you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the data that we have. Task Force recommended minimum acceptable standards based on national best practices, which include at least one court security officer or CSO present in the courtroom whenever a court proceeding is being held. Second CSO assigned to certain types of court proceedings as outlined in your staff report on page two and an additional Roving CSO on each floor that contains one or more courtrooms or judicial chambers. With regards to entry and parking, the Task Force noted that the best practice is to provide secure attached underground parking for all judicial officers. They recommended that any new or expanded facilities going forward include this type of parking. Since it's not feasible to retrofit most existing buildings throughout the state, the task force recommended that each jurisdiction that does not currently have secure attached parking work with the administrative office of the courts to implement measures like enclosure of the parking area, quick lift gate systems, video intercom systems and so on. Regarding the third recommendation, third area of secure public spaces, the task force recommended a variety of practices to harden facilities and secure them, including reinforced glass and vulnerable areas, video surveillance, securing furniture in the courtroom to the floor, to the extent possible. being judicial officers moving within the court, the task force recommended that officers not be required to enter public areas in connection with ordinary duties. If it is necessary that they do so, they should be accompanied or monitored by security personnel. And the task force also emphasized the importance of proper security screening. With regards to the legislative proposals for each of these areas, the task force issued a number of recommendations regarding the personnel standards, the task force recommended a state mandate to provide adequate personnel, which would be supported by transitional state funding, regarding the secure public spaces and secure parking the task force recommended that the state provide for two separate non-lapsing funds, one fund for each of these items that would be funded over the same five-year period for one-time expenses related to these operations. The final note in your packet on page three as some additional analysis conducted by Council staff to better understand the role that external law enforcement organizations play in maintaining judicial safety. The chart, table one, at the bottom of page three, is a summary of emergency courthouse calls for service by calendar year as divided between the district court and the circuit court in the county and then divided by responding department between MCPD and the Rockville police department. You'll notice from the total column on the right hand side of the chart that the number of calls for service has increased annually from 2021 to 2024. Council staff does note that the beginning of this chart, the year's 2021 and 2022, correspond with the later stages of the courts phased reopening after COVID. And so there may have been fewer people at the Courthouse in general, but nevertheless, the number of calls for services increased. With that happy to answer any questions or turn it over to our colleagues to discuss their experiences. Let's turn it over to our colleagues, discuss their experiences. Let's turn it over to our colleagues please if they'd like to come forward. Again thank you all very very much for being here and for everything you do. Well, yeah, we're as you can see we, we're not in our usual room and we appreciate all the assistance we can get though. It's, it's not as bad as I thought it was going to be. So, I don't know how bad I thought it was going to be. So anyhow, judge, if you, if they panel could please introduce themselves and then we'll turn to you, Judge Bonfool. You have to push that little button. Yeah. And just to make things very confusing in this room, if it's green, it's on the other room, if it's red, it's on. So any. Well, Council Member Katz, Council Member Rookie, Council Member Mick, thank you for having us. I'm Jim Bonifin. I'm the administrative judge at Circuit Court. I want to take one moment. I'll allow everybody to introduce themselves, but I do want to thank all of you and the Council for the obvious seriousness that you all are taking this issue. We take it very seriously and we've been assisted by the Council and I really do appreciate it with what you all just did. We'll go over in a few minutes some of the things I'd like to point out to you that continue to be problems. But again, thank you. It's a problem. I know everybody has a limitation of resources that we've got to do the best we can with the resources we have. But I'm really pleased. So thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Judge Deborah Dwyer. I'm an associate judge on the Circuit Court here in Montgomery County. Thank you all for having me. Good afternoon. My name is Kena Jones. I'm the assistant sheriff at the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office. Again, good afternoon. Maxwell, we I'm the sheriff here in Montgomery County. Again, council members, I appreciate the opportunity to present for you. I would like to note that also joining us in the back, our captain, Chad Alloy. He's my division commander for our court services division, as well as Ms. Mona Cabrera. And she helps us navigate the budget issues. Thank you. Well, I was going to see who else is going to introduce themselves. As I went through the report and with the meetings I have with the sheriff and the other members of the security committee, we have at the court. The staffing of the Sheriff's Department continues to me to be the biggest problem that we face. We've gotten to the point now where the sheriff's keep me informed every morning as to whether they're able to cover all of the courtrooms. And then I send that message out to my colleagues and say we're short here in this courtroom, that courtroom please be patient because we're not gonna start proceedings until that starts. The other area of concern that I have is, quite frankly, the manner and the way individuals who come to the courthouse are behaving and it's becoming a serious problem. So much so that we've been working on a administrative order that I've been taking too long to get finalized. But it is a situation that to serve somebody with a show cause order, asking them to come before me to explain why I should not order that every time they come to the courthouse, they need to first notify the sheriff's office. That's a big deal because we have to be an open facility to make sure everybody knows this is where you come to resolve your disputes. But there have been instances where people have been so out of outrageous that they're interfering with others who are coming to the courthouse. So much so recently we had an individual who was second in line after this person just berated the sweetest individual we have at the courthouse. This individual said, here's my name, let me know if you ever need a witness to watch that. So we're, but that's time and time and time again. So that those are individuals with their behavior in the courtroom or a courthouse. We have others who are quite honestly threatening judges through emails and Judge Dwyer probably can comment on the situation she's had to deal with. But Judge Dwyer is not alone. Right now we're dealing with another with Judge Barry, Judge Chanosky, Judge Fairfax. They've all received threatening emails. Fortunately, part of the Wilkinson Act set up the Judicial Threat Center that's down in Annapolis and Mr. Hissger has been terrific and the Sheriff's Office has been terrific because every time we get to the point that we feel that a threat needs to be brought to their attention. They are on it like that and not only providing security at the courthouse, but at our judges' home as well. So that now the other areas we have individuals who are threatening courthouse staff as well. well. And we had a situation where an individual appeared. I don't want to give too much detail because I don't want to give too much detail because I don't want to give too much information regarding this one individual. But this person appeared at an employee of the courthouse's home at 10 o'clock at night on a Sunday night and this individual was staying at a parent's house. We don't know how this individual got that