that. And I'm unclear about what um what actions were taken between the last meeting and this meeting um as far as the version that is going to be voted on. So I don't believe there were substantive um substantive changes made to the document in the intervening period. So I think that
064should answer the question as to what actions were taken there. Um and then uh but yeah so I I guess after that then we have you know any comments from the board about it. Hi, this is Diana online. Um, and I my comment was consistent with Terry's. I'm not certain I have the most up-to-date version of the recommendations. Is that can that be sent to us for review? >> Yes, it can. We can send that out this afternoon. Terry again. I I I feel like we have some a sense of urgency, probably not the right term. We've been discussing this for a very long time. Um to to approve this and and have it move along. I think that there is um there is concern that while we are saying these your recommendations and that
065they can be modified and updated and kind of a living document that there's been some concerns raised in the public that um there was difficulty with the existing process and there's not a lot of confidence that that in fact will happen. Um, one of my recommendations might be that if we do approve that we move um the living document into the implementation working group which is an active working group and that we continue to meet the um the requirements of the community that it is in fact something that lives and that we we contribute to um as we know more and can do do better. So that's a suggestion Well, thank you for that. Um, do any of the board members have a comment on that suggestion? >> I support that. >> Uh, I do
066as well. Okay. May May I ask um I recall a couple of action items from last meeting where we were hoping to have the co-chairs of the interface working group maybe provide a update as to what the process was in terms of what um well who are the members of the working group as well as the process by which they um take into account um stakeholder and public feedback and the revision process. Um, so I guess I'm just wondering about where that is at and and was hoping that there had been some kind of interim progress report from the co-chairs. So I think um that that working group did not um did not have a meeting in between our last board meeting and this one if I'm correct and so therefore they wouldn't uh they
067wouldn't have done any of that work. Yeah. So that's what I think the the issue is. It looks like um a potential reason for that is that uh the members are are either resigned or not active um participants and so um I don't think a different outcome could be expected going forward as it as things currently sit. Uh it it it occurs to me that it might be useful to uh identify uh some other members to take up the mantle of that working group uh to see that activities are done with it in between now and the next meeting. And so, uh, I'd be interested to hear from the board if they're if they're interested in, um, identifying some new members for that work group. >> Steve, I I appreciate you bringing that up because
068I was also thinking that we haven't heard from some of those members in a while and I was wondering if they were active. Um, so I do think that potentially looking at new members and or new chairs is a good idea. Um, remind can you remind me chairs have to be a member of the board. Correct. >> Um, I'm I'm not sure about the requirement part of that. I think traditionally they are, but um I don't know that there's necessarily an obligation that they must be. Um, so it doesn't sound like there is. Um, so it could be I think >> unless >> Yeah. Yeah. And I and I don't know I think let's for the purposes of our conversation let's assume that the bylaws don't stipulate that and um and if they do then
069we can follow up uh in the next day or two um having done a little bit of analysis to see if the bylaws do say that. We'll let you know. But let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that they don't say that and therefore um it could be uh anybody who is deemed to be reasonably uh qualified to conduct that business. Um you know that could be nominated by a board member. The reason why I ask is we do have a really strong 911 diversion program and we've had members on this committee when it was active and I'm happy to um nominate someone from my agency if there's no one here that wants to do it or I'm also happy to chair it myself if if it has to be a board member. I
070think you could you could make the nomination and if there were other nominations then uh you know we could discuss the relative merits of those nominations as a as a group and um and then ultimately the way it would get decided is if a motion was made and a vote was taken. >> Okay. Well then I nominate nominate Shaheen Sed. She's our alternative crisis response uh assistant program director at DD Hirs. >> Great. Any other nominations from the board members for this? >> I'm sorry to backtrack just a little bit. You referenced bylaws. Um may I get a copy of the bylaws because I feel like I don't know what they are. >> I mean, >> yeah. Well, we're going to conduct a little research this afternoon um or in maybe not this afternoon, but
071this week um and find out what the bylaws say to the extent that they exist. If they exist, then yes, by all means, I think every board member should be familiar with the bylaws and so we'll be happy to share those with you. Um and then we would uh we would be able to at that point determine the answer to the to the question whether it's required uh that the chairperson of a working group be a board member. Um but again for the purposes of this conversation we'll just assume that they don't and we'll correct it if they do. Um so we have one nomination as it stands right now. Happy to hear other or motion. We have a first foration. >> Yeah, Sharon made a first. >> So, that's a a motion to nominate.
