[ Meeting of the Houston Forensic Science Center: Board of Directors on May 10, 2024.]
[00:00:21]
IT IS NINE OH ONE.I'M GOING TO CALL THE BOARD MEETING FOR THE HOUSTON FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER INTO SESSION.
UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS OUR ROLL CALL.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YEAH.
IT'S LIKE, OTHERWISE IT'D BE A REALLY SHORT MEETING.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND INVITE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESS THE BOARD.
WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO SIGN IN AT THE FRONT OF THE ROOM SO WE ARE AWARE OF YOUR PRESENCE AND THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE LI WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
YOU MAY SPEAK ON ANY MATTER CONCERNING THE BOARD AND HFSC AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.
SEEING NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN OUR AUDIENCE TODAY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS OUR DRAFT.
UH, READING OF OUR DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 8TH, 2024 BOARD MEETING, WE HAVE THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY CORRECTIONS AND THEN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
UH, NOW WE WILL CONSIDER THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH THE EIGHTH.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? OKAY.
NO, UH, CORRECTIONS AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CONDUCT A VOICE VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED.
DIRECTOR BAIRD MADE THE MOTION.
UM, WE'LL HAVE, UH, DIRECTOR VASQUEZ AS SECOND.
ALRIGHT, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
THIS IS THE TIME OF THE YEAR WHERE WE DO THE ANNUAL APPOINTMENT FOR OUR CORPORATE OFFICERS.
SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNUAL APPOINTMENT FOR DR. STOUT AS PRESIDENT.
DR. AMY CASTILLO IS VICE PRESIDENT AND DAVID LEACH AS OUR TREASURER, AND NATALIE ZY AS OUR SECRETARY.
UH, AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD APPOINTS CORPORATE OFFICERS ANNUALLY AS REQUIRED BY OUR BYLAWS.
WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE A WONDERFUL GROUP OF CORPORATE OFFICERS AND I AM PLEASED TO OFFER THEM UP TO THE BOARD FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MOST OF THEM FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW, AND OUR NEWEST EDITION, MS. BEY, HAS BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB SO FAR.
I AM CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP THAT HFSC NEEDS.
UM, DO, UH, WE ALL, THIS IS ALSO A VOICE VOTE.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPOINT OUR CORPORATE OFFICERS? SO MOVED.
DIRECTOR HILDER MADE THE MOTION.
SECOND DIRECTOR GOODWIN MADE THE SECOND.
IS THERE ANY, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS? OKAY.
HEARING NONE WILL WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THE MOTION CARRIES DR. STOUT, YOUR PRESIDENT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX IS THE CHAIR'S REPORT.
UH, AND THIS INCLUDES A MONTHLY UPDATE OF ACTIVITIES, UH, RECOGNITIONS AND ET CETERA.
UM, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, JULY THE 12TH.
I KNOW THAT MEETING FALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER AND THAT MANY FOLKS ARE TRAVELING DURING THAT TIME, BUT I WANNA ENSURE THAT THE DATE IS ON YOUR CALENDAR.
QUORUMS CAN ALSO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH DURING THAT TI MEETING, SO PLEASE LET MS. ZI KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE UNABLE TO ATTEND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT MAYOR WHITMEYER AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL APPOINT OUR NEW BOARD MEMBERS BY THEN TO ENSURE
[00:05:01]
THAT WE HAVE A FULL BOARD TO HELP WITH SECURING THAT QUORUM.IN PREPARING, UH, FOR THE JULY MEETING, IT'S ACTUALLY A GREAT, GREAT SEGUE INTO THE NEXT ITEM OF MY REPORT, WHICH IS RECOGNITION TO OF OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT OR STARTING A NEW TERM OF SERVICE, AS WELL AS THOSE DIRECTORS WHO ARE CONCLUDING THEIR SERVICE.
UM, FIRST I'D LIKE TO, UH, START WITH THOSE MEMBERS WHO WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR REAPPOINTMENT IN THE UPCOMING WEEKS.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT DIRECTOR PHILIP HILDER AND DIRECTOR VICKI HUFF WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
ONCE CITY COUNCIL TAKES UP THE MATTER, DIRECTOR HILDER WOULD BE STARTING HIS THIRD TERM AS DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR HUFF WILL BEGIN HER SECOND TERM.
BOTH OF YOU HAVE PROVIDED A VALUABLE INSIGHT AND PERSPECTIVE TO THIS BODY AND HFSC.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU FOR THREE MORE YEARS.
UM, I KNOW THE BOARD AND THIS ORGANIZATION ARE IN GOOD HANDS WITH YOU ALL HELPING TO LEAD THE WAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR SERVICE, AND I'M SURE HFSC LOOK FORWARD.
LOOKS FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU.
UH, TODAY WE ALSO HAVE THE PLEASURE OF WELCOMING WELCOME, WELCOMING OUR NEW EX-OFFICIO DIRECTOR, MS. JESSICA G***H.
MS. G***H IS AN ATTORNEY WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON, AND SHE HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE MAYOR TO SERVE AS OUR EX-OFFICIO MEMBER AS PERMITTED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION.
I SUSPECT THAT SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE NOT REALIZED THAT OUR LONG SERVING EX-OFFICIO DIRECTOR, TRACY CALABRESE, RETIRED SHORTLY AFTER OUR MARCH BOARD MEETING DIRECTOR CALABRESE HAD A LONG AND DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER WITH THE CITY AND SPENT MANY YEARS LEADING THEIR GENERAL COUNSEL SECTION.
SHE IS ALSO A VETERAN OF THE US NAVY, HAVING SERVED IN IN THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S CORPS.
SHE WAS A GREAT RESOURCE FOR THE BOARD IN INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING PROVIDE LEGAL GUIDANCE AS WE TRANSITIONED TO CREATING OUR INTERNAL GENERAL COUNSEL POSITION.
I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT SHE IS TRAVELING THE WORLD AND ENJOYING THIS NEXT PHASE OF HER LIFE.
AND WE DEFINITELY WISH HER WELL ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION, DR. STOUT GIFTED HER WITH ONE OF HIS FAMOUS HANDMADE BOXES, AND MS. MANZ WAS ABLE TO DELIVER OUR CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS DURING HER RETIREMENT PARTY.
THANK YOU MS. MANZ FOR, FOR DOING THAT.
AND THANK YOU DR. STOUT FOR BUILDING THE BOX
UH, WE TRULY APPRECIATE HER SERVICE AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU, DIRECTOR GUCH IN THE UPCOMING, UH, YEARS DIRECTOR.
GUCH HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT SINCE 2015, AND SHE PRO AND SHE PROSECUTES CLASS C MISDEMEANORS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND CONDUCTS TRAININGS FOR THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT AS VER AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, SHE HAS SERVED ON AS THE, ON THE LEGISLATIVE LIAISON TEAM FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE SINCE 2016.
PRIOR TO JOINING THE CITY OF HOUSTON, SHE REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE DETAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
SHE RECEIVED HER LAW DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER AND HER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN ANTHROPOLOGY FROM TRINITY UNIVERSITY.
WELCOME TO THE BOARD, AND WE ARE EXCITED AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO, UH, TALK, UH, DISCUSS OUR BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE CONCLUDING THEIR SERVICE AT THE END OF JUNE, WHICH DOES INCLUDE ME.
UM, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, RECOGNIZE, UH, LOIS MOORE.
LOIS IS UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY, BUT LOIS MOORE IS, UH, REGISTERED NURSE.
SHE, UH, WAS THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE HARRIS COUNTY PSYCHIATRIC CENTER AND UNTIL, AND SHE WAS THERE UNTIL HER RETIREMENT IN 2013.
PRIOR TO THAT, SHE WAS A, SHE'S A FORMER PRESIDENT AND CCEO OF THE HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS NOW HARRIS HEALTH SYSTEM.
AND LOIS HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL AND AN INFLUENCE IN NURSING THROUGHOUT HOUSTON AND HARRIS COUNTY AREA FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, SERVING ON MANY BOARDS AND JUST DOING WONDERFUL WORK.
SO MUCH SO THAT HER LEGACY WILL BE REMEMBERED FOREVER THROUGH HARRIS HEALTH WITH THE LOIS J MOORE CENTER FOR NURSING EXCELLENCE AT HARRIS HEALTH.
UH, LOIS WILL BE, UH, ROLLING OFF THE BOARD AND JUNE 30TH, AND WE DEFINITELY WILL MISS HER AND HER INSIGHTS AND, UH, AND SHE, SHE WILL DEFINITELY BE MISSED AND WE HOPE THAT SHE JUST ENJOYS THE REST OF HER RETIREMENT.
UH, NEXT, OUR VICE CHAIR, VANESSA GOODWIN, SHE IS GOING TO CONCLUDE HER SERVICE AS WELL ON JUNE 30TH.
UH, VANESSA IS ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL WITH ARNOLD VENTURES.
SHE HAS BEEN A TRUSTED BUSINESS ADVISOR AND SHE HELPS TO NAVIGATE COMPLEX THE, NOT THE VERY COMPLEX, UM, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT ARNOLD VENTURES IS.
UM, VANESSA HAS SERVED AS OUR VICE CHAIR AND HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL RESOURCE FOR THE BOARD, AND I JUST CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR BEING THERE, FOR BEING THE BACKUP, UM, FOR PROVIDING SUCH WONDERFUL INSIGHT TO HFSC.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WE'LL DEFINITELY MISS YOU
[00:10:01]
AND OF COURSE, I WILL BE ROLLING OFF AS WELL.AND SO, UM, I WANNA THANK EVERYBODY AND I'M GONNA GET TEARY, SO HERE WE GO.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND I KNEW IT WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
SO IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE, UM, TO WORK WITH EVERYONE AT AT HFSC.
UM, I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR NINE YEARS AND I HAVE SEEN IT GROW.
I HAVE SEEN WHAT HFSC HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO, BUT TO BECOME A MODEL FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER FOR THE, FOR THE COUNTRY, AND PRETTY MUCH FOR THE WORLD.
UM, THERE'S AMAZING STAFF, JUST SUCH AMAZING STAFF, PETER, THAT YOU GUYS HAVE AND YOU HAVE FOSTERED, YOU HAVE RECRUITED, AND YOU HAVE BROUGHT IN THE BEST TO DO THE BEST WORK AND THE BEST WORK FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SCIENCE IS EVIDENCE-BASED.
THIS WE ARE TRUE TO THE SCIENCE.
SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST BE A PART OF THAT AND TO, UH, JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE HERE AND THERE.