information. So that's how serious it is. It wasn't like they could look in the land records. So look at, you know, in the telephone book or any telephone book any normal way showing my age age. So it's still concerning as to how this person found that address. But that's what's going on right now. So that's what I want to make sure that you all are aware of. I'll take any question. Just one. Good. You know, I strongly support what Judge Bonifant just said. The behavior of individuals who come into our courthouse has escalated into just outrageousness. And you know something that happens, I think, probably every single day in that courthouse. And sometimes we don't even notify Judge Bonifant on Friday I was doing a family docket. And just a typical family docket. And there were no sheriffs in the courtroom. I didn't feel I needed any sheriffs in the courtroom. And one of the litigants just was out of control. And he didn't like my ruling. He was up and down in his seat. He was yelling, screaming, carrying on. And I asked my law clerk, please get a sheriff. We did not ring the bell for an emergency. But the sheriffs came immediately, and more than one sheriff came immediately. And he calmed immediately, he was calmed down. And that's all I needed that day. But other days, Judge Bonapet mentioned the threats. This individual was not threatening me in any way, but he was concerning to everyone in the courtroom, and you could see it on their faces. But then, sometimes, we issue rulings where a party is very dissatisfied, and that's when the threats come. And I recently, I'd say in the last five months, had an individual who I ruled against him in a custody, matter another family matter. And his behavior was outrageous, as Judge Bonifin said, threatening, the blood of my children will be on your hands. And this doesn't end here. And it was repeated over and over and over again. My staff was concerned, my law clerk, my admin aide, were very concerned for their own safety, that he would show up. The sheriffs immediately provided us with reassurance. They provided us, you know, they called, Montgomery County Police got involved and called and visited this person and told him it had to stop. And so far, for the last, I think, five weeks it has stopped. But those are the things we're faced with way too often and and when I say every day something happens in a courtroom I don't think that's an exaggeration so you know we appreciate the the sheriff's staff they are as responsive and we all appreciate everything they do for us but but it can be overwhelming. So I will say that I appreciate those comments for small judges. This is not gonna be news, but just to reiterate, my current staff and we're not unique to the sheriff's office, we're unfortunately facing roughly a 20% deficit in our frontline staffing. You're gonna be seeing it later as these budgets are being presented to some of our initiatives that we're doing. Recently, I have shifted resources to support our court needs, but everything comes at a price, right? So our domestic violence section, for instance, some of our other sections, which are also critical, right? Our convictions are a huge concern here in the county, and we want to make sure that we're providing the services that our residents expect. However, obviously we all have to make tough choices. So So we had our non-sworn professional staff do a little bit more or a little different duties in their use to and shifted different shifts. So what I just want to say to you is when we look at the when we look at the report and we'll probably get into that more here shortly Montgomery County is in a unique position being the most populous county. We have such a wide range of things that occur in that courthouse. It really is a small city, whether it's adoptions, marriages, divorces, criminal matters, other civil matters, they're going on every day. And the Sheriff's Office, of course, we don't have the, I'm not gonna say luxury, but we don't have the ability to hold a call. If you have a patrol officer in the municipality or somewhere in the county, they also have to prioritize what they respond to. And we know that our county police partners and others are also facing staffing challenges. So the one thing about the courthouse is, we have to find a way to meet all those needs otherwise. We just can't hold calls. I think you get where I'm going. So I know we're going to have further discussion, but I appreciate the conversation. Well again, thank you. It's always been a concern about safety. I mean, I have to say the obvious. But and we're certainly very aware about the staffing, not just for chair of spits, but for every first responder that we have in Montgomery County. And it goes beyond that as well nationwide. And we'll get the county executive's suggested budget this Friday and then we'll start to try to figure out what we do and what we don't have and how we can get there. But I know that the, whether or not, for instance, the cameras, the camera of feeds that, whether they, do you share the, I guess, a Jorian question, do you share the, the courthouse cameras with the police and is that work? So we are in discussions and we're working with Judge Bonifant. There are challenges to having access to our security cameras for a lot of reasons within the building. We are in conversations with our county police partners to perhaps look at some external. camera support. You know, I recognize, you know, this hearing is obviously a public venue. So I don't want to get into specifics of the security room. uh uh camera support. You know I recognize you know this hearing is is obviously um a public venue so I don't want to get into specifics of the security. But but we're we're looking at that and this was already said once by Judge Dwyer and I can't stress it enough. The amazing partnerships we have with our county police partners as well as our municipalities specifically with Rockville. So they are just great partners. And when we have unfortunately seen these increases in incidents that are concerning incidents, whether they're bailed or specific threats, I cannot express how much chief Yamada's team has been responsive and supportive. And of course, there are always coming and going from the courth. I mean, Mayor Police, obviously. If I can respond to this question, we have, and I put it in the form of an administrative order in procedure and place now, so that we can any individual associated with court house sheriffs, County Attorney's Office, me, we receive a subpoena, somebody wants to see that camera. Well, we start from a position of everything's open. We have to start them. But we also have to make sure that the strategies and that are adopted by the sheriffs with regard to where the cameras are, where the station people is not compromised by responding to a request for one of the videos. The other is absolutely have to keep jurors confidential and that's it's a real concern in the last couple of years we've had at least two cases that I think off top of my head where there's been jury intimidation or something like that. So that is a big issue that the judiciary at the state level is addressing right now. But by at least getting a process in place that we had, now everybody's not funneling around wondering how to rehandle this, and by not knowing exactly who to contact, we're in a better position to make sure the right decision is made with regard to what video should be turned over or something like that. Yeah, Logan, are we going to go through March 3rd? How are you going to work then? I'm happy to sort of visit each of these items one by one and give the to come. And then if you all want to comment as we go through, yeah, sure. So just before we walk through the report, so I served on the task force and and you know, it was a pleasure and an honor to do so and to elevate these issues, recognizing that all 24 jurisdictions across the state have widely varying situations. Everything from where the parking is to the buildings being anywhere from over 200 years old in some portions of our courthouses to three years old. So they varied widely and with respect specifically to the funding issues since we are here and budget season is upon us and was very cognizant of trying to find that middle ground which was the route they chose as the recommended preference to have a mix of state and local funding to help get this right-sized over a span of time, recognizing that