072>> Yeah. And then it doesn't have a second. So, >> okay. So, we are halfway. Uh we have one of uh somebody made the motion and it would need to then be seconded in order for us to advance uh beyond where we're at right now. Should any board member be inclined to do so? >> Okay. Um, so I hope I'm not further complicating this, but uh if it does need to be a board member, then uh I or EMS is willing to chair it. Um but having said that, I will move to second this. >> Um >> Okay. >> Excellent. So, we have a first and a second um on the nomination uh that that Sherry put up and I've already forgotten the name. Uh >> her name is Shaheen Sad. Do you want me
073to put it in the chat? >> That would be Oh, no. No, thank you. Okay. Shaheen Sad. >> Um so, we have a first and a second. Um before we then take the vote, I would need to open that up for public comment. >> So uh that being said, if there are members in the room of the public who would like to make comment on this nomination that we're about to consider and vote on, uh now would be a good time to do that. members of the public in the room, if you would step to the podium and make your comment and please keep your comments to uh under three minutes would be great. >> Sorry, just really quick, can we uh possibly nominate someone else to um >> our I'm sorry. >> Yeah, >>
074sorry. We have a motion um pending. So assuming that this assuming that the nomination passes. >> Okay. >> There's another um there's two seats on the working group. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Right. Um just for everyone's information here, we did not locate any bylaws for 988. So >> it doesn't have to be seated by a chair. >> Okay. >> Um or the chair doesn't have to be a member of the board. Um, you can nominate another person in the working group should the nomination be accepted. Um, if you wanted uh an alternative chair, the motion would have to uh fail because no other nominations were uh profered at that time. >> Okay. >> So, um yeah. >> All right. So, not seeing any takers for the public comment in the room. And I
075also do not see >> Oh, no. I do now see a taker. Uh Cassie Dibble online would like to make public comment. Uh please proceed. >> Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Wonderful. Thanks. Um good morning. My name is Cassie Dibble and I'm giving my comments on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California and ACLU Nationals disability rights program. I'm sure you've heard me before. In previous meetings and correspondents, we provided our feedback to the board on the substance of these guidelines, which we continue to urge you all to consider, but we won't repeat that here. >> I'm sorry. This is public comment for the nomination for the working group. Is that what your comments directed at? >> No, I apologize. I I I I misunderstood. >> No, public comment for
076items not on the agenda or at the end of the um our current agenda. Um if you are commenting on something on the agenda um we can get to that uh in or uh on whatever items we're discussing. >> Okay. Well, the vote is what I'm uh what I intended to comment on uh the vote on the actual recommendations document. >> Transfer recommendation. >> Okay. Well, we're not there right now. I apologize. We're on nominations for a working group, but that is the next we were on that agenda item. Apologize for the confusion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, wait. >> Okay. Um Okay. Thanks. So, at this point then as to the nomination um we will then uh proceed to a roll call vote. And um I will start now with uh start at
077the top of my list. Sherry, how do you vote on the nomination? Approve. >> Okay. Uh Diana Gutierrez, >> approve. >> Right. Demetrius Sydney, >> approved. >> Okay. Aaron Riley, >> approve. >> Thank you. Serena Lewis, >> approve. >> Dr. Buouie, >> approve. Terry Galvin >> approve. >> And Ivan Bardwash >> approve. >> Oh. Um, yeah. So, the question arised, what about Joe Sullivan's vote? And, um, >> that's perfectly fine. Okay. >> Um, he can vote. Um, Joe, I'm so sorry. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, >> yes, he stepped in uh for the minutes. He stepped in um between >> the working group and the 911 988 transfer. >> Oh, you weren't noticed on the remote part, but you're in person now, so it's all good. >> All right. So, we'll then add uh Okay,