I WANNA THANK, UM, BOTH MAYOR PARKER AND MAYOR TURNER FOR, UM, AND OF COURSE, CITY COUNCIL FOR APPOINTING ME TO THE BOARD.
AND AS I WAS SERVING AS DIRECTOR AND NOW AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD, UM, AGAIN, I JUST, UM, I HAD A WHOLE THING I WAS GONNA SAY AND THEN I TOTALLY FORGOT IT ALL.
SO, BUT, UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
IT HAS, AGAIN, IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE, UM, AND I WISH EVERYONE THE BEST AND I KNOW HFSC IS GONNA CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO DO GOOD WORK.
SO, SO THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY RIGHT NOW,
UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE ON MY SCRIPT HERE? OKAY.
OH, I KNOW DR. STOUT, YOU HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR US AS WELL, AND WE DO WANNA DO A COUPLE QUICK PHOTOS.
SO BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'M GONNA OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE BOARD FOR ANY COMMENTS.
ALTHOUGH I'M A SHORT TERM, UH, BOARD MEMBER, I'M JUST SO IMPRESSED WITH EVERYTHING ALL OF YOU HAVE DONE, AND IT WAS A PLEASURE, UH, GETTING TO KNOW YOU AND WORKING WITH YOU.
AND I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE.
AND THEN I FOUND OUT WE EVEN HAVE A CONNECTION WITH MY NEW NEIGHBOR, SO, UM, WHICH IS HER BEST FRIEND.
UM, BUT THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH AND FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE AND FOR THE COMMITMENT AND THE SACRIFICES YOU'VE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE, THE PEOPLE OF HOUSTON, THANK YOU.
AND I'VE REALLY APPRECIATED WORKING WITH THE TWO OF YOU AND ALSO WITH LOIS.
UM, YOU'VE BEEN MODELS IN HOW TO USE, UM, STACY IN TERMS OF HOW TO PROCEED WITH SOMETIMES VERY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS.
I'VE REALLY APPRECIATED YOUR, UM, MODULATING VERY POLITICS STANCE ON THINGS, UM, THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.
UM, VANESSA, I'VE ENJOYED YOUR INSIGHT, YOUR, UM, YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I'M JUST SO SAD TO SEE YOU BOTH LEAVE.
I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, STACY, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS.
YOU HELPED NAVIGATE THE BOARD DURING COVID, WHICH WAS JUST, OH YEAH, THAT WAS FUNNY.
YOU HELPED NOT ONLY BRING SORT OF THE BUSINESS ASPECTS TO THE BOARD, BUT ALSO REALLY THE HEART OF WHAT MAKES, UM, HFSE SO BEAUTIFUL AND, AND SO AMAZING AND, AND REALLY, UM, UH, SO EXCEPTIONAL.
AND SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND I'LL MISS WORKING WITH YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO, UM, PETER AND TO ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP TEAM FOR YOUR JUST EXCEPTIONAL WORK, FOR YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ABILITY TO REALLY LEAN INTO SUCH A TOUGH AREA AND TO EXPLAIN IT WITH SUCH THOUGHTFULNESS AND, AND REALLY BRING PEOPLE ALONG IN THE STORY WITH YOU.
YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE IS DOING, AND IT'S REALLY BEAUTIFUL TO BE ABLE TO, TO SIT HERE AND TO, TO CONTRIBUTE IN THIS WAY TO THE GREAT WORK YOU ALL ARE DOING.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS.
UM, THIS IS, MAN, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE AN AMAZING LAWYER AND IT, IT HAS BEEN WONDERFUL TO SEE HOW YOU SHEPHERD AND SUPPORT ALL OF THE GREAT SCIENTIFIC WORK THAT'S HAPPENING AS WELL.
SO, THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS.
ALRIGHT, I GUESS IT'S UP TO YOU NOW, PETER.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE REMARKABLE THINGS OF HFSE THAT THIS THING IS SO JUST INSANELY DIFFICULT TO RUN.
AND WHAT WE DO IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WRITTEN IN MULTIPLE PLACES.
I MEAN, WE, WE DEAL WITH NIGHTMARISH STUFF ALL THE TIME, AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE REALLY GRATIFYING QUALITIES OF HFSC THAT YOU CAN GET UP TO A POINT OF HAVING WRESTLED WITH THIS.
I, I CAN'T THANK YOU ALL ENOUGH.
STACY
[00:15:01]
UM, JUST A COUPLE.I, I, THE SUPPORT TO TRY AND DO THIS IS, IT IS ONE OF THE TRUE HONORS OF MY LIFE.
UH, IT'S ONE OF THE TRUE HONORS OF MY LIFE TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU, SO THANK YOU.
AND YES, YOUR BOXES ARE OVER THERE.
UH, THESE BOXES HAVE, THE, THE TOP OF THEM IS, UH, OAK FROM HILL COUNTRY THAT I HARVESTED OUT OF THE BIG FREEZE BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH FUN WITH THE BIG FREEZE.
UM, I THINK THAT OAK IS ACTUALLY KIND OF A GOOD METAPHOR FOR HFSC BECAUSE IT'S GOT A LOT OF CHARACTER TO IT.
UM, IT FINISHES REALLY NICELY, BUT YOU KNOW, IT CHECKS, IT CHANGES, IT'S GOT ITS QUIRKS AND IM IMPERFECTIONS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF KINDA WHAT WE ARE.
UM, AND STACEY, YOURS ALSO HAS A 10 YEAR COIN IN IT BECAUSE YOU'RE CLOSE ENOUGH.
AND WE STARTED MAKING THOSE BECAUSE WE, THIS YEAR WE STARTED HAVING EMPLOYEES HIT 10 YEARS.
WE HAVE 23 EMPLOYEES THAT HIT 10 YEARS THIS YEAR.
I STARTED MAKING BOXES FOR THOSE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IS A REMARKABLE CREDIT TO THE FACT THAT I, I, I DO THINK THE BOARD IS SEEN BY THE STAFF AS SUPPORTIVE.
I I THINK THEY EARNESTLY SEE IT.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A TESTAMENT AND CREDIT TO ALL OF YOU.
AND WE APPRECIATE IT, ALL OF US HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP BECAUSE HFSC WOULD NOT BE HERE IN THE, IN THE BOY IN THE PLACE THAT IT IS WITHOUT YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MAYOR WHITTIER'S DECISIONS AND HIS, UH, SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'LL GET SOME GREAT NEW LEADERS HERE ON THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION AND PROBABLY A NEW AND A NEW PERSPECTIVE.
NOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT, THANK YOU.
THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL CERTIFICATE.
NOW I HAVE TO FIND A WALL IN MY OFFICE TO PUT IT ON
ALRIGHTY, NOW WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON BACK TO BUSINESS.
SO NOW WE NEED TO GET BACK TO, UH, BUSINESS.
SO LET'S LOOK AT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS CONSIDERING THE ANNUAL SELECTION, UH, FOR AN INTERIM CHAIR OF INTERIM VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
UM, OUR NEXT, THE ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING IS THE SELECTION OF OUR NEXT, YEAH, THE ITEM IS THE SELECTION OF OUR BOARD VICE CHAIR.
UH, THE BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION IN 2020, WHICH SETS THE ANNUAL SELECTION ON THE SAME AGENDA AS THE CORPORATE OFFICER'S APPOINTMENT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN NEED OF A NEW VICE CHAIR AS, UH, VICE CHAIR GOODWIN IS CONTINUING, UH, IS CONCLUDING HER, HER, HER TENURE.
ALTHOUGH WE WILL MISS HER GREATLY.
I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL HAVE CAPABLE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WILL LEAD US THROUGH THE VARIOUS CHALLENGES THAT WE WILL, THAT WE WILL FACE IN A TYPICAL YEAR.
WE WOULD SELECT A VICE CHAIR AND TO SERVE UNTIL NEXT MAY.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE BOARD WILL SOON HAVE THREE
[00:20:01]
NEW DIRECTORS, INCLUDING A NEW CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE AN INTERIM VICE CHAIR TO HELP STEWARD THE BOARD AND HFSC DURING THIS TRANSITION.UH, THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE APPOINTED BEFORE THE JULY MEETING, BUT IF THERE'S AN UNEXPECTED DELAY, THE INTERIM VICE CHAIR WOULD BE ABLE TO STAND IN AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND TO CONTINUE WITH ANY NECESSARY BOARD BUSINESS.
TO THAT END, I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE DIRECTOR JONI BAIRD TO SERVE AS INTERIM VICE CHAIR.
I HAVE ASKED DR. BAIRD AND SHE HAS AGREED IF, UH, IF THE BOARD IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF HER SELECTION.
I BELIEVE DIRECTOR BAIRD WILL BE A WONDERFUL ASSET TO HFSC IN THIS ROLE.
AND HER ENTHUSIASM FOR HFSC HAS BEEN IMPRESSIVE.
IF SELECTED, SHE WOULD SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY UNTIL THE NEW CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED AND THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED BOARD IS ABLE TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF SELECTING A VICE CHAIR FOR THE FULL TERM.
UM, AT THIS TIME, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR NOMINATIONS? CERTAINLY DIRECTOR BAIRD, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, YOU WERE MORE THAN WELCOME.
I HAVE ENJOYED BEING ON THIS BOARD SO VERY MUCH AND GETTING TO KNOW ALL OF YOU AND THE TALENT.
AND PETER, YOU AND YOUR TEAM ARE SO OUTSTANDING AND I'M ENTHUSIASTIC IS THE RIGHT WORD.
I JUST THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS I'VE EVER DONE AND I WOULD BE HONORED TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY AND, UH, REPRESENT THE BOARD.
UM, HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE VOTE AT THIS TIME.
WE WILL CONDUCT A VOICE VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF OUR NEW INTERIM VICE CHAIR.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPOINT? WELL, I MADE A MOTION.
DO I NEED TO DO, CAN I DO THE MOTION OR DOES SOMEBODY ELSE HAVE TO DO THE MOTION? QUILA? WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THE FLOOR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THE, UH, VOTE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WELL, I'M SURE WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU 'CAUSE WE'RE STILL ON TILL JUNE, THE END OF JUNE, SO WE'LL BE HERE TO HELP KIND OF SHEPHERD YOU IN AND THANK YOU.
THEN AFTER THAT YOU HAVE A FABULOUS BOARD.
UH, AND I THINK IT'S JUST GONNA THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WILLING TO SERVE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS, UH, THE REPORT FROM DR. STOUT, WHO IS OUR PRESIDENT AND CEO.