not all of it could be done all at once. But one of the things that I thought was really critical and we did have a discussion about during the task force meetings, but it only warranted a small sentence in the report was that I said that all personnel working in a courthouse should have a minimum level of behavioral threat assessment training to understand what it is and to remove the potential that they might discount something as a threat that is a threat vice versa. Because, you know, we tell everyone see something, say something, and certainly when there's a incident unfolding in the courtroom itself, it's very clear. A lot of times there are other observations that people may be making in the hallway that might warrant someone saying heads up, they're headed to such and such courtroom seems a little off might require some extra handling in there, right? Because they're transient through the lobby or through the court clerk when they're interacting with them, but that would be useful if people are more attuned to that, just sharing so that we could be more preemptive in how we're managing things, recognizing that we have limited personnel with which to handle these things. So I just wanted to highlight that before Logan started. Please Logan. So visiting the matter of adequate security personnel, the task force again recommended these minimum standards on page two of their report. At least one court security officer present in the court rooms, but second assigned to court proceeding in which an in custody participant is present, or they're the proceeding that may result in a participant being amended to custody, and or the presiding officer or security personnel have reason to believe that additional security may be necessary. And in addition to that, an additional roving CSO on each floor with one or more classrooms or judicial chambers. These officers should meet the standards for a special police officer as approved by the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission. or for sworn law enforcement officer as required by the hiring authority and also have any additional court specific training that's necessary. With regards to the circuit court and the district court, the standard is currently met by the district court. Now mention that we have some guests here as well from the district court who'd be able to speak to that further. This particular standard that was recommended by the task force is not currently met in the Montgomery County Circuit Court nor that met in the other three courts, circuit courts in the state with the largest jurisdictions, nor for that matter, and half the state circuit courts overall. So the county is not alone in not currently meeting the standard. The Sheriff's Office is an accredited law enforcement agency through Kalea, and so does pursue best practices by staffing continues to be a challenge. The only other recommendation from the task force of note in this area is regarding bay lifts in the district court, the task force did recommend converting the bay lifts that are on contract status to full time employee status as well. If I could, and I don't know if there's someone here from the district court that wanted to speak to this, did you want to come forward and speak? And as you're coming forward, please identify yourself. If if I could ask the sheriff and others who are directly involved is four budgets. If you could let us know, and I understand we have a staff in front of them and just like you understand it. But if you could let us know what numbers you need in order to do what is being suggested, if we can hire that many people. So, sorry, did was cut off your mic. Does he look like the sheriff of what? Yeah, he's the sheriff. First off, I appreciate Logan highlighting that we are in a credit agency. We're actually happened to be back in 95, the first accredited sheriff's office in the state of Maryland. We've successfully been reaccredited every session thereafter. So what does that mean if I can just briefly say again, that means that we we don't just do the minimum standards set by the Merrill Police Correctional Training Commission or other entities, but that we really look at best practices, we look at our policies, et cetera, et cetera. So we did, my office did submit for your awareness, did submit a fiscal impact statement if we were to meet the recommendations. And generally, I'm in support of the recommendations of the task force. It's just how do we get there, right? Right. And again, not to get into specifics of our security measures because this is a very safe courthouse, but we always want to do better. And so we would look at a significant increase in our staffing. And there is a reference in there of having special police officers currently we utilize sworn deputies in the sheriff's office within the circuit court. And there's a lot of good reasons for that. The deputies may not stay only in the court section. They have a lot of other dynamic duties. They may be serving protection orders. They may be effectuating or ready for warrants or other things. And I'm still committed to providing nothing against our special police officer partners, but providing the best level of service that we can. So it really matters how do we get there? So we can definitely discuss that at the appropriate time, but it would require a significant additional staffing allotment to the sheriff's office. And once you give us the number, once we get that number, it's not like the next day, you, yeah, they have to go through training, et cetera. So that's absolutely correct. Now, I would like to point out real quick, some positive things. Since becoming sheriff, I've really made recruiting and retention of priority, specifically recruiting. And as you noted, Council member Katz, that you don't just hire a deputy or county police officer on day one and have them on the street day two, right? There is a process to the hiring process that takes time and there's a reason it takes time We want to make sure that we are conducting a proper background We're making sure that we're psychologically testing we're testing physical Medical screening and doing all that and then we're providing that baseline entry level training, which is roughly six months, additionally another three months of field training. So that's your minimum amount of time that you're investing. And even then, just because you get an officer or a deputy that's technically certified, they don't have that experience component, right? And that's why we want to be very cautious. And we know that as we're, we've seen significant retirements over the last couple of years and all of our agencies that were backfilling that with experience or we're making sure we're providing that training to these new deputies. Okay, thank you. Please. You can identify us. Here you are. My name is Steve Barlow. I'm the District Court Security Manager, and I also served on the Security Task Force. Speaking to the bail of position as special police officers and the allotted staffing in Montgomery County, specifically, we a lot to special police officers per courtroom, and then we also allow for two of them at the medical detector and extra machine, the security screening areas. That doesn't mean that we're fully up to full staffing here in Montgomery County, but it like the sheriff also has problems, you know, trying to recruit and fill all of his positions. The bail of position is the same. We do leverage experience 90. I think it's 92% of our bail of special police officers are all prior police and those that weren't prior police officers have been prior correctional officers. So we've leveraged that experience into the SPO program and you know it doesn't provide for the same level of police authority as a sheriff does but the powers are the same on that specific property. We just don't have the ability to transport, photograph and do all those things afterwards. They just found a gun at Silverhouse on this afternoon as I changed the year. So coming through the screening area. So it's a very important job, as the sheriff said. There's a lot of consequences if it's not done properly. And I'm happy to answer any questions that I can for you guys. Okay, thank you. So where's Logan? There's Logan, yeah. Logan landed right back in with the crowd there, and then say, so I mean, I don't know that there's any disagreement that we need to do, what we need to do for staffing and just how do we get