078Joe Sullivan, your vote on the nomination. >> Approved. All right. So by my count then it's unanimous uh and therefore the motion carries and so we have then established that we would like uh for Shaheen to to be the uh chairperson of this committee going forward. Obviously uh we cannot conscript them into service if they don't want to. So, it relies on their agreement to serve in that capacity, which I'm sure um I'm sure they would probably like to. So, we'll assume for the purpose of this discussion that they will. So, we now have a chairperson for that workg group. >> All right. Uh Sherry, I I'm told you have your hand up. >> I do. I just wanted to let you know that I've been messaging her and she has accepted that role. Um,
079and I'm not sure if if you need me to do something to get you guys in touch, um, because this is new for her, but um, I'm happy to make that connection if needed. >> Yeah, if I think it would be great if, uh, just to have to have her, uh, email to the board liaison, Samantha Barton. Samantha. >> Yeah, I can do that. Thank you. >> Yeah. And then we'll take it from there. >> Perfect. Thank you. So, uh, the next step then is to see if there's any additional volunteers for this work group or nominations to that effect. I suspect there might be. >> Yeah. Um, I would like to nominate um either a co-chair or member. Um, mo a motion to nom for nomination uh for Dr. Hernardo Garzison, our chief medical
080director. um >> as a co-chair >> if that's an option or at least a member of the commit working group. >> Either way. Yeah. >> Okay. Co-chair. He'll get a field promotion. >> We got a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> All right. We've got a second. Um so now we have a prop. And it was it was Hernardo Garzison Hernando. And that was doctor. All right. So, we have a motion in a second for Dr. Hernando Garzan to be uh a co-chair of of this working group going forward. Um, I'll open it up to for public comment in the room on this matter. If there's anybody in the room who would like to make a public comment as to this motion, please step to the microphone and keep your remarks
081to 3 minutes or less. Not seeing any movement in the room. Are there any hands on the line then who would like to make a public comment on this motion for the workg group? Uh yeah, Steve, just not being expert on the rules of Bagley Keen, how do we best get the new co-chairs up to speed on what's happened in the group so far? I I I know I want to just make sure that we don't have conversations that we're not supposed to have, but also that they know what's happened. >> We can uh discuss that after the meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh not seeing any hands online for public comment as to this motion. Uh we can then advance to the roll call vote. Um as to the motion of whether
082to appoint Dr. Hernando Garzison to the uh to the working group as a co-chair. I'll do the roll call vote. I'm starting at the at the end of my list this time. We'll start with Ivan Barwash. How do you vote, sir? >> Approve. Thank you. Terry Galvin, >> approve. >> Thank you. Dr. Buouie, >> approve. >> All right. Joe Sullivan, >> approve. Thank you. Serena Lewis, >> approve. >> Thank you. Aaron Riley, >> approve. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sitney, >> approved. Diana Gutierrez, >> approve. >> Thank you. And Sherry Suelski, >> approve. >> All right. I perceive that we have yet another unanimous vote here. Um, so the motion passes. We now have a chair and a co-chair. Yes. And so I see a hand up online. Erin Riley, you have a question. Are we
083now also taking volunteers to be on the committee as well? >> Uh yeah, I think we certainly could. >> Yeah, >> I would like to serve on the committee. I was actually part of the original committee when we were meeting and and initially drafting the document. All right. >> Yeah, that's perfectly fine. Um, once we coordinate uh make sure that the co-chair and the chair are in acceptance of their new working group titles. Um, that's perfectly fine. You don't have to vote on that. That's just additional participants. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, yes, thank you for volunteering for that. I think it will be very valuable to the to the work group. >> Um, okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, Dr. Garzison is online and he's listening online, so he did accept.