THIS WILL INCLUDE AN OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS, TECHNICAL UPDATES, AND OTHER CORPORATE BUSINESS ITEMS. UH, DR. STOUT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
I GOT A FEW THINGS TODAY, SO BUCKLE UP.
UM, IT'S, IT'S BEEN, UH, IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING TIME IN THE LAST BIT.
START OUT WITH JUST SOME UPDATES FOR MAY SINCE WE LAST MET.
ONE IS, UM, SIGNATURE SCIENCE.
SO THAT IS THE CONTRACT LABORATORY THAT WE USE FOR OUTSOURCE DNA.
UM, THEY HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THEIR TURNAROUND TIMES, HUH? WONDER WHERE I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
UM, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN IMPROVING THEIR CAPACITY.
SO, UH, WE'VE SEEN A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DECREASE THERE, WHICH MEANS A DECREASE IN THE TURNAROUND TIME ON PARTICULARLY SEXUAL ASSAULT KITS.
UH, SO THAT DECREASED 41%, UM, OF THOSE KITS THAT ARE OVER 90 DAYS AND WE'VE, UH, LET'S SEE, KITS OVER 90 DAYS HAVE DECREASED BY 71% SINCE THE MARCH BOARD MEETING.
SO IT'S, IT'S ON THE TRAJECTORY THAT WE WANNA SEE.
UM, WE DO HAVE, WHILE WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS IN DNA BIN IS CREATING ISSUES AND THAT IS A STAFFING THING.
SO YOU THINK ABOUT BIN TECHS OFTEN ARE KIND OF THE ENTRY POINT INTO BEING A FIREARMS EXAMINER.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO RECRUIT AND TRAIN NEW FIREARMS EXAMINERS, SO THEY HAVE COME OUT OF OUR BIN UNIT, WHICH MEANS WE'VE BEEN SHORTHANDED IN BIN, UH, AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE GET ANY FEWER GUNS EVERY DAY.
UH, AND YEAH, IT'S GONE UP A FAIR BIT.
WE'RE UP ABOUT A HUNDRED PERCENT SINCE THE MARCH MEETING.
UH, SO IT'S ABOUT DOUBLED ON US NOW.
WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO A TF AND A TF HAS VERY GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO HELP US.
WE'VE HELPED A TF OUT IN THE PAST.
SO, I MEAN, THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE LABORATORY COMMUNITY IN TEXAS.
SO WE'RE SHIFTING SOME OF THOSE NEVIN GUNS OVER TO A TF, UH, TO HELP WHILE WE'RE WORKING ON TRAINING NEW PEOPLE.
UH, AND THEN IN LATENT PRINTS, I THINK I MIGHT'VE MENTIONED, UM, THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ALL THE BACKLOGS CLEARED IN LATENT PRINTS.
[00:25:01]
WE, WE'VE, WE'VE GOT THE CAPACITY FOR IT.SO WE'VE EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF LATENT CARDS THAT WE WILL ACCEPT INITIALLY.
AND WE'VE ALSO SET UP THE SITUATION FOR THOSE CARDS THAT ARE COLLECTED BY OUR CSIS, GET AUTOMATICALLY ORDERED.
'CAUSE WE'VE GOT GOOD VISIBILITY ON WHAT'S GONNA BE MATERIAL AND PROBATIVE AND CAN HELP MAKE THOSE REQUESTS.
SO I THINK IT, IT HELPS OUT THE INVESTIGATIVE PATHWAY THAT WE CAN, CAN DO THIS AND WE CAN UTILIZE THE CAPACITY THAT'S BEEN BUILT THERE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON UPDATE STUFF AROUND PRODUCTION? ALRIGHT.
I MENTIONED LAST TIME, UM, AND I'VE JUST FINISHED WRITING AN ARTICLE FOR OUR NEWSLETTER, WHICH WILL GO OUT HERE SHORTLY ABOUT STAFF PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND
I STARTED IN ON THIS THINKING I WAS GONNA HAVE, YOU KNOW, A HALF DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, COULD REALLY HIGHLIGHT AND SAY, THESE ARE GREAT.
UM, STARTED, UH, SURVEYING AROUND THE STAFF AND IT TURNS OUT WOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INVOLVEMENT.
I I NOT BEING HYPERBOLIC AT ALL.
IF THERE IS AN IMPORTANT COMMITTEE, BOARD DISCUSSION ACTIVITY IN FORENSICS IN THIS COUNTRY, THERE IS AN HFSE PERSON INVOLVED WITH IT.
UM, AND OFTEN THEY'RE EITHER THE OFFICER OR THE LEADER POSITION IN IT.
UM, WE'VE GOT MANY MULTIPLE, WE WE HAVE MANY, MANY MULTIPLE ANAB ASSESSORS.
SO THOSE ARE THE FOLKS THAT GO OUT TO OTHER LABORATORIES AND DO THE ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENTS.
WE'VE PRETTY AGGRESSIVELY AND ACTIVELY SUPPORTED THAT BECAUSE IN, OKAY, THIS, THIS IS A BIT OF A PETERISM, I GET IT.
BUT HAVING WORKED PARTICULARLY IN COMMERCIAL LABORATORIES, THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE SEEN IN COMMERCIAL AND IT HAPPENS ALL OVER THE PLACE OF LABS THAT END UP ISOLATING STAFF FROM THE WIDER COMMUNITY.
USUALLY IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT OR THEY PERCEIVE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, OR THEY PERCEIVE THE COST RIGHT NOW ISN'T, DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH BENEFIT.
AND THOSE ISOLATED STAFFS, THEY START TO BECOME INBRED IN THE THINKING.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME, THEY ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO ASK QUESTIONS.
AND TO ME IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE FUNCTIONING OF A LABORATORY THAT STAFF ASK QUESTIONS ON EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.
YEAH, IT'S MAKES MANAGING IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
BUT IN THE LONG RUN IT IS VASTLY BETTER FOR THE PRODUCT OF THE ORGANIZATION AND IT'S MUCH MORE SUSTAINABLE.
MOST OF THE THINGS THAT GET SPOTTED ARE BECAUSE SOMEBODY ON THE LINE GOES, HEY, WAIT A SEC, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTRY DOING ABOUT THIS.
IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING? AND TO BE IN A POSITION TO ASK THAT QUESTION HELPS.
SO I THINK IT IS CHEAP AT THREE TIMES THE COST TO HAVE 'EM ROLLED INTO ASSESSING, SEEING OTHER LABORATORIES, WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHAT'S GOING WRONG, WHAT'S GOING RIGHT THERE, AND BEING PART OF THAT PROCESS.
SO WE'VE GOT A NAB ASSESSORS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
UH, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE OSAC ORGANIZATIONS, EITHER AS MEMBERS OF OSAC OR AS, THERE'S, THERE'S VARIOUS LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION IN OSAC, BUT WE'VE GOT PARTICIPATION IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ASPECTS OF OSAC OSAC AND, UM, WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OFFICERS, UH, ON BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
AND THAT I THINK IS A MARVELOUS THING.
THERE ARE A FEW THAT I THINK IT'S REALLY WORTH POINTING OUT.
UM, ACTUALLY I GOT THAT ONE WRONG.
AMY IS A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNOR'S SEXUAL ASSAULT TASK FORCE, BUT SHE'S BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL COMPONENT OF THAT.
AND THAT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER, UM, LEGISLATIVE ACT.
UH, AND SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, HIGH PROFILE WITHIN THE STATE.
PRESSURE DEN WAS JUST NAMED ONTO WHAT GETS, WE JOKE ABOUT THESE ALL THE TIME THAT THERE ARE SWIGS TWIGS AND WIGS.
UM, SO THERE WERE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUPS, TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS, AND I FORGET WHAT WIGS WERE, THERE AREN'T VERY MANY OF THEM LEFT ANYMORE.
BUT THE FLYNN TWIG, THE FORENSIC LABORATORY NEEDS TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP UNDER US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SHE WAS JUST NAMED THAT.
I MEAN, THAT IS A GROUP THAT IS, IS BASICALLY LABORATORY DIRECTOR TYPES TALKING ABOUT WHAT IN THE WORLD ALL THE LABS NEED IN THE COUNTRY.
DE YOUNG LEE IS THE CO-EDITOR IN CHIEF OF JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL TOXICOLOGY, UH, JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL TOXICOLOGY IS THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGISTS.
IT IS THE PREEMINENT JOURNAL IN FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY.
UM, SHE'S BEEN WORKING HER WAY THROUGH
[00:30:01]
ALL THE VARIOUS EDITOR LEVELS IN THAT.AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN.
WE AREN'T JUST WRITING JOURNAL ARTICLES.
WE AREN'T JUST THE OCCASIONAL GUEST EDITOR, THOUGH.
THEY'RE ACTUAL EDITORS OF JOURNALS THAT ARE IN OUR STAFF.
UM, CORINA HAYES IS NOW ON THE LICENSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
UM, AND I'LL POINT OUT THAT BOTH DONNA AND JAMES WERE ON THAT PREVIOUSLY.
SO WE HAVE HAD A AL ALMOST PERMANENT SEAT ON THAT SINCE THE START OF THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
SO THAT, THAT IS BASICALLY THE COMMITTEE THAT DETERMINES ALL OF THE LICENSURE RULES, UH, AND FUNCTIONING OF LICENSURE HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
UM, JILL DUPREE, WHO'S IN OUR FIREARMS SECTION, SHE'S AN INSTRUCTOR IN THE ATFS, UH, NATIONAL FIREARMS ACADEMY.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OUR, OUR OUR PEOPLE AREN'T JUST DOING THE WORK.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE DRIVING THE CONVERSATIONS.
TRACY LIP SCOTCH, I I LATENT PRINT IDENTIFICATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, MADDIE NEWIN, GUEST EDITOR ON, UM, YOU KNOW, A JOURNAL THAT YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REGULARLY SEE IN FORENSICS.
SO THE REACH OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING IS NOT JUST SIMPLY IN THE FORENSIC AREA.
AND THEN ASHLEY HENRY IS PART OF THE RECORDS PORTAL RULE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
THIS WAS THE PORTAL THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY, UM, HOUSE BILL 9 9 1.
THE STATEWIDE DISCOVERY PORTAL THAT WE'RE WORKING ON BUILDING FOR ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS WILL GO TO BE AVAILABLE TO, UH, COUNSEL INVOLVED IN CASES.
AND ASHLEY'S PART OF BASICALLY PUTTING THAT WHOLE THING TOGETHER.
SO I I IT'S A REMARKABLE BUNCH.
YOU KNOW, THEY DO EVERYTHING ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND THEN THEY GO DO THIS STUFF.
SO I, WE NEED TO POINT THAT OUT.