there? So, I don't know if there's any other comments. I was just wondering if if Judge Dwyer and Judge Bonifin and if I don't want to make you come back up. up. But if you have anything to add after they speak, sure, surely, the data that was in our packet that we received is COVID-era data onward. And I wanted you to have the opportunity to comment about what you're seeing now versus pre-pandemic scenarios in the courthouse. So, LaCos, you're going to lead your honor there you. Yeah, relax, and I don't know whether people just became more relaxed or. Develop their socialization skills afterwards, but it's across the board. There's so many more individuals representing themselves now and they give frustrated. And that's what I see. And it is so important for judges and I'll tell you to take on the skills that I've watched of former Captain Bean, Johnny Bean of the Sheriff's Office. I had I had an individual who was 75 years old, he refused to leave the table. And of course, the young attorney on the other side was pushing for this individual to be incarcerated. And that's all he needed to hear. They said, yes, locked me up, and he was not going, and I had a courtroom full of people waiting for this. And they teach us, they call it baby judge school, and when things like that happen, get off the bench so the deputies don't have to worry about you, they can control things. And Captain B. came up, he calmed the individual down and just did a terrific job. And talked to the young attorney later saying, you know, where, what's going, you know, we're not going to incarcerate somebody's 76 years old and we're civil infraction. That's really what it was. Right. Right. And I think about that often, where if I can take that moment, look at the person in the eye and make sure they know that they're heard and then tell them the reasons for the decision that I'm making. And that just comes down. You know, I make have other avenues, that they disagree, they think, emphasize to them that I don't mind push that system lightly. I do mind attorneys of that a lot. But it's still, a lot of times I think it starts with me. We're the ones who have the power, don't abuse it. Just speak to the people, make sure they're being heard. And that'll wet the air out of the balloon. And I think about that often. And I've said that to Kevin B as well. And what a good job. He did. Of course, I had a room full of people. And my brother was in the back to the court room. And he came around to have lunch with me. you call yourself a judge. As only a brother. Yeah, great. I did. around to have lunch with me. You call yourself a judge. As only a brother. Yeah. Great. I had never heard the term baby judges school until I became a law clerk for a brand's bank and new appellate judge who had to go to baby judges school during my clerkship. And so for 25 years, I have recognized that as the official way you all refer to the place new judges go for their onboarding is baby judges. Here's what a good bench you have in Montgomery. Judge Barry, which is just asked to be the judge in charge of onboarding. Excellent. Excellent. That's a real honor that the fellow judge Ricken is asked to do hear. So it's I'm very proud of our bench. The whole is as we all know. Is de-escalation training? Yeah, because we know we talk about it in the context of law enforcement, but this de-escalation training portion of baby judge's school and and in terms of because I know there's an annual judicial conference, right? How much of a focus has there been on de-escalation or behavioral threat assessment inside that annual conference? Not not too much, but I predict that to change in light of judge Wilkinson's death. But I want to echo what Judge Bonifin said. I don't know if COVID had anything to do with what we're seeing. I do think there's just a general lack of decorum and respect. I have seen it with jurors that we are trying to select. They're being brought in of course, and some of them are quite disgruntled. And then you see it of course with litigants. And I think Judge Bonifant made a good point. We're seeing a lot more litigants who are self-represented, which is, you know, access to justice is a big goal of ours. You know, we want the courthouse doors to be open to anyone to come in and have the court hear their dispute. I do think, particularly in a family law setting, I was a prosecutor for 28 years and the federal level and here in the county, I never felt threatened in a court-room as a prosecutor. By anyone in that court, I never had to ask for help. I never had to ask for protection. And what I see now is family court is very volatile. It is dangerous. And the emotions are running high, particularly with individuals who are representing themselves. And they feel as if the system is not fair, they don't understand all the rules that are in place. And as much as Judge Bonifant and myself and my colleagues tried to assist them, we cannot try the case for them. And there is a level of frustration I have seen in Family Court that I'd never, ever saw as a prosecutor. And as I said last Friday, it was a very volatile situation. And you could see people's, on people's faces, the other litigants in that courtroom, they were concerned and afraid by the loud voice, the up and down at the table, the yelling at the judge. You know, it's a concerning situation. The emotions are high. So I don't know that it has anything to do with post with COVID, but you know, the world has changed and the level of respect that used to be commanded in a courtroom in a court house, it is not there to the point We think it is and it's my understanding that the the increase in pro-Sail it against is not just a circuit court issue It's highly I, I mean, it was always, it was always decently prevalent in the district court, but that it has also risen exponentially in the district court as well. And it's rather. Yes. So I just, I think, you think it turned out to be helpful for you as well, even it's turning off. So I just wanted to say there is a significant mental health component, most of the threats that we see, the district court security office, handles all the threats for district court in conjunction with the judicial grant management center. And so there's, I would say, 80% or more of all of the threats or disobedience, some of the issues there, all have a mental health component. On that, at the judicial conference, there's gonna be an hour and a half presentation on de-escalation for the bench, and for what the sheriffs are trained in through the Mount Place Training Commission, what the bailiffs are trained in, and as part of that, they're gonna have on someone with a mental health presentation on that's actually suffered from that. So I won't be there a deputy from Howard County is going to present on my behalf because I'm not able to make it, but I would encourage everyone to attend that they can. And when you get the threats that you are in fact researching with the office at the administrative office of the courts that has that division, what is the interplay between them and local law enforcement who may have had other encounters with these individuals or with the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center. So, look, Hescroft, I'm the Judicial Threat Management Center. It maintains a very large database of any type of threat that comes in the person. We do the same thing in District Court. And then of course District Court and the Judicial Threat shares information we talked about the times of the day everything. And coordination with that in most cases of the judicial threat management center will contact the sheriff's respective counties because they're the ones who are in charge of the of the circuit court security. from there, I mean, thinking of you all different kinds of tools to find out more about someone. There's clear. There's a bunch of different tools to use to do that. And then in many cases, with a thread, they'll do a thread analysis based on points and try to see how credible it is. And then a lot of times they will, you know, sign someone for additional security for something like that is it works. Are they checking to see if they're because we happen to have folks who are indiscriminate as to which branch of government they are targeting on a given day it may rotate right but you know know particularly at the state, you know, there might have been threats within the executive branch that were also threats