084>> Oh, wonderful. >> Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Garzan, for for being willing to serve in that capacity. >> Yes. For those who didn't hear, um, yeah, the co-chairs accepted the position. Thank you all for the consideration. Look forward to joining the committee. >> Yeah. Wonderful. Um okay. Um so still now here on agenda item 4F um identifying members and and of of the work groups. Any other uh any other conversation from the board member around uh identifying members for work groups? All right. Yeah. >> Yep. So now uh moving then to our next agenda item which agenda item five that is the transfer recommendations document. Um and so um >> I'm sorry I have a delayed reaction to the members. Is it at all possible to find out who has served on the working
085group before and maybe reach back out to them so that they're aware that there's changes and if they want to continue to serve? >> Yeah, we can work with um Cal staff to see if we can find uh that roster. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Um Okay. Yeah. So, we've been uh around this transfer recommendations document. Um we're going to uh do yeah send an update updated version of this document out to the board members uh this afternoon and understanding that um there is some some amount of appetite to continue to advance this topic. Um but there is also I think uh many question marks that still remain that have prevented us in previous iterations of discussing this at board meetings that prevented us from actually voting it uh to approval. And so,
086um, I think where we sit right now is, uh, I don't think that, and correct me if I'm wrong, board members, is is there an appetite on the board to advance this to a vote today, or do you believe that it's premature to do so? Definitely, Terry Galvin. It seems it should go through our new committee and and co-chairs. Um, but with the hope that we would be approving at the next meeting. >> All right. I think that's uh that's aligns with my understanding as well. So, I think um that's I'm getting uh confirmation from the members here that that's where we all are. So that's what we'll expect to happen over the over the coming operational period. Um I do acknowledge that uh Cassie Dibble had wanted to make public comment on this topic
087and so if you're still there and uh prepared to make your public comment um you may have the floor. >> Hi good morning. Thank you. Um, no. I I um I I really appreciate uh the the um conversation that's happened here today and the decision um to to defer now that there have been uh newly appointed members to the work group. Um so yeah, we appreciate the board's um commitment to to a transparent and thorough process. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh any other uh members of public who'd like to make comment on that? I'm sorry. May I may I make a um a comment and a question on the um recommendations document? >> Sure. >> Um one of the questions that I had um because this was brought up at the last meeting um
088is that this is not um something that Caloes is issuing that this is something that is recommendations by the technical advisory board members themselves. Uh so I have a question as to what are the liability um issues having to do with the technical advisory board members um given that this will be although it's a state guideline we're not issuing any kind of rules or legislation um there is uh it is a big deal it would it would basically give a green light um to 911 paps to transfer um calls appropriately um to 98 centers but you know there are Um it is a huge policy decision. Uh and I am concerned as a technical advisory board member with professional standing what are my liabilities and responsibilities and given that we don't have any bylaws here.
089>> Yeah. So that's a that's a legal question and we can take that offline and I can advise at the next meeting on that issue. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, all right. I believe that uh wraps up that agenda item. Oh, wait. Oh, it looks like we have a hand up online. Cassie, if you wanted to proceed. >> I I apologize to to speak um multiple times here. Um I did want to um having reflected for a moment, did want to rephrase one point. Um again, really appreciate that this is being deferred. Uh we we would ask and I'm again I'm here on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU Nationals Disability Rights Program. We would ask that um whatever final operative version is going to be voted
090on presumably at the next meeting be made available to the public online uh before the meeting so that um folks have a chance to review what's actually being voted on. Appreciate your time. Thank you. >> So the current so the current version is actually the one that's posted online. Um so feel free to review that. Um but it will be reposted um with the agenda materials according to bagley notice procedure. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that uh we will then move on to the next agenda item. Agenda item number six. This is the data ownership discussion. And I think uh this came up during our conversation at the last board meeting around um you know questions around who owns the data and what uh obligations or rights there might be around that topic.