WHICH IS REALLY EXCITING 'CAUSE WE'RE PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND WE'RE LEADING IT AND WE'RE CHANGING IT.
ALRIGHT, ANOTHER PART TO MAKE SURE WE COVER, UH, AT THE LAST TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION MEETING, UM, THIS WAS A MUCH ANTICIPATED REPORT ON FIREARMS AND TOOL MARKS.
WE, WE REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF AS FIREARMS, BUT REALLY THE, THE COMMUNITY REFERS TO THEMSELVES AS THE FIREARM AND TOOL MARK COMMUNITY.
UH, SO THEY ADOPTED THIS REPORT, AT LEAST THE DRAFT OF IT.
I THINK IT'S GOT A FEW EDITS THAT THEY'RE MAKING BEFORE THEY WILL PUBLISH IT ON THE, UM, APRIL 26TH MEETING.
NOW THIS, WE, WE ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS ONE BECAUSE THIS WAS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, UH, THAT WAS FILED BY NATIONAL INNOCENCE PROJECT.
UM, CHRIS FABRICANT, I THINK WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS IN IT AND, UH, COLORADO LAW SCHOOL, AND IT WAS ON BEHALF OF NAN WILLIAMS AND THAT NAME SHOWS UP IN THE BROMWICH REPORT.
NANON WILLIAMS, UH, WAS SIGNIFICANT INVESTIGATION INTO THE NANON WILLIAMS CASE AT THAT POINT.
THIS CAME FROM AN HPD FIREARMS CASE BACK IN 1992, UH, AND WAS INVOLVED IN THE CAPITAL MURDER OF A MAN NAMED ADONIA COLLIER.
UH, PROBABLY THE, THE, THE SINGLE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IN IT, AND THIS IS AGAIN, LIKE I SAY IT'S BEEN HASHED OVER QUITE A FEW TIMES, WAS THE ERRONEOUS IDENTIFICATION OF A 25 CALIBER BULLET THAT WAS INVOLVED AS A 22 CALIBER BULLET.
NOW THE REASON THAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO WEAPONS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN KILLING ADONIS CARTER, AND THEY WERE HELD BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
SO IT BASICALLY WENT TO WHO FIRED WHICH GUN.
UH, AND IT ALSO, AND THIS, THIS IS REALLY WHAT WAS THE ROOT OF THIS BEING A HIGHLY ANTICIPATED REPORT, WAS IT ASKED FOR TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AND SUGGEST APPROPRIATE LIMITS TO WHAT CONCLUSIONS FIREARMS EXAMINERS CAN RENDER AND TESTIFY ABOUT.
NOW, I THINK WE'VE TALKED A FEW TIMES ABOUT FIREARMS IS A VERY BIG CONVERSATION NATIONALLY ABOUT THE LIMITS OF IT, THE ACCEPTABILITY OF IT, THE VALIDITY OF IT.
I WILL ALSO POINT OUT IT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL CONVERSATION BECAUSE YEAH, EVERYBODY POINTS BACK TO BITE MARKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT IN COMPARISON, BITE MARKS AFFECTS LIKE TWO CASES.
FIREARMS IS INVOLVED IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CASES NATIONALLY.
SO I WON'T GO INTO LOTS OF DETAILS OF THE REPORT.
UH, IT WILL BE OUT ONLINE SOON.
I THINK THE THINGS ABOUT 400 PAGES LONG, IT DISCUSSES A LOT ABOUT THE PRACTICE.
IT DISCUSSES A LOT ABOUT THE LITERATURE INVOLVED IN FIREARMS. WE ARE HEAVILY CITED IN THE REPORT, AND THIS IS LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE BLIND PROGRAM.
THERE WILL BE NEW ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THIS FOR LABORATORIES.
[00:35:01]
ONE IS THAT ALL LABORATORIES HAVE A POLICY PROVIDING SOME LEVEL OF BLIND VERIFICATION.OKAY? SO REMEMBER IN FIREARMS AND LATENT PRINTS, YOU'VE GOT ONE EXAMINER THAT GOES THROUGH AND RENDERS THEIR FINDING.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A VERIFIER, A SECOND EXAMINER THAT GOES THROUGH AND DOES, UH, RENDERS THEIR OPINION ABOUT WHAT IT WAS USUALLY, IN MOST CASES, THAT'S OPEN.
SO THE SECOND VERIFIER KNOWS WHAT THE FIRST VERIFIER CONCLUDED AND HOW THEY WENT ABOUT IT.
SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LEVEL OF THAT SECOND PERSON IS BLINDED TO WHAT THE FIRST PERSON DID.
UH, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS.
ABOUT 5% OF ALL OF THE VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS THAT WE COME TO, WE BLIND TO A SECOND EXAMINER.
SO WE'RE ALREADY DOING THIS HAVE BEEN FOR A WHILE NOW.
CAN WE EXPAND IT? CAN WE DO BETTER ON IT? OH HECK YEAH.
BUT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW.
ALL THE REST OF THE LABORATORIES IN TEXAS ARE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS.
IT'S NOT EASY BECAUSE THE LIMS SYSTEMS FIGHT YET EVERY TURN.
UM, NONE OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO HELP YOU OUT WITH THIS.
THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER IN HOW YOU ACTUALLY ADEQUATELY BLIND THE SECOND PERSON TO WHAT THE FIRST PERSON DID.
UM, THE SECOND ONE UP HERE IS THAT ALL LABORATORIES SHALL HAVE A POLICY ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT'S CALLED CONSULTATIONS DURING CASE WORK.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRST PERSON DISAGREES WITH THE SECOND PERSON? HOW DO YOU GET TO A CONCLUSION THAT YOU REPORT THAT'S CALLED CONSULTATION.
IT'S ALSO CALLED CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
WE'VE HAD WRITTEN POLICIES AROUND THIS AND HOW WE DOCUMENT IT FOR YEARS.
THE REST OF THE LABORATORIES IN TEXAS ARE NOW GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME THING.
CAN WE DO BETTER WITH THEM? OH HECK YEAH.
UM, BUT WE'VE GOT, WE'RE, WE'RE PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE IN THE STATE RIGHT NOW THAT HAS ALL OF THESE THINGS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR ON THIS? ALRIGHT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL ALSO COME OUT OF THIS THAT WILL PROBABLY, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY, BECOME PRETTY MUCH REQUIREMENTS OF LABORATORIES IN THE STATE.
UH, THERE IS GOING TO BE A STATEWIDE TASK FORCE PUT TOGETHER TO TALK THROUGH ALL OF THE INTRICACIES AND THE GEARS OF HOW THESE THINGS COME TO PASS.
SO THE, THE, THE, IT IS TFSC INTENT TO ENGAGE THE PRACTITIONER COMMUNITY AND OTHERS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, ON HOW WE ACTUALLY GO ABOUT DOING THESE THINGS.
BUT IN THAT, ONE OF IT IS HOW DO WE EXPAND WHAT HFSC HAS BEEN DOING IN BLINDS OUT TO ALL THE OTHER LABS? UM, THIS, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY TAKEN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS FOR PEOPLE TO START TAKING BLIND STUFF.
UM, NOW YOU, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY CHALLENGES WE'VE HAD DOING THIS STUFF? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR, UH, UH, JEFFERSON COUNTY REGIONAL LABORATORY THAT'S GOT 12 PEOPLE.
UM, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO FOR THAT IN SOME OF THESE VERY SMALL LABORATORIES.
UM, THERE IS, OR THE INTENT IS TO TRY AND DO WHAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN ALL OF FORENSICS FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, STANDARDIZING LANGUAGE ON REPORTING, BECAUSE EVERY LAB TALKS ABOUT THESE THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
UH, HOW DO WE GET MORE STANDARD IN OUR REPORTING LANGUAGE AND HOW DO WE ALSO GET MORE STANDARD IN THE LANGUAGE USED IN TESTIMONY? NOW THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER THINGS IN THERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, LABORATORIES.
AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS IS THAT YOU DON'T USE TERMS OF ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
THE, THOSE KINDS OF THAT WE'VE, WE'VE NOT DONE THOSE FOR YEARS.
UM, SO I DIDN'T REALLY PUT 'EM IN HERE, BUT THOSE ARE OTHER, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING PLACED ON LABORATORIES.
UH, THERE IS ALSO HOW WE GO ABOUT WITH MORE BROAD OSAC IMPLEMENTATION.
AGAIN, WE, WE'VE ALREADY BASICALLY DONE ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I FULLY EXPECT WE PROBABLY WILL BE INTEGRAL IN THIS WORKING GROUP.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S KIND OF NO WAY WE CAN'T BE SINCE WE'RE, WE ARE THE MODEL OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THE BLIND STUFF.
UM, AND THE OTHER THAT THEY'VE GOT IN HERE, IT WAS AN ADMONITION TO THE FEDS TO COUGH UP THE MONEY.
UM, BUT ALSO THE LABORATORY SEEK MONEY FOR WHAT YOU, YOU PROBABLY WILL START TO SEE THIS, UH, OF VCM VIRTUAL, UH, I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY REFERRING TO THE 3D SCOPES THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED PROCURING.
SO GOOD NEWS FOR US, WE ARE WELL UNDERWAY OR HAVE BEEN DOING ALL OF THESE THINGS ALREADY FOR YEARS.
UM, WE ARE, AND I I, EVERY POINT I CAN SAY I AM HAPPY, EAGER, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO HELP ANYBODY OUT WHEREVER,
[00:40:01]
HOWEVER WE CAN.ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR ON THAT? I MEAN, THESE ARE, THESE ARE KIND OF SOME OF THE BIG IMPLICATIONS.
PART OF WHAT WILL CHANGE IN REPORTING.
AND I WANTED TO START GETTING PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A BIG SHIFT IN THE REPORT LANGUAGE FOR THOSE THAT DEAL WITH OUR REPORTS.
ONE IS CALLED THIS, I REALLY PICKED A WORD, I CANNOT SAY DISCRIMINABILITY TABLE.
THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS TO TRY AND GET, SO THERE ARE BLACK BOX STUDIES.
UH, THEY ARE OFTEN CRITICIZED FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS OUT THERE, BUT THEY ATTEMPTS AT A GENERIC NATIONWIDE DISCIPLINE WIDE ESTIMATION OF ERROR RATE IS NEEDED.
IT'S ESSENTIAL, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT SUFFICIENT.
SO THIS DISCRIMINABILITY TABLE, THE INTENT IS TO TRY AND GIVE A PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESULT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY LEVEL.