within the legislative branch and so on. Is that part of the analysis here? And I'm thinking back to the Christopher Hassen case where I mean, again, we don't have a domestic domestic terrorism federal charge in the United States, it's problem. But you know that individual had a hit list that was varying, it was elected officials, it was appointed officials, it was members of the judiciary. Right, so what kind of nexus is there with overlapping entities or folks within local law enforcement departments that are also doing behavioral threat assessment so that we are not letting something fall through the cracks? So again, we're very fortunate that we have really great partnerships and can't say enough great things about our partners at the state level. And again, when we get that information, not only are we having conversations and notifying any potentially infected judges, as well as judge pontiffent, but again, working with our county police partners that have other resources that can determine, you know, I remember the specific case you're talking about with that Coast Guard officer and I think you might have been sitting next to me when we were briefed on it. And we continue to to work on it. And I think we're a lot better today than we were then but we always want to do better. One thing I would like to just highlight that I don't think we've talked about yet, I agree. Everything the judges have said, it's been presented. But again, not only I believe we're having more and more instances of folks that are frustrated, that are acting out, that are showing this concerning behavior, the amount of work that's coming through the circuit core continued to increase. And I think what's happening is all of us we're seeing that are a lot of staffing and other things just have not kept up. So when you look at the Family Justice Center and you all know that falls under the share of sauce but the complete partnership with so many other stakeholders, the amount of protective orders that are coming at peace orders continues to increase. And I know that one of the things we're going to be doing under our budget submission is trying to look at more client assistant specialists to deal with those issues. And as Judge Dwyer said, it's those civil cases oftentimes, which are some of the most concerning. Now that being said, we currently have a four defendant, co-defendant murder trial going on the circuit court, and we are seeing more and more of these very serious crimes in the county. Now Montgomery County is a very safe county, but again, with 1.1 growing million people, we have a number of serious crimes that occur in the county. All that takes resources. And that's something the Sheriff's Office, we didn't have to deal with multiple murder trials going on multiple defendants MS 13 members. We're just those are all drawing resources. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. She'll call you back up in a second. appreciate all the background kidding. Appreciate all the background. Everything that's been said today. This is important and glad that we're getting to have some of the conversation. Now that we're obviously going to have to continue through, you know, operating discussions. I'm just curious if we have information now about how the patterns and trends that you are seeing on the ground here look at the state level nationwide, I would assume that there's echoes. I don't know if there's something that we know now, but I would just be interested in if there's, you know, things that we can learn there. I keep track of number of criminal matters we have pending the number of of custody matters pending, and the number of legal matters pending. The, for the first time this past month, we went back under having a thousand open criminal matters. We've consistently been thousand fifty for the past year. And to put that into context, prior to the pandemic, we had 650 open criminal matters. So we have these additional cases. I believe we brought it down. It's not bringing up the judges meeting tonight. The other is the custody matters. We have experienced a reduction over the last few months and the number of open custody matters. And maybe it's because I give those priority. I overbook the judges. I give them two and three cases each and every day. And then a week, two weeks before the week of trials, I sit down and give priority to the ones that are going to be heard. And so I have to give the physical custody cases priority over others because we need to resolve this as possible. In Montgomery County, with different than other jurisdictions around the state, we bifurcate family cases, meaning that we handle it, hold a trial to address the custody issues within four to five months that's ago. And then all the other issues are resolved at the final, we call it final marriage, which could be a year from now. And I frustrate a lot of individuals with the marriage cases because they'll be two or three times and I've had to postpone because I will schedule those physical custody cases first. But the physical custody cases have been going down. So the strategy's working. The special area juvenile status cases that we've been handling, we've been getting on average over 100 new cases each month. Not surprisingly, the last two months that numbered has dropped significantly. And for the reasons I'm sure everybody's aware. So I keep an eye on that. So when you ask me trends and things, that's exactly what I do. We have a very good two statisticians in the court that keep me informed and they've set up a way that now I could go into every single day and know what the number of cases are. The juvenile cases, they're pretty in backup right now and that's concerning. So I would that answer your question as well. Yeah, I appreciate that. And then also the increase in volatility that you're seeing in family I wonder if that's something also that's I mean that's harder to track. I would think. But I'm just curious as to whether that's something that's being 65% of the court stopped her family cases and 70% of those. one side of the other is self-represented. That's amazing. And we were sitting and I think I could get rich judges and best turn ahead. Chief Joe Gettys sitting next to me came down. And I said that, or somebody said, you get really 65% of the tax. Is that a cause? Is that a symptom? I think we should. I think we are a county of tremendous resources and we that South Tower was built for family cases. And I think, you know, I talked about this earlier, access to justice. People understand they can walk in that courthouse. There's a family law self-help center and they take advantage of it and that's a good thing. You know, people shouldn't be required to stay in bad relationships, particularly when there's violence in those relationships. So I don't know if the volatility has anything to do with the numbers increasing. I don't know. No, I think it'll take a sociologist to figure that out, but I judge Bonifin said it. Sure. with the numbers increasing. I don't know. I think it'll take a sociologist to figure that out, but I judge Bonifin said it. Sheriff, we said it. The people that we deal with the public, I think that they are frustrated over a variety of things in their lives. And we judges, sheriffs in uniforms, are taking the brunt of that sometimes. And but I don't know what came first. And so I, but is there an increase in it? I've been on the bench for eight years now. And you know, I, I don't know if there's been an increase in it. I think perhaps there has. I think that the people are very stressed and they're, you know, the gentleman who was sitting at the end of the table where he's just now, they do not discount the mental health component. That's, I think that's obvious to all of us that that is a significant factor. Yeah, I appreciate that. And obviously, you know, there are pressing issues there right now today that we need to deal with and make sure that everybody is safe. And then there's also the further issues that we all need to discuss because we need to get to the root issues. And we have to do both. So that should be easy, right? So we're perhaps the one of the most surprising thing you said is already eight years since you've been in that scene. I said, big party we had. Yeah. So for that, when I think everybody's in agreement that we need to do what is being suggested, the, the difficult part will be to do it. But, and then I'm going to turn back to the