091And so some of the some of the information that I've had the team pull together for me is that you know Calloes 988 call handling system receives anonymous 988 helpseker contacts from the national 988 administrator Vibrant. uh um Callowes call handling system data is protected and authenticated um through access controls that ensures that the confidential information is secured against any unauthorized access. The 988 centers manage and have authenticated access to their own helpseker data and calls and the department of health care services have authenticated access to the statewide call handling system data and the data is strictly protected and not shared with other agencies. Um and so in terms of ownership of the data, it's uh not owned by the vendor partner who uh is the one who's the purveyor of the software that controls
092this. The data is owned uh by the state of California and that's uh part of the data information security and sharing agreement that's in the contract. So uh with that, I'll open up to the board if there are any comments on this topic. Seeing no hands and no takers, I thank you, we will then advance to agenda item number seven. Uh so this is Callaway updates on the program. And so uh I think we talked several times recently um about the pilot project for the call handling system at the Buckloo call center. Um down there they have successfully implemented the call handling system with the client uh relationship management uh solution incorporated in that for voice contacts and their local administrative lines. Uh we continue to collect uh any requests for feature development and the
093Buckaloo users um provide numerous requests for feature enhancements um around call handling functionality, supervisor monitoring capabilities, CRM workflow enhancements, reporting improvements, caller information presentation, uh recording access and managed overall system stability, technical iss issues and performance um are what we're finding there. I think probably a lot of what's being described here might overlap with the 175 technical requirements that have been referenced uh as being needed. Um so that's the standing of that situation as it is right now. Um with reference and I think it was brought up earlier to the SAMA uh memorandum of understanding. Uh it's SAMA is still reviewing the MOU that we last provided to them. Um and they have not and they have not yet received clearance to move forward with signing from their leadership. So still pending uh with our
094partners at the federal level. And let's see. Uh I have a note here that SAMA has directed Vibrant to move ahead with interfacing 988 voice contacts with the statewide solution similar to the Buckaloo programs deployment. Uh however, they want to hold off on sending text and chats to that solution until theou is finalized. So I hope that's uh clear as to where this where it stands with theou. And then the third item that I have here um is uh I think the Callowes 988 administrator um has recently reached out and is continuing to conduct a survey of call centers and their relative uh desire of as to whether or not to move forward with that uh call handling solution with the customer relationship management features. or if they're more inclined to take a product that
095might be offered off the market. I think um that ties in directly with that workg groupoup discussion from earlier um that had the some of the action items that we're going to take around uh defining some interoperability terms and whether there's a mandate or not. So it all kind of ties together, but uh you know just making sure that we're you know conducting a little bit of outreach and and and testing the the overall waters as to what the appetite is uh for moving forward is one of the things that I wanted the team to work on. So um with that I'll open it up to to the board members if there's any uh comments or uh statements to be made with concern to the program. Terry Galvin. Yeah. >> Um do we have any
096idea why they are um Vibrate wants to hold back text and chat? Have you been given any? >> I I don't have an answer to that question uh in front of me. I don't know that we do have an idea um per se. I know, you know, they they also have been going through some um some lead leadership changes there. And so, uh, you know, it could tie to that. It could tie to um administrative policy decisions at that level as well. Um, so I I'm afraid we just don't have have that information. >> And after Buckaloo, do you have um an idea of who you were hoping to pilot next? Um I don't think there was necessarily a preference. Um so I wouldn't say that we're predisposed to go in any one uh direction
097from there. I think the way we've approached it up to this point has been you know around a question of willingness and um you know I I don't think we've gotten to a point where we've had more than one uh willing um call center at a time. So, it hasn't been a decision that needed to be made. I think we just moved to the to the next one that we had, but as of right now, I'm not sure um what that next one would be. >> And then finally, is there any idea of when it will move out of its current state? >> Uh, no. Well, I I well I have some idea, but I I'm afraid it's not sufficiently precise as to be helpful. >> Thank you. >> So, I apologize for that. Any
098other any other comments from the board? Looks like Sherry, your hands up. >> Sorry about that. Couldn't get myself off of mute right there. Uh, Steve, you mentioned um that there was a survey happening about about cent's interest in moving forward. Did you say that has been distributed or you're going to do that? Because I I don't recall us getting anything. >> No, it's it's ongoing. So, if you haven't been contacted yet, then you will be. >> Okay. But the idea being that, you know, wanting to understand from all of the all of the remaining call centers where they're at with that. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yep. Okay. Um All right. But I guess uh all right. Uh moving to our next agenda item then. Um this is the Cal California Health and