UH, SO IN THE REPORT, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WITH BLIND DATA TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, AND WE'VE PUBLISHED THOSE BLIND DATA, THEY ACTUALLY USE OUR DATA AS THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT A DISCRIMINABILITY TABLE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON A REPORT.
SO WE BASICALLY ALREADY HAVE THE DATA TO PUT THIS ON A REPORT.
UM, AND IT GIVES YOU A FEW THINGS ON HERE.
ONE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT, SO IT'S, IT'S A THREE BY TWO TABLE THAT TRIES TO SHOW THE REPORT AS IDENTIFICATION COMPARED TO THE GROUND TRUTH OF WHAT WAS EXPECTED FOR IT.
AND YOU CAN SEE, SO THE UPPER LEFT CORNER THERE WOULD BE THINGS THAT WE KNEW TO BE IDENTIFICATION AND WERE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED CORRECTLY.
AND WE DO THAT ABOUT 70% OF THE TIME.
MORE IMPORTANTLY IS, IF YOU LOOK WE REPORTED AS IDENTIFICATION, SOMETHING THAT WAS A NON, OR WAS INTENDED TO BE AN EXCLUSIONARY PAIR.
WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN ANY OF OUR LINES.
YOU WANT THE PAYABLE TO LOOK LIKE THAT.
UM, THIS IS PART OF THE HUGE DISCUSSION IN FIREARMS IS THE RELIABILITY OF THESE VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS.
AND MANY OF THE STUDIES POINT TO THIS THAT IF A FIREARMS EXAMINER RENDERS AN IDENTIFICATION, CONCLUSION OR AN ELIMINATION CONCLUSION, THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE QUITE RELIABLE.
SO THE ZEROS IN THE, IN THE LOWER LEFT AND THE UPPER RIGHT CORNERS, GREAT.
THE CONUNDRUM FOR ALL OF US, AND THE PART TO TRY AND HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IS THE INCONCLUSIVE COLUMN AND THE RE AND THE REALITY OF IT THAT, YEAH, IN THOSE PLACES WHERE WE CALL SOMETHING INCONCLUSIVE, IT MASKS A LOT OF STUFF.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE WHEN WE HAVE A NON MATED, SO GROUND TRUTH ELIMINATION, ONLY ABOUT 26% OF THE TIME DO WE IDENTIFY THAT AS ELIMINATION.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET ALL THE WAY TO SAY ELIMINATION AS A CONCLUSION.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WE CALL IT INCONCLUSIVE.
SO THE IDEA HERE IN THIS TABLE IS TO HELP THE END USER OF THE REPORT UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE INCONCLUSIVE CONCLUSION AND ALSO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A IDENTIFICATION OR ELIMINATION, IT'S A PRETTY RELIABLE RESULT.
THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE, SO IS THIS DATA THAT WILL BE PRESENTED? YES.
YEAH, ACTUALLY THIS WILL GO ON OUR REPORTS.
NOW, THINGS THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT IN THIS, I MEAN, WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE THE DATA RIGHT NOW.
UM, HOW OFTEN DO WE UPDATE IT? WHAT ALL'S INCLUDED? YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS OF JUST SOME OF THE MECHANICS OF IT.
BUT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE TABLES ON OUR REPORTS.
THE OTHER IS THIS REPRODUCIBILITY TABLE.
UM, WE HAVEN'T ASSEMBLED OUR DATA ON THIS, BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THIS TABLE IS TO GIVE THE END USER THE REPORT, UH, AN ESTIMATION OF HOW REPRODUCIBLE BETWEEN EXAMINERS IS A CONCLUSION.
SO THIS IS A THREE BY THREE THAT YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST EXAMINER COMPARED TO THE SECOND EXAMINER AS AN AGGREGATE VIEW.
SO ACROSS THE, THE DIAGONAL THAT GOES FROM UPPER LEFT TO LOWER RIGHT WOULD BE WHERE THE TWO ARE CONCURRENT IN THEIR OR CONCORDANT, SORRY, IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS.
AND THE OTHERS ARE WHERE THERE'S A DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO CONCLUSIONS.
WE'D POPULATE THIS TABLE BASED ON BLIND VERIFICATIONS.
SO WE HAVE DATA THAT WE CAN POPULATE THIS TABLE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND ASSEMBLE
[00:45:01]
IT OUT OF BLIND VERIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE.WE'VE NEVER REALLY COLLECTED THAT IN AGGREGATE, BUT WE AT LEAST HAVE THE DATA TO POPULATE THIS.
OTHER LABORATORIES ARE GONNA HAVE TO WORK ON HOW WE GET TOGETHER THE DATA TO DO THAT.
THE EXAMPLE THAT THEY GIVE IN THE REPORT USES WHAT'S CALLED AIMS TWO STUDY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE BLACK BOX STUDIES OUT THERE.
AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE, THE DIFFERENCES IN THINGS THAT ABOUT, LET'S SEE, ABOUT 70% OF THE TIME YOU HAVE CONCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO EXAMINERS ACROSS CONCLUSIONS.
AGAIN, IT'S THE INCONCLUSIVE KIND OF STUFF WHERE THE HEADACHES ARISE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE IDEA BETWEEN THE TWO TABLES, IS TO GIVE THE END USERS AN IDEA OF HOW RELIABLE IS IT IN THAT LABORATORY WITH THEIR PROCESS AND HOW REPRODUCIBLE IS IT BETWEEN THE TWO EXAMINERS.
AND THAT WOULD ALSO GO ON THE, ON THE REPORT.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS ON THAT PART? OKAY, SO THERE'S A WHOLE NOTHER PART IN THIS REPORT ABOUT PROFICIENCY TESTING.
NOW JACKIE GETS UP AND TALKS ABOUT PROFICIENCY TESTING.
AND SO PART OF MY GOAL HERE IS ALSO TO SET UP, 'CAUSE SHE'S GOTTA TALK ABOUT ONE OF OUR DISCLOSURES THAT'LL GO ON THE NEXT, UH, TFSC MEETING.
THAT'S ABOUT A PROFICIENCY TEST.
BUT REMEMBER, PROFICIENCY TESTING IS BASICALLY MATERIALS THAT WE GET FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE.
THEY SEND 'EM TO US THAT WE USE TO TEST THE PROFICIENCY, THE, THE ONGOING ABILITY OF OUR ANALYSTS AND EXAMINERS TO DO WHAT THEY DO.
ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS DONE AS AN OPEN EXERCISE.
THEY KNOW IT IS A PROFICIENCY TEST.
AND THIS IS PART OF, AGAIN, A HUGE DISCUSSION IN ALL OF FORENSICS ABOUT HOW PROFICIENCY STUFF GETS HANDLED.
NOW THIS ENDS UP IN, UM, THE REPORT FOR A COUPLE REASONS, BUT JUST SO YOU'VE GOT AN IDEA HERE ON PROFICIENCIES, THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO AND HOW MUCH IS IT REQUIRED? AND HOPEFULLY MY GLASSES, I CAN SEE THIS, IT'S A REGULATORY TOOL.
THIS IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER OUR ACCREDITATION.
WE HAVE TO DO THIS AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.
UM, IT MEASURES THE PERFORMANCE WITH OTHER FORENSIC LABORATORIES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A COMPARATOR BETWEEN LABORATORIES ARE MULTIPLE WATCHES IN THE SYSTEM ALL TELLING THE SAME TIME.
UM, SO, SO IN MY PAST WHEN I WAS AT RTI, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE DID IS WE MANUFACTURED PROFICIENCY MATERIALS.
AND SO I ALWAYS HAVE TO KIND OF STOP AND THINK THROUGH MY HEAD DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY SYSTEMS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH.
IN CRIME LABORATORIES, PROFICIENCIES ARE MUCH MORE TARGETED AT INDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS RATHER THAN JUST SIMPLY THE SYSTEM.
IN TOXICOLOGY WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING, IT'S MUCH MORE A SYSTEM TEST AND MUCH LESS AN INDIVIDUAL ANALYST TEST.
BUT IN CRIME LABORATORIES IT'S MUCH MORE, IT'S MUCH MORE GEARED TOWARDS MONITORING INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE.
UM, AND IT REALLY IS A TOOL TO MEASURE THE, THE ANALYTICAL STEPS.
AND I SAY THAT AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT, PTS, THEY, THEY AREN'T, WE'RE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO EMULATE REAL SAMPLES, BUT THEY, THEY, UM, THEY CAN NEVER BE ACTUAL REAL SAMPLES.
THERE'S ALWAYS THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ABOUT THEM.
WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
WE TRY TO TREAT THEM AS SIMILARLY TO ACTUAL SAMPLES AS WE CAN.
BUT THINGS LIKE ANALYSTS ARE AWARE THAT THEY ARE TAKING ONE OF THESE LOTS OF CRITICISMS ABOUT THAT.
THEY'RE, THEY ARE NOT A TOOL THAT YOU CAN REALLY USE FOR BIAS CONTROL.
THEY'RE REALLY A TOOL TO TEST HOW IS THAT ANALYTICAL STEP PERFORMING IN KIND OF A SNAPSHOT? UM, REALLY, YEAH, IN SOME WAYS THEY'RE INTENDED TO MIMIC CASEWORK, BUT THEY REALLY CAN'T ENTIRELY MIMIC CASEWORK.
UM, AND THEY DON'T EVALUATE THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
SO THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT PTS.
NOW WE END UP WITH THIS ONE IN THE FIREARMS REPORT AND WHY I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE BECAUSE THERE IS A PT IN FIREARMS THAT HAS PRETTY MUCH SET THE COUNTRYSIDE ON FIRE.
UM, THIS ONE HERE CAME OUT, UH, KINDA LOSE TRACK OF WHEN IT WAS, WELL, I GUESS NOPE, I WAS JUST THINKING IF THE DATE WAS ON THERE.
UM, THIS ONE'S REALLY GOT PEOPLE TALKING BECAUSE THE RESULTS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESULTS THAT ARE ON THERE, YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE PRETTY EVENLY SPREAD BETWEEN YES, IDENTIFICATION, NO EXCLUSION, AND INC INCONCLUSIVE OR I DON'T KNOW, KINDA LOOK AT THOSE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S ABOUT 20% SAID ID AND THEN IT'S KINDA SPLIT EVEN BETWEEN THE INCONCLUSIVE AND NO ON THOSE ITEMS. NOW IT'LL HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VARIOUS ITEMS WERE.
THERE WERE FIVE ITEMS IN THIS PROFICIENCY.
[00:50:01]
ONE ITEM THAT WAS THE TEST ITEM WAS A FIREARM, A PARTICULAR MAKE AND MODEL THAT THERE WERE THREE ITEMS THAT CAME FROM THAT.THREE BULLETS THAT CAME FROM IT.