Logan who's in and to go back, I guess, through the other points. Thank you. So the first item that maybe you just just got regarded staffing and personnel. Yeah. Second and third items both regard infrastructure to some extent. So the second item of area of concern regarding recommendations is entry and parking. The task force noted that practice is for parking for judicial officials to be secure attached and underground. Of course, this is not the both of the most existing facilities. So going forward, the task force recommended that the new facilities include that in the meantime for facilities that do not have that there were recommendations to implement measures including enclosure parking area, quick lift aid systems, video intercom systems, lighting, call box and key card systems, and security personnel escorts of judicial officers to and from the area. So our guests may be able to speak to the extent possible, or some of this would be confidential to the extent to which those have been able to be implemented. Right. And I was going to say, it once we get into the actual security, I don't know how much we want to have that discussion at this moment. But I think it would be fair to say, and my colleagues will do, if they disagree with me they'll tell me but I think it would be fair to say, and my colleagues will do it, if they disagree with me, they'll tell me, but I think it would be fair to say that we would like to figure out how we can get there and how it can be done and keep everyone safe. So am I good on that for both of those? Okay, go ahead, let's. And then the final area was regarding secure public spaces in general. The task force recommended hardening facilities with reinforced glass, which would include 4 bullet group glass and vulnerable areas, installing videos surveillance in all public areas and always securing important furniture to the floor to the extent possible and reinforcing the judicial officer's bench with bulletproof materials and locating it a safe distance from trial tables and the witness stand. Additionally, the task force recommended that officers not be required to enter public areas and connection with ordinary duties. If they do need to do so, they should be accompanied by a security personnel. And the task force also emphasized the importance of proper security screening. So this is broadly other infrastructure and security measures. And there again, I think all of us are in agreement with that. But I guess the question becomes, and the sheriff I guess would be the ones to figure, to help them figure this out, is what can be done quickly or as quickly as possible and what's gonna take longer? So without getting into specifics, currently we're meeting many of these recommendations. There's a few or not. We've been very fortunate, at least as of the past few years to receive additional funding from our state partners to provide security enhancements. And every year we continue to try to improve the existing security, whether it's updated, cameras, video retention, and other physical security items. There's still some room for growth within this report. I know that Mr. Sheridan and Judge Bonifant, you know, you've seen some formal requests to enhancing some of the physical structure at the circuit court, which is going to go a long way in providing a little bit more safety and security for judges and their immediate staff. But again, as we move forward, we'll probably put in some of this for additional budget items. Please. Mr. Sheridan that he was addressing is a court administrator to Rose back. He's waving to the S.I. I like the camera. I see the camera. I again don't want to go into specifics, but I've been very pleased with what's been taken place recently through efforts from Mr. Sheridan and the sheriff as well. Things are being done. Well, it's an and I'm glad, but it's an absolute shame that it even has to be considered. I mean, to your points earlier, the safety is just not what it used to be. And this is the way to say anything else. Anything else that we should be hearing? I'm going to take 30 seconds. Yes, sir. I have been asked to believe the Sims project in Montgomery County. And I'm excited about it. Things are happening to point. I recently had a conversation with Judge Ariel Sipinard, senior judge, she was so impressed with the services and that were provided to those who were re-entering in Howard County. And so I was invited to a meeting just last week, realized we had similar services here in Montgomery County. That's the one of the main goals of Sim is to communicate better so that everyone has better understanding of what services can be provided and what can be done. I'm confident not all the judges and bench know the reentry services that are out there and so I feel like we already have a success there. And the council may like to hear this, I think if it's successful, pure resources will be needed, as we can get services to people who are mental health crisis, who are substance abuse sooner. And we can do that, we'll keep them out of their criminal justice system. I have a fortunate thing, Judge Benoord. She's a co-chair of the reentry committee, whatever it's called. I always get committees confused in here. And then they just change the name when you say, why learn them? But she certainly is staying very active and very helpful. Thank you. Okay. We good. Thank you very much for all that you do. All right, so is it Ms. And this is up at MCCF up in Boyids. This was actually good news. The project was initially needed to prevent excess trash from entering the sanitary sewer system. They were to install new equipment that was expected to reduce sewer overflow at the wheel and lane pump station. Decrease maintenance repairs to WSSC water equipment and eliminate sewer over flow cleanup and costs and penalties from WSSC water. So the recommended change today is actually reducing expenditures by $333,000. Corrections is advised that the sewage grinders were impacted due to high volumes of batteries and latex gloves being purposely flushed down the toilets. This occurred during COVID. There were some incarcerated individuals who would flesh large amounts of latex gloves in particular. And they were also throwing batteries in the toilets. However, since July of 2024, corrections and rehabilitation implemented tablets. They implemented a tablet program for all incarcerated individuals which eliminated the need for them to provide batteries for TV headsets. And based on the fact of this program change and no need for batteries anymore, correction and rehabilitation no longer needs, a new or upgraded grinder. So this is reflecting the savings in that project. For the Justice Center project, this is the new building that would house and functions, the functions of central processing and detention here in Rockville to support processing new arrestees and detaining remanded individuals from to 72 hours. The amended project here just reflects a minor project acceleration which is shifting $9,000 from FY26 up to FY24 and there is no substantive change in the project scope. I'm recommending approval of both projects submitted. Thank you, and I get asked to panel, please introduce themselves. My name is Gregory Boykin, Deputy Director Department of General Services. Ben Stevenson, Director of the Department of Correctionary Diltation. Katie Bryant, Higgiggins, Columbia, Analyne. Thank you all for being here and for everything you do. You know, this is one of those deals that it's the very thing you don't think about. It comes back to being something you should have thought about. And this is, I mean, you have to do it. Yeah, I mean, it's reality and, you know, it's what is needed. But I'm fine with it. I don't know if everybody okay, but I don't know how you couldn't be fine with it. We need to do what we need to do. So thank you very much and thank you for everything you do. And then we have one last item today. And that is in 27 24. Some people memorize numbers. Oh, you have your notes. Some people look at their notes. No, okay. Yeah, and you're doing very very good and very trusty. We've got here. Figure out where I am. Okay. In Ms. Nidoo, how are you? Thank you for all that you're doing as well for us. And director airfield is here. In fact, when on IAS the panel to please tell us who they are. It's going to feel like some kind of a game show host here. Director Hairfield, can you please. Yeah, I'm Director Hairfield from