099Human Services update section. And I'll turn it over to Dr. Buouie. >> Thank you. Um looking for slides to come up. Thank you. Next slide, please. As I just have some brief updates covering um the policy advisory group uh that's been um meeting as well as next steps on our annual progress report on AB98 implementation. Uh can you go to slide four, please? All right. So the um COH HHS 988 crisis policy advisory group met in January and April of 2026 um and also held four workg groupoup meetings discussing um uh integration of 98A into the crisis careum and sustainable funding of the 98 system. Um the work groups um and policy advisor group shared updates, learned about pro progress toward building an equitable, accessible, highquality behavioral health crisis system, acknowledged and discussed opportunities and
100challenges for implementing the vision for the statewide behavioral health crisis care continuum. Uh we gathered input to shape work group priorities as well as discuss what information should be shared with stakeholders and the public in the upcoming progress report and communications. Next slide please. Um just a highlight in terms of what uh update on the partnership with the travel project. I believe I talked about way back in the fall of last year. As you know, um, on July 17th, the national 98 specialized service for LGBTQ plus young people was discontinued. Cal HHS worked with the Trevor Project to, uh, provide, um, the state's 98 crisis counselors, enhanced competency training, um, to ensure better attunement to the needs of LGBTQ plus young people on top of the spec training that crisis centers already receive. The Trevor
101Project um uh tailored and delivered four 90minute learning modules over the course of um December to April and they were over 80 facilitated virtual trainings to over 500 attendees. Um so that's been concluded with a really um excellent um feedback and um review um that attendees really enjoyed um the um the lessons as well as um feel like it enhance their knowledge um and would certainly um want to continue the training certainly for new uh uh crisises counselors as well as those who want to um attend. So therefore, the Trevor Project has made recorded trainings available to all California crisis centers until um the end of uh June of 2027. Uh next slide, please. Just a quick um uh update on what we're working on. So we are currently um uh working on updating our
102website on 988. Uh we are gathering information from our state partners um as well 98 crisis centers as to um work that has been done this past year on implementing 98 as well as u plans for next fiscal year on what we'll do to implement AB988. We aim to have a public comment period for the draft report on implementation in September of this year. And uh we aim to publish the first annual progress report on AB9A implementation um by December of this year. And that's it for updates. >> All right. Thank you for that. Any any comments or questions from the board members on that update from Health and Human Services? All right. Uh then we'll move to uh our next agenda item. Agenda item number nine. Um this is where we solicit uh any
103agenda items for future meetings. Does the board have any any items they would like to see added to future meeting agendas? I I would like to perhaps in the future revisit data ownership. I feel like there there may be more comments. I just was not super prepared today and so I I don't want all of our silence to say that it's we've covered everything that that might be a concern. >> Sounds good. We'll include that next time. >> I have a qu I have a question. So um I believe on the the last meeting um we I or the previous meeting it was um regarding 988 centers not specifically having any sort of mapping for the or they will never get the location I guess of the caller or the texter. Um, I guess my
104concern and I don't know if this has already been established and this is something going forward like it's set in stone like 988 will never have access to their location but I guess my concern I guess being somebody in like the trenches of it I guess would be what happens if you know we there is a there is somebody that they're on they're on the phone with 98 and there is no way to locate them and they've already taken pills and then or they've already done something to um I guess they they have a plan. They've set it in motion and there's no way to locate them. So I guess my and then 988 then transfers it to us and we have nothing to go off of like no no anything. So, I guess I
105guess on my end, we could try to do like a um it's called a reverse call where you can contact, you know, AT&T, mobile, T-Mobile, try to locate the number through there. But I guess my question is um the is there ever going to be a possibility or is there anything being looked into as far as having 988 have access to the location of the caller so that it actually helps on the 911 side to send help quicker and to in dire situations actually get help to the person that is incapacitated. did. >> Uh, it's a great question. I mean, because the use case that you're describing is, I don't know, not not the first one that people think of when when they talk about not wanting to have the location data attached, right? And
106so I think um you know there could potentially be uh technology solutions that could be brought to bear once it's transferred across >> to the 911 side of the house. Um then it opens up some things. But I think directly to the question you're asking, I don't think there is a plan or intention or even maybe even desire to have location data associated with a contact on the 988 side. I don't know that that will change. So, and I'm happy to hear from any other members of the board on that topic if they're uh perhaps have some more information. >> Yeah, I'd love to comment on that one, Steve. Um, it's Sherry. >> This is a really important issue and I'm glad you're bringing it up. Um, I think at least on behalf of Dee