SO THOSE ARE ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FIVE OR THOSE.
THERE WAS THE REFERENCE, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS A DIFFERENT FIREARM OF SAME MAKE AND MODEL.
SO IT WAS A VERY SIMILAR FIREARM, LOTS OF THE, THE SAME CLASS CHARACTERISTICS.
SO ITEM ONE IS BASICALLY THE REFERENCE ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FIVE ARE TEST ITEMS. THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE EXCLUSIVE.
AND THEN ITEM FOUR WAS FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FIREARM WITH VERY DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS.
SO IT WAS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE EXCLUSIVE.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THOSE? SO NOW WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS, IT STARTS TO GET REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN YOU GOT 20% OF THE COUNTRY CALLING THAT THING ID.
HOW'D THAT HAPPEN? AND THEN IT ALSO GETS TO BE REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE OF THAT EVEN SPLIT OF INCONCLUSIVE AND ELIMINATION.
SO THIS HAS REALLY GOT PEOPLE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS.
INTER MONTY, UH, MONTY IS OUR QUANTI.
THIS IS THE QUANTUM SCOPE THAT WE HAVE.
UH, THIS ONE IS PART OF A RESEARCH GRANT PROJECT THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS THE FIRST 3D SCOPE THAT WE HAVE.
THE TWO THAT ARE COMING THAT SHOULD DELIVER SHORTLY ARE ONES THAT WILL GO TOWARDS CASEWORK.
WE CAN'T USE MONTY ON CASEWORK, UH, UNTIL WE'RE DONE WITH THE RESEARCH PROJECT.
BUT MONTY'S SITTING ON A DESK, I'VE USED THIS JOKE A FEW TIMES IN A FEW DIFFERENT GROUPS NOW, BUT MONTY WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH HIS FRONT DOOR, SO THEY HAD THE COVER OFF OF HIM.
AND WHEN I SAW THAT, OKAY, YEAH, I'M A, I'M A DR.
HUG GEEK, BUT I MEAN SERIOUSLY, IT IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THOSE, OH, COME ON THOUGH.
THE NERDS ALL LAUGH WITH THIS, BUT, UM, PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THIS SET WAS REALLY POOR MARKING.
SO THE, THESE ARE THE KIND OF 3D DATA THAT WE GET OUT OF MONTY.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK THE TEST TO TEST, SO LIKE ITEM TWO TO ITEM THREE, THINGS THAT WERE KNOWN TO COME FROM THE SAME FIREARM, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO LOOK AT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE UNKNOWN TO THE TEST.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO LOOK AT.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO? EVEN MORE SO, AND THIS IS, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF DATA THAT WE WILL ULTIMATELY BE HEADED TOWARDS FOR FIREARMS OR DATA THAT LOOK LIKE THIS.
SO THIS IS MORE THE ALGORITHMIC KIND OF COMPARISON THAT'S DONE BASED OFF OF THOSE 3D DATA DOWN TO THE LEFT ON THAT GRAPH MEANS, I DON'T KNOW, UP TO THE RIGHT MEANS GRADING GREATER CERTAINTY OF IDENTIFICATION.
WHEN WE COMPARE THE TEST TO THE TEST, A KNOWN MATCH, WE GET A NUMBER THAT'S DOWN THERE IN THE LOWER LEFT.
AND WHEN WE COMPARE THE TEST TO THE UNKNOWN, A KNOWN NON MATCH, WE GET THE SAME NUMBER.
SO EVEN THE ALGORITHMS ON THESE THINGS CAN'T TELL BEYOND INCONCLUSIVE.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF INCONCLUSIVE.
NOW WHAT'S GONNA COME OUT OF THIS PT? I DON'T KNOW.
UM, I WILL SAY IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DISCRIMINABILITY TABLE, BASICALLY THE RELIABILITY OF RESULTS, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE RESPONDENTS NATIONWIDE.
THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE MOST COMFORTABLE PICTURE IN TEXAS BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ASKED ACROSS ALL THE LABORATORIES IN TEXAS AND THE RESULTS ARE, THOSE RESULTS ARE MORE COMFORTABLE AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY QUITE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SEE OUT OF OUR BLINDS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 65, 70% OF THEM CALLED THEM UN INCONCLUSIVE AND ABOUT 25 30% OF THEM CALLED IT EXCLUSION.
SO PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE OUT OF OUR BLINDS.
ANY QUESTIONS OUT OF ALL OF THIS? OKAY, FOR WHAT JACKIE'S GONNA TALK ABOUT, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WITH PROFICIENCIES, WE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PROCESS THEM LIKE REAL SAMPLES.
WHEN I MANUFACTURED PROFICIENCY MATERIALS FOR WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING LABORATORIES, WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING LABORATORIES ARE VERY LARGE LABORATORIES.
THEY PROCESS OFTEN A MILLION SAMPLES A DAY.
UM, USUALLY THEY WILL REPORT A NEGATIVE RESULT IN SOMETHING LESS THAN EIGHT HOURS AND THEY'LL REPORT A POSITIVE RESULT IN SOMETHING LESS THAN 12 HOURS.
WE, UNDER THE NATIONAL LABORATORY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM SENT FOUR PT SETS A YEAR AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL REFRAIN FROM MY SOAPBOX ABOUT LIMITATIONS IN ACCREDITATION.
[00:55:01]
GET ONE PT SET A YEAR.UM, WE GAVE THEM 10 BUSINESS DAYS TO REPORT BACK RESULTS.
INVARIABLY ALL THE RESULTS CAME BACK ON DAY 10.
SO CLEARLY THE LABORATORIES WERE HANDLING THOSE SAMPLES AS THEY DO ACTUAL CASES.
IT'S THE REALITY OF PROFICIENCIES.
PROFICIENCIES ARE ALWAYS PACKAGED DIFFERENTLY THAN ACTUAL SAMPLES.
THEY ARE ALMOST ALWAYS RECEIVED DIFFERENTLY THAN ACTUAL SAMPLES.
THEY ARE ALMOST ALWAYS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.
AND THIS IS PART OF OUR CHALLENGE.
LIKE IN BIOLOGY WE HAVE A BACKLOG IN BIOLOGY, WE HAVE TIMELINES THAT WE HAVE TO GET THE RESULT BACK ON THE PROFICIENCY, WHICH THEN MEANS WE'VE GOTTA RUN THEM OUT OF ORDER.
THEY'RE OFTEN RUN AS THEIR OWN UNIQUE BATCH.
ALL OF THESE THINGS INCREASE RISK AROUND HOW YOU'RE HANDLING BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING ANALYSTS OUT OF THEIR NORMAL FUNCTIONING.
UM, OFTEN THEY ARE DESIGNED TO TEST MANY MULTIPLE THINGS AND DIFFERENT THINGS ALL AT ONCE.
SO OFTEN THEY AREN'T QUITE, YES, THEY ALL ARE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN REAL CASE WORK, BUT YOU WOULD VERY RARELY SEE ALL OF THOSE THINGS BUNDLED UP INTO ONE PARTICULAR SAMPLE.
BUT FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF TRYING TO TEST MULTIPLE THINGS, YOU OFTEN AS A MANUFACTURER BACKED INTO HAVING TO PUT MULTIPLE THINGS INTO ONE CASE.
UM, THEY ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE DIFFERENT IDENTIFIERS.
SO JUST IN THE HANDLING OF THESE THINGS, STUFF HAS TO BE DIFFERENT.
THEY LOOK DIFFERENT, THEY FEEL DIFFERENT, THEY SMELL DIFFERENT.
UM, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IS YOU REPORT THE RESULTS BACK DIFFERENTLY.
NON CONFO, NON-CONSENSUS RESULTS IN PTS ARE PROBABLY MOST COMMONLY FOUND BECAUSE YOU HAD THE RIGHT ANSWER BUT YOU PUNCHED IT INTO THEIR SYSTEM WRONG BASICALLY A TRANSCRIPTION ERROR AND ENTERING INTO THEIR PORTAL.
NOW I ESSENTIAL TOOL, MY OPINION IS WE NEED BOTH OPEN AND BLIND PROFICIENCY TESTING IN SYSTEMS. SO, YOU KNOW, CAN WE DO BETTER WITH THESE THINGS? I, WE NEED TO, BUT I WANTED TO JUST KIND OF POINT THESE THINGS OUT.
USE THE CONVENIENT SITUATION OF THE FIREARMS PT THAT'S IN THE REPORT TO TALK ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE THIS, SO YOU KIND OF UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS ABOUT PTS FOR WHAT JACKIE NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT OF THE DISCLOSURE THAT INVOLVES A PROFICIENCY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALRIGHT, THE OTHER CHUNK I HAVE IS ABOUT CONSUMPTION ORDERS.
JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, KIND OF CHANGING GEARS ABRUPTLY HERE FOR A LONG TIME, LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE WE HAVE UH, BEEN VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT ENSURING THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE IF WE ARE GOING TO USE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN OUR TESTING, WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THAT BEFORE WE CONSUME ALL THE EVIDENCE.
KIND KIND OF SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.
UM, THE CHOICE OF HOW WE HAVE GONE ABOUT THIS AND I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BACK IN HISTORY I SHOT MY MOUTH OFF ABOUT THIS.
SO THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD DO IT.
UM, SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING I DO.
BUT WE CHOSE TO GO AT THIS OF SAYING WE ARE REQUIRING A COURT ORDER BEFORE WE WILL PROCESS SOMETHING IF WE'RE GONNA DIS IF WE'RE GONNA CONSUME IT.
IT SEEMED LIKE A WAY TO IN ENSURE THE BEST WE COULD THAT EVERYBODY WAS NOTIFIED OF IT.
WELL, TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAS A DECISION OUT THERE SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE LAWYER OVER HERE CAN EXPLAIN BETTER THAN THE TOXICOLOGIST HERE CAN.
UM, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO BASICALLY SAY YOU MUST DO THE TESTING OR STOP THE TESTING.
AND FROM THIS, BECAUSE THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY MAKING THE SYSTEM DO BY OUR SAYING, WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THIS THING WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
WE MAKE THE DA'S OFFICE HAVE TO GO FILE THE COURT ORDER, HAVE TO GO DO ALL OF THIS STUFF.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I GET IT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GO DO THAT WORK.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISION AS THE REASON FOR THEM TO SAY WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO FILE THOSE ORDERS ANYMORE.
SO AQUILA AND YASMINE HAVE SPENT WEEKS, IF NOT MONTHS, MANY HOURS GOING BACK AND FORTH AND TRYING TO FIND A ROUTE THAT WE CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SATISFIES WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE WE'VE COME DOWN TO.