the Office of Animal Services. Spencer Kelly at the Office of Animal Services. Adrienne Cramer with OMB. If you'd like to lead us through, please. Hello committee. I think this is my first time in public safety, which is very shocking. And you're doing a great job. It's so far. So far. Okay. So bill 2724, which is sponsored by the committee, the intent of the bill is to reduce overcrowding at the animal shelter and by accelerating the timeline for the adoption process. So under current county law and impounded animal is considered abandoned and becomes county property, If not redeemed within five days of notice being sent out to the owner, but this bill would do is reduce that time to three days. So going through the statements in the public hearing no one testified. We received no testimony. The fiscal impact statement noted that this is not expected to impact county revenues or expenditures. The economic impact statement noted in significant impact on economic conditions and the climate assessment noted no impact on the county's contribution to addressing climate change. The racial equity and social justice impact statement did have a bit more to say. It found that this could have a negative impact on racial equity and social justice in the county because reducing the time frame for pet owners to pick up their pets might negatively impact persons of color who disproportionately have limited disposable time. The thinking there being a few of three days instead of five days and you're juggling different jobs, you might not have as much time to pick up your pet. And also noted that bifop owners are less aware of local legal requirements. And there's a proposed amendment that I'll discuss towards the end of the packet. So what the build up well first I'll start with some background. This was generated by a briefing you all held in July 2024 from Maddie's million pet challenge. There is a table on page three of your staff report that breaks down by pet. So birds, cats, dogs, livestock, other, I think we've said others probably reptiles, which I think other types of birds or other types of pets here. And now it's unclaimed, reclaimed in three days, reclaimed three to five days, and after five. And you'll notice that dramatic difference basically showing that typically after three days, people are not picking up these animals. So the bill has a few changes. The first thing that the bill does is that the Office of Animal Services must notify the owner by first class mail. So the owner's last known address, the bill would add that you could also notify the owner by posting a notice on the door, which is even better and consistent with current practices. Second, also having to do with notification if the pet owner can be located under current law notices required in a newspaper. would add that you could also post on the website. For everyone listening, that's the county animal services and adopt. under current law and notices required in a newspaper, the bill would add that you could also post on the website. For everyone listening, that's the county animal services and adoption center website. If your pet is ever lost, that is where to go check. And that is also consistent with current practices. I'm going to jump to the amendments here. Before explaining what the bill currently says is introduced. So right now under under this chapter of bill, there's a five-day appeal period. So when this was reduced to five in discussion with sponsors and staff, there was this concern that if you reduce it from five days to three days, you have this weird two days in the appeal window. So as introduced, what the bill clarified was that the abandonment is not an available decision because it's not a decision of the director to not pick up your pet. However, after this was introduced, after meeting with the office of the county attorney, they disagreed. And the argument was that it might, we might have due process issues, because there might be reasons that somebody tried to pick up their pet and it was not returned to them and that should still be appealable. So the first recommendation from council staff here is to strike the language that made any adjustments to the appeal rights. Go ahead. Do we know how often it's happened where somebody's tried to pick up their pet and then couldn't and so then it led to an appeal. Caroline, you're going to need to. There you go. It could happen, but in those situations, um, we would give them a notice that we were seizing their pets and then they're right to appeal. Right, because once you've issued a notice to seize the pet, now it's illegal. Then there is a due process right that's triggered. So am I correct in saying there are due process rights already built into this and that the amendment proposed, and I hear it, and I love our friends at the County Attorney's Office, but that it may in fact be somewhat redundant because it isn't really like in the event that the pet isn't picked up for whatever reason. There's a subsequent notice that does trigger that due process, right? Is that right? Yes, that is true. Okay. So agree. So yes, the amendment here was to rather than changing something and unintentionally making it confusing, even though it is as you noted and explained likely that you would receive that second notice and that's where the due process right is triggered. Right. The cleanup here is just to eliminate any possible confusion. I don't mind eliminating the confusion. I just want to like I want to be clear that we already do have due process. But they are. I'd like to not make it more confusing and create problems by putting something there that, like five lawyers in a room could split hairs over anything. And we often do. And we often do. And if I'm trying to think how to, and to the point about the racial equity in social justice. And we often do. And we often do. But if I'm trying to think to the point about the racial equity and social justice comments to this bill, what else could we be doing to make it clear how this works, how to get or retrieve your pet? I do think the posting on the website is more intuitively where people do look, right? When the when a pet is gone and they start posting on next door and everything else trying to see, you know, if anyone has seen it, that that is more common than newspapers these days. I know we have other issues with why we still use the newspapers and I got it. But so I mean I will go with the will of the committee on this. I don't believe the amendment is necessary, but I yield to my colleagues. You know I'm a built-in suspenders kind of guy and I don't I don't believe it's absolutely necessary, but I'd much rather have it so that it's there and that someone is not as confused although I don't know to your point whether it's more confusing or less confusing. That's always in the mind of the holder, but I'm okay with the amendment. And so you're. I mean, agree with that if If it's gonna be less confusing generally than it's not gonna cause a problem. Is it gonna cause a problem? That you're saying? I wanna add that the three day change in our whole period to three day is actually aligning with state law. Right. And other jurisdictions like Gathersburg, they have a three-day period and with regards to the racial justice, the chances are the animal is going to be here five days from now. I mean, it just allows us to move forward with any medical care that we need to move forward with sterilization and that kind of thing. So if an owner was to come after that five day period, even 10 days, sometimes the animals there, we wanna get it back to its rightful end or always. So that isn't really necessarily true. The only thing it might do is go from a 17 day length of stay in the shelter to now 15 day length. That's what we're gonna see in the end. I think what we, as far as I'm concerned, we should try this. If it doesn't work and you know where we are, you let us know and then we'll figure out what's next, but I think the amendment is so we're okay on that. Yeah, I said I found that. Yeah, yeah, so it was a two one became a three oh, okay oh okay, and what was the other part of the amendment? Yes, so the next amendment and this is something that came up in discussing the appeal issue is part of the problem is we all use the word stray animal, which is not actually defined in this chapter. It talks about impounded animal, which includes both animals that OAS might take for safety reasons, as well as ploughier running away. So the proposal from council staff here is to one, define straight animal, and then instead of where it was written in the bill that it changed the 5, 2, or 3 was in that impoundedounded section. So instead create a new stray animal section. So this way you define what a stray animal is. It's very clear that we mean the animals that are lost without a license or a tag or any form of ownership and then say that is where we are reducing the period to three days. So that language is on page five for you. And the stray animal is an animal whose owner cannot be identified. I'm good with it. We're any concerns director hair film. Yeah, do you know, stray animal is the animal is learning that large whether or not there's an owner. I think that's the key to the difference there. Are we looking to be, or are we looking to find, yeah? Because I'm just that a straight animal is an animal who's running at large. We're looking to be more inclusive with the light. A straight animal could be a feral cat. It could be. Could also be fluffy my cat. I don't have a cat, but it could be fluffy. Right. But, but yeah, it's going to be fluffy. I've been done. But, but the, but it's so it. The animal may or may not have an owner, but could be a stray. Or could you get a dog that's a habitual offender? Okay. Could we change that? There's one, there's one of those in my head. Oh, very. Should we explain? No, no, it has a, it's still running a stray. Yeah, it's running, it runs around. And the owner may choose not, we're still going to notify because that's yeah, it's not to go. It actually has a tag on it that says, I'm not joking. I know where I live. But if it's if it the way this definition is an owner cannot be identified. Does the word straits need do we need to add that a and the stray is an owner cannot be identified. Does the word straice need, do we need to add that a stray is an owner, an animal whose owner cannot be identified, a can or cannot be identified, but is running at large? Is that your main point? I think it's not an animal that's part of a queen to keep us. Unless you want to have separate, unless the intent is, and I don't mean to throw this point, but unless the intent's three days instead of the five days, so that we tune different time points. Is that consistent with state law and having the two different. So under state law it is three days and it includes the language about the ownership under the state. It's three days for stray and five days for impounded. You're saying it's always three, but I do think it's three across the board. Okay. Well, I mean, if we're trying to align with state, you know, we should do three for everything, right? And given the fact that they're going to be there, it's still like me. I think they hang out. And it was that the concern that we, you know, we see an animal who say a dangerous dog, a dog is the most alive, who sees that dog. There's a five day whole period where people have an opportunity to appeal it. In seizure, right? Did we make a rightful decision? And they're concerned that this is gonna become very murky in this situation, but I disagree. I don't think it is. I think it's again, redundant. Yeah, that would seem so because that has its own specific process with its own timing that's triggered by those actions, then that you go down that. that yeah you go down that other path from very beginning with that animal in that situation so I don't think it's in conflict and cruelty and they all have the same. Well, it sounds like if we add the stay on your tour deem section, then that actually might run into conflict with if we're addressing this elsewhere in the code, these particular situations that we're trying to avoid. If they're already addressed somewhere else in the code, and we should not also address them here, but it does seem maybe we should define stray animals here as being independent of those other categories that are already defined elsewhere that lead to those tracks, unless that's redundant also because every knows what's straight means. there's and will found out larger that will be the superceedings this. Right. Okay. Right. Yeah. redundant also because everybody knows what's straight means. But to me, there's an almost found out large of that. It's superceases this. So again, right? OK, right. I. Yes, because that's an action of the government in seizing the animal. And then it's a process. But we do need a definition of stray. Since we, since we don't have it. So it I'm I'm okay with the amended language for stray that's in section 5101 that it's the proposed to add the number five in 5304 that I think is problematic and should just stay at three in order to be consistent correct. Should change. So right now it's three. In current county law. Oh, three. Then and then let us change is five. Sorry. In current county lots, five. Yes. And the bill was going to change it to three. Right. And then this is where it poses it to change it back to five. And I would like to not do that. Okay. Um, so what this would do is the reason for this is that too, you still have five days to appeal from that notice. So right now the five that exists in current county law aligns with the appeal period. For what notice? For affiliate to redeem an impounded animal. OAS sends you a notice and you have five days to pick up that animal and you also have five days to appeal. So if you reduce it to three, there's this weird like two day window which might not matter if the animal is still there. So of course if we seize the animal you have five days to pick up the animal but we wouldn't if we're depriving you your property you have due process, you have five days to appeal that seizure. But if we're depriving you your property, if you process you have five days to appeal that, that seizure. But if we're putting notice on people's door, they have five days to pick up. That's because of the stray hold that we currently have. Is that a sense? So the way it's phrased in the codes, it doesn't have the word stray. It just says an impounded animal is considered abandoned and becomes county property if not redeemed by its owner within five days. That's what current. That's what current. That's what causes change. Yeah, so the proposal from council staff here was to do a subsequent section called straight. Just for the straights for the animals who got it cannot be identified. Okay. with so because you can find a pet that cannot be identified. So you post it on the website and that would have to stay up for the three days that the person has collected. So there's those two categories of animals are treated differently. You got to. I'm not sure. Yeah, there's not another section in canico where this is addressed. This is the section where that is. Yes, yes. I'm on the same sheet of music now and I'm okay. It's a very confusing chapter. I mean. Okay, well I think we are okay with this definition, right? Yes. Yes, yes. And in the change from the five to the three, to be first of we should have been doing it a few years ago. But only in the straight part, not in the right. Yeah, no, not because of the state. Not accepting the right. Okay, I need to read sort of clear. Yes, I think that meant that part is clear. The last part was the RISJ concern. One of the recommendations from OLO was to just publicize changes made in the bill. I know we have a very large county, so I defer to the committee and the department on what the easiest way to do would be that to publicize that it is now three days and not five days for stray animals or animals found without a tag. So that's just a discussion point for the committee and not a proposed amendment. There again, I think it's something we need to change and see if it's causing a problem. To your point in Gathasburg, you're saying does three days now. And I guess do you house Gathasburg spets? So I mean, you talk about confusing, it's confusing to start with. So, I'm fine to try this. We had the discussion way back when every member of this committee was the co-sponsor, and then we had people that came forward and said, how about this one, you know, so, but I'm fine with this good yes good for good thank you very much anything else now with that we are adjourned thanks You're getting your figure and you're getting your figure and you're getting you figure it out. More people. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Thank you. you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you