107Hirs and many of the other centers I've seen across the nation, it's very unusual um that we would ever just transfer a caller to 988 who needs intervention. um it's it's much more likely that the person um who's in crisis would remain on the line with the counselor and a supervisor would contact uh 911 to get some additional help sent to that caller. Um so it cuz we don't we don't like the scenario of just sort of you know it's it can be very intimidating um for people who are in suicidal crisis to just be kind of after having a really you know what maybe hopefully feels to them safe and and you know therapeutic call to then be you know put online with a dispatcher who maybe is not prepared to do that kind
108of conversation. Um and and so um but we do have challenges that what you've just mentioned is is important because there are some times where when we call 911 and we're asking for help for intervention. Um we don't do intervention very often because we usually deescalate folks, but as you noted, there are some people that are in imminent danger. Um and we do need help and we aren't always able to quickly give that information. Um, but it does come in, as you said, Steve, with lots and lots of privac privacy concerns and, you know, many people may not even be willing to call 988 if they think that that the result of the call might be for for law enforcement or someone else to come out. So, I guess what I'm saying is that this
109is a really really nuanced issue and and I think that there is more discussion that could be needed here to see if there are ways that we can continue to protect and respect the privacy uh and the trust of the community that would be wanting to use our services and and also potentially have, you know, successful ways of of doing intervention if and when that's needed. and ideally according to our policies and procedures with the least intrusive intervention and the collaboration of the caller. Um, so I I love that you're interested in this and and I think that we should have further discussions about it. >> Thank you. Um also for um the August and November meetings, I think it'd be great to um discuss the search charge. >> Um one I think like pre
110the search charge going into effect and then uh one would be post and then just one point of clarification. Um uh I think we were I had seen uh the the date was August 26th. Is it August 12th or 26th? I was just uh putting a note for Steve to remind everybody it's currently listed as August 20th. It's been changed to the 12th and counter invites will be sent out today. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. >> Well, there we go. Um yeah so as to your comment about the agenda items for the search charge I'll say uh for everybody's edification here our standing practice um will be to address the search charge on both of those the August and November meetings each year. So those are the those are the two meetings of the
111year that occur in the portion of the budget cycle where it makes sense. So after the budget passes and goes into effect on July 1st, then it makes sense for us to start calculating how much revenue is required to meet what has been appropriated in that budget. And of course with the due date of having to deliver that to the tax and fee administration for implementation by uh January 1st then it makes sense for us to also talk about it in the November time frame. So as a standing practice we intend in those uh last two meetings of the calendar year is when we will uh address those items. So thank you for that. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Y all right. Um, anything else on that agenda item from the board members? All
112right. Uh, then we'll move on uh to agenda item number 10. Uh, this is public comment for matters not on the agenda. Uh, so if there are any members of public here in the room who would like to make comments, we'll start there. Um, please make your way to the podium and keep your remarks to under three minutes if you please. All right, not seeing any movement in the room. We'll turn our attention to our online attendees. It looks like I have a hand up. Uh Naris, if you'd like to make your public comment, please. >> Yes, thank you everyone. I'm Naris Dylan, executive director of crisis support services of Alama County and president of California's 988 Consortium. I will say I had my hand up after item 7, but an opportunity for public comment
113was not provided. Um, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that at the May 12th oversight hearing, Steve shared with the legislature that the timeline for the 911 system, the new 911 system being up and running is 2030. So to me, that says that true interoperability is not possible till 2030. And I understand that at this following meeting interoperability will be defined and discussed. However, I would like this group to consider actually pausing spending further dollars on interoperability if interoperability is not achievable until the 911 system is up and running. My worry is that Callowas continues to receive significant amount of 988 searchcharge dollars um without real movement on the pri priorities that has been assigned to them. Additionally, the lack of ability to staff the workg groups and the lack of movement on
114any of the agenda items between quarterly meetings is extremely disheartening. To attend a quarterly meeting and to hear that nothing has happened on agenda item after agenda item um shows how much the 988 system is continuing to be dep prioritized by callas. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, any other comments online? All right. Not seeing any hands, then we'll move on. Uh, our next agenda item, agenda item number, uh, number 11, pardon me, um, is to adjourn the meeting. So, uh, we can consider ourselves hereby adjourned. Thank you everybody.