THIS REALLY AFFECTS FORENSIC BIOLOGY AND IT AFFECTS TOXICOLOGY.
SO WHEN WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO CONSUME THE EVIDENCE, WE WILL TELL THE DA'S OFFICE AND ASK THEM, DO YOU WANNA PROCEED WITH THIS? UM, THEY WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, YES OR NO.
IF THEY SAY YES, GIVE US THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR DEFENSE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE.
AND WE SEND OUT THAT NOTIFICATION TO EVERYBODY SO THAT WE KNOW IT, EVERYBODY GOT NOTIFIED.
NOW THE CONCESSION IN THIS IS, WE'LL SAY WE'VE GOT FIVE DAYS BEFORE
[01:00:01]
WE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THIS FOR YOU TO BRING THIS UP WITH THE COURT IF YOU SEE OTHERWISE.SO THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE THE PROCESS ON THIS.
AQUILA, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD ON THAT OR ANY OTHER DESCRIPTION OR IF I DESCRIBED OKAY.
UM, I MEAN I THINK OUR POSITION IS THAT WE TRY TO STAY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND WE KNOW THAT THE PROSECUTORS HAVE ONE PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THINGS NEED TO BE HANDLED, WHAT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE.
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEFENSE MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT WAITING PERIOD, IS TO FIRST AND FOREMOST ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOTICE FOR, FOR US THAT'S THE PRIMARY NEED, UH, FOR EVERYONE TO BE AWARE AND FOR US TO HAVE ACTUAL VISUAL PROOF THAT THE PARTIES WERE NOTIFIED AND THEN SORT OF GIVING THAT, YOU KNOW, WAITING PERIOD FOR THE DEFENSE AND THE STATE TO HAVE WHATEVER CONVERSATIONS THEY NEED TO HAVE.
OR FOR SOME REASON THEY DO BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN ABILITY TO GO BEFORE THE JUDGE TO, TO LITIGATE THAT, FOR THAT TO HAPPEN OR FOR A HEARING TO BE SET.
AND WE CAN JUST KIND OF WAIT TO SEE WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS FROM, FROM THAT.
BUT WE, WE TRY TO POSITION OURSELVES AGAIN SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT BOTH SIDES ARE GONNA HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, VARYING OPINIONS AND WE DON'T WANNA PUT OURSELVES IN THE, IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
SO WE'RE KELA SORRY, PAUSE FOR SURE.
YEAH, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS BEFORE I ASK MY REAL QUESTION.
AND THAT IS WHY FIVE DAYS AND WHAT IS THE MANNER OF NOTIFICATION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL? THE FIVE DAYS WAS JUST A THOUGHT OF WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE TIME FRAME THAT MAYBE SOMEONE IS OUT OF OFFICE, DIDN'T SEE THE EMAIL.
UM, AND IT'S FIVE BUSINESS DAYS, SO ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE WEEK, UM, FOR, FOR THEM TO DO IT.
ALSO, OUR STAFF HAD A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT AS FAR AS WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR WORKFLOW.
'CAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANNA DO IS HAVE A BUNCH OF STOPS AND STARTS, WHICH CAN CREATE PROBLEMS WITH, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS SOMETHING GETS MOVED FORWARD THAT SHOULDN'T BE MOVED FORWARD, OR DOES IT GO BACK TO THE, GO BACK TO THE PROPERTY ROOM, ET CETERA.
SO WE THOUGHT THAT THE FIVE DAYS WAS A REASONABLE, UM, COMPROMISE.
AND THEN, UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR OTHER QUESTION? WELL, FIVE DAYS.
AND THEN WHAT IS THE MATTER OF NOTIFICATIONS? OH, YES, IT'S JUST AN EMAIL.
SO FOR OUR SIDE OF IT, WE ARE GOING TO DO THE EMAIL TO BOTH PARTIES, BUT THE, UM, PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE HAS STATED THAT THEY'RE ALSO GONNA UPLOAD IT TO THE DEFENSE PORTAL.
UM, IS BRIAN'S, BRIAN'S HERE? YES.
SO WE ARE PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE STATE TO DO IT AS WELL THROUGH THEIR TYPICAL MEANS OF NOTIFYING THE DEFENSE.
BUT WE ALSO WANT IT TO HAVE EYES ON BOTH VIA EMAIL.
A SUGGESTION, I, UH, FIVE DAYS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME FOR A DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
UM, I WOULD, UH, SAY THAT, UH, IT, IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE AT LEAST TWO WEEKS.
BUT I'D ALSO, IN TERMS OF THE MECHANISM FOR NOTIFICATION, SOMETHING LIKE AN E-SIGN, IN OTHER WORDS, SOMETHING THAT GOES OUT AND REQUIRES THE SIGNATURE, WHICH WOULD BE JUST A CLICK FROM THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, UH, THAT HE EITHER APPROVES OR, OR DOES NOT APPROVE, UM, OF THAT, UH, TIMING BECAUSE, UH, AND THIS WAY IT WILL GIVE YOU NOTIFICATION AND PROOF THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS SEEN IT BECAUSE, UM, FIVE DAYS WON'T BE SUFFICIENT.
AND IF AN ATTORNEY'S IN TRIAL, HE MAY NOT SEE IT.
IF THE ATTORNEY'S OUTTA TOWN, HE MAY NOT SEE IT.
THE ATTORNEY MAY HAVE TO CONSULT WITH HIS CLIENT WHO MAY BE LOCKED UP.
UM, FIVE DAYS DEFINITELY IS NOT GONNA BE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.
UM, AND ALSO TO HAVE THE REQUISITE PROOF THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS SIGNED OFF.
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY GO TO A SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH LIKE E-SIGNATURE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE PROOF THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS, UM, UH, REDDIT AND IS GIVING APPROVAL TO DESTROY THE EVIDENCE OR SO, BECAUSE I CAN SEE, FORESEE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL, IF AS PROPOSED, WOULD FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS AND MAY CAUSE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE.
I THINK IT'S AN EASY FIX, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT SOME MORE TIME AND ALSO HAVE THE VERIFICATION.
AND YOU, AND IT COULD, WHEN I SAY IT'S LIKE E-SIGNATURE, IT COULD ALSO BE THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT ALSO GOES TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, SO THEY CLICK ON IT AS WELL.
SO YOU'VE GOT ONE DOCUMENT THAT HAS BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SIGNING OFF, UM, ON THE DESTRUCTION.
UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT, IT COULD RAISE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS. I MEAN, IT, IT TAKES TIME SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY IF THE INDIVIDUAL'S INCARCERATED TO GET DOWN TO SEE THE INDIVIDUAL.
[01:05:01]
DEFINITELY TOO SHORT OF A TIME PERIOD.UM, I, I'M GONNA ADD SOMETHING SURE TO THAT.
SO WITH THE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN STATE COURT WITH A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
AND FURTHERMORE, UM, THIS ISN'T MANDATED.
IT'S NOT IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE THAT THEY DO THIS.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE THEY'RE DO, THEY'RE DOING IT FOR, THEY'RE DOING IT FOR THE BAR.
AND, UM, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH WHAT A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S ALSO MEMBERS OF THE BAR THAT DON'T RESPOND TO ANYTHING.
AND IT'S JUST, UM, THE LAB'S DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S JUST, HAS ANYBODY OBJECTED? HAS IT HAPPENED YET? WELL, UNDER THE PREVIOUS PROCEDURE WE WERE REQUIRING THE COURT ORDER, SO WE, WE JUST WAITED.
SO, UM, WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THIS, THIS PROCESS, BUT I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON THE DAY, RIGHT? SOMETIMES THE DEFENSE WILL OBJECT JUST BECAUSE, SO WE HAVE HAD, UM, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WHO, UH, TOOK ISSUE WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE BEING CONSUMED.
BUT LIKE I SAID, OUR PREVIOUS POLICY WAS TO WAIT FOR THE COURT ORDER REGARDLESS.
SO THAT FORM WAS AL, YOU KNOW, ALREADY THERE FOR THEM TO DO IT, ONE OR THE OTHER.
AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE CASE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RIGHT NOW? IT, THAT CASE ALREADY WAS, I MEAN, IT'S A COUPLE YEARS OLD.
SO, AND WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE LAW ON THAT RIGHT NOW? WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE LAW IS WITH RESPECT TO THAT? THE COURT'S ABILITY TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, OVER THIS ISSUE? SO BRIAN IS HERE, IT'S REALLY, UM, A POSITION THAT HIS OFFICE PUT FORWARD, UM, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT WE'VE USED THE CASE IN THE PAST BECAUSE WE'VE HAD, UM, SORT OF AN ORDERING OF US TO REQUIRE RECORDING WITHIN, UM, OUR FACILITIES.
AND SO WE USE THIS CASE TO SAY, ESSENTIALLY THE COURT SAID THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE STATE TO CONSUME OR NOT CONSUME RECORD OR NOT RECORD.
WHATEVER IS WITHIN THE LABS CURRENT PROCESSES IS WHAT WILL OCCUR.
THEY DON'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO SAY, HEY, LAB, WE DON'T LIKE THAT YOU ALL CONSUMING THIS WAY, WE'RE GONNA WAIT.
AS THEY DID IN THAT CASE, THEY TOLD THE STATE TO STOP TO CONSULT WITH EVERYBODY INVOLVED TO HAVE THESE CONFERENCES FOR EVERYBODY PROPOSE HOW THEY WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, HANDLE IT.
AND THE COURT SAID, YOU, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
THE LAB, UH, HAS THE ABILITY TO, TO MOVE FORWARD, AND IF THE STATE WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE COLLECTED IN A CRIME, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN DO THAT.
SO THAT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE'VE USED IT IN PREVIOUS SITUATIONS WHERE, UH, SOMEONE WANTED TO RECORD TESTING BECAUSE OF CONSUMPTION, AND IT BECAME VERY BURDENSOME TO US TO CREATE THESE NEW POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT WE, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY DID NOT HAVE.
AND SO IN THAT INSTANCE, WE USE THIS CASE TO SAY, LOOK, ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING BEYOND OUR NORMAL POLICY WOULD BE A COURTESY, BUT IT'S NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED.
THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN CHAPTER 38 OR ANY OTHER SORT OF GENERAL RIGHT OF, OF THE DEFENSE TO TELL THE STATE HOW TO PROCESS EVIDENCE.
BUT THEN THE PROBLEM FOR THE LAB, AND DR.
STO CAN SPEAK TO THIS, IS THAT WHEN THEY'RE UP THERE AND YOU'RE TESTIFYING MM-HMM
AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY KNOWS THE SCIENTIFIC, IS FAMILIAR WITH THE SIGN, MOST BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE REPEATABILITY MM-HMM
THAT IT'S LIKE, AS A RESULT OF WHAT YOU DID, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO, TO GO INTO REPEATABILITY.
AND SO THAT'S A, I'M KIND OF ARGUING ALL SIDES OF THIS, BUT I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD.
I YEAH, LOOK, THERE NEEDS TO BE A, IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF THE TIME PERIOD.
IT HAS TO, YOU HAVE TO REACH OUT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT, UM, UH, COMPLY, BUT YOU'VE GOTTA GIVE THEM A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO DO SO.
AND YOU'VE GOTTA BE ABLE TO HAVE A PAPER TRAIL, OR NOT A PAPER TRAIL THESE DAYS, BUT AN ELECTRONIC TRAIL.
UM, UH, 'CAUSE I'D HATE TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE, UM, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS THOUGHT IT WAS CRITICAL THAT THEY NEEDED TO, UM, UH, DO FURTHER, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR INDEPENDENT TESTING OR SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND, UH, BE PRECLUDED, UM, BECAUSE WE CUT 'EM SHORT.
SO WHAT ARE OTHER LABS DOING IN THE STATE? OH, THEY DON'T ENTERTAIN COURT ORDERS.
THE STATE JUST MO D THIS IS A DPS CASE, AND DPS DOES NOT SEEK COURT ORDERS ON CONSUMPTION.
SO WE, OUR JURISDICTION HAS BEEN A BIT OF AN ANOMALY IN HAVING THIS SORT OF COLLABORATIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW AND WHEN AND WHAT THE STATE WILL DO.
WITH, UH, AS EVIDENCE, I, I WILL SAY DIRECTOR SILVERMAN, YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S YOUR REMEDY? AND IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE COURT SAID WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUFFICIENT IS THE RECORDS, RIGHT? THAT THE DEFENSE'S ABILITY TO CHALLENGE THE TESTING AND TO, UM,
[01:10:01]
YOU KNOW, CALL IN QUESTION IS SUFFICIENTLY, UM, GUARANTEED BY HAVING ACCESS TO THE STATE'S RECORDS REGARDING TESTING FROM, YOU KNOW, THE CALIBRATION TO THE RUNS.ALL OF THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE PROTECTS, NOT THE ABILITY TO SAY WHEN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN OR THAT WE WANNA BE THERE OR THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, OR THAT WE WANT TO RETEST IT OR WE WANT INDEPENDENT TESTING.
THAT THAT IS NOT A RIGHT, THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STATUTES AND THAT IT DOESN'T PARTICULARLY GO TOWARDS DUE PROCESS.
THE THE DUE PROCESS PIECE OF IT WOULD BE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE RECORDS REGARDING HOW IT WAS CONDUCTED.
AND I MEAN, THE OTHER PROBLEMS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, WHETHER IT'S FIVE DAYS OR 14 DAYS, IS THAT, OR A MONTH OR WHATEVER, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE LAWYERS THAT, UH, OR AS TRIAL STRATEGY ARE GONNA SAY IN TRIAL THAT, WELL, DR. STOUT, YOU DESTROYED ALL, YOU CONSUMED ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND I CAN'T EVEN RETEST IT.
THAT'S GONNA OPEN THE DOOR TO THEM COMING IN AND GOING, WELL, NO, WE SENT YOU THIS NOTICE, WE GAVE YOU 14 DAYS AND, AND THEN ALL THE, ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT'S GONNA, PART OF YOUR TRIAL STRATEGY IS GONNA BE, WELL, NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN, 4, 5, 14 DAYS IS A LOT BETTER THAN FIVE DAYS AND, UH, UH, FIVE DAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT THERE'S ONE CODE OUT THERE, UH, YOU KNOW, A COURT OF CRIMINAL, UM, WELL, THAT THERE'S ANY RULES OUT THERE THAT LIMITS YOU TO A FIVE DAY RESPONSE PERIOD THERE.
SO WELL, NO, THERE'S NO, WITH WHAT SHE'S SAYING AND I UNDERSTAND.
NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING PERFECTLY.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS. SURE.
SO YOU SEE THE DISCUSSION IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HERE.
I MEAN THIS IS, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE GONE, IT HAS BEEN, AND, AND LIKE I SAY, KE AND YASMINE HAVE BEEN WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THIS.
UH, HOW LONG DO WE DO THIS? HOW LONG DO WE TRY AND NAVIGATE THROUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS? UM, THE, THE, I THINK ANOTHER QUESTION, I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE TIMELINE, BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH THE POINT THAT IF AN, IF AN ATTORNEY IS IN TRIAL, IT COULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN FIVE DAYS.
HOW DOES IT, HOW DOES IT IMPACT THE CRIME LAB IF IT WERE TO BE, FOR EXAMPLE, EXTENDED TO 10 DAYS? WHAT KIND OF BURDEN DOES THAT CREATE FOR THE TIME LAP FOR THE, FOR THE LAB TO BE ABLE TO WAIT THAT EXTRA FIVE DAYS? SO WE DISCUSSED A FEW OPTIONS ACTUALLY.
SO I THINK WE MAY, WE ACTUALLY PROBABLY STARTED AT THE 10 BUSINESS DAYS UHHUH, IIE TWO WEEKS, AND THEN WE CAME DOWN TO THE FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.
I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR MY PEOPLE.
I FEEL LIKE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE DAYS IS PROBABLY NOT UNREASONABLE, BUT BEFORE ALL OF THE MANAGERS TACKLE ME AS I EXIT THE BUILDING, I DON'T WANNA COMMIT TO IT WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH THE MANAGERS AS WELL AS OUR QUALITY DIRECTOR.
UM, JACKIE, SHE WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH IT.
I THINK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE BUSINESS DAYS WOULD NOT KILL OUR PROCESSES OR CREATE, UM, AN UNDUE, UM, POTENTIAL FOR ERRORS OR, OR COMPLICATIONS WITH MOVING THE EVIDENCE.
SO I, I WILL DEFINITELY TAKE IT BACK TO THE TEAM.
I, I THINK IT'S A, A REASONABLE ASK, BUT, UM, I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY UPDATE YOU ALL AFTER THE MEETING TO, TO LET YOU ALL KNOW WE'VE ISSUED THE MEMO.
I KNOW I SIGNED OFF ON IT THIS WEEK.
DOES IT HAVE THE TIMELINE IN THERE, JACKIE? DO YOU RECALL? IT DOES.
SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD TAKE, WE CAN, WE CAN REISSUE.
UM, SO WE'LL I'LL TAKE THAT BACK TO THE TEAM.
I THINK AS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE, UM, FOR US, WE KINDA OPERATE IN THE BUSINESS DAYS SENSE.
SO 10 BUSINESS DAYS WOULD BE HOW WE WOULD PHRASE IT.
UM, BUT I WILL GET WITH THE TEAM AND, AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES THAT I'M NOT FORESEEING WITH MAKING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MODIFICATION.
YEAH, YOU, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE SCENARIO OF AN ACTUALLY INNOCENT PERSON AND THERE'S SOME DNA EVIDENCE AND THE PERSON, THE CLIENT, IF WE DID TALK TO HIM, HE'S GONNA TELL US, JUMP UP AND DOWN.
IT'S LIKE, PLEASE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE YOU PRESERVE THAT.
AND IF THAT DOESN'T, THAT WOULD BE THE WORST STRATEGY THAT THAT'S NOT DONE.
SO THE, THE, THE TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS MOST AFFECTS IS FORENSIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY.
THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT WE SEE GET CONSUMED.
WELL, LOGICALLY YOU CAN THINK THROUGH IT.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT ARE CONSUMABLE.
UM, MOST EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO CONSUME IT.
UH, THERE'S, THERE'S A, SOME KIND OF SIDELONG, ALLEGORIES AND MAYBE MULTIMEDIA, BUT REALLY THESE ARE THE TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCE WE'RE TALKING.
AND HOW OFTEN DOES IT HAPPEN TOXICOLOGY? IT CERTAINLY HAPPENS LESS NOW BECAUSE WHERE WE WOULD MOST OFTEN SEE SOMETHING TO CONSUME WAS WHEN WE HAD A, WHAT WE CALL A HOSPITAL SAMPLE.
[01:15:01]
DRAW, LIKE IN AN ER YOU TAKE FIGURE, THE SCENARIO IS YOU HAVE AN AUTO ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER'S TRANSPORTED, THERE'S BLOOD THAT'S DRAWN AT THE ER AND THAT BECOMES THE EVIDENTIARY SAMPLE BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE NEAREST MOST PROXIMAL SAMPLE TO THE ACCIDENT THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN.BLOOD CONCENTRATIONS OF, OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL.
THOSE SAMPLES ARE ALWAYS FRAUGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COLLECTED THE SAME WAY.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME PACKAGING.
THEY'RE MUCH MORE PRONE TO ERRORS.
THEY'RE USUALLY MUCH SMALLER VOLUME.
OFTEN WE'RE GETTING ALMOST VANISHINGLY SMALL VOLUMES.
UM, SO THEY'RE ALWAYS PROBLEMATIC.
WE GET FEWER OF THOSE NOW, WHICH IS GREAT 'CAUSE OUR, OUR BLOOD KIT IS DESIGNED AROUND RETAINING A SAMPLE.
UM, THAT'S WHY THERE'S MULTIPLE TUBES THAT ARE COLLECTED IN THERE.
SO WE CAN DO THE TE DO THE INITIAL TESTING ON ONE TUBE AND THERE STILL IS A TUBE THAT IS PRESERVED, UNOPENED, UNAFFECTED.
UM, SO IT REDUCES THAT, THAT POSSIBILITY.
BUT YEAH, THO THOSE ARE THE TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, HOW OFTEN DO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ASK TO, UM, PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE SO THAT, AND THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR OWN TESTING WITH THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT LAB? IF, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CASES OUTSIDE OF CONSUMPTION, JUST A REGULAR CASE, I MEAN, OUR STAFF IS ALWAYS GOING TO AIR TOWARDS PRE PRESERVING, YOU KNOW, AN ADDITIONAL SAMPLE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE, BUT EVERY NOW AND THEN WE HAVE ATTORNEYS WHO SAY, HEY, WE WANNA TAKE THIS OUT FOR INDEPENDENT TESTING, MAKE SURE IT'S THERE.
AND WE'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW, OUR PEOPLE ARE LIKE, PLEASE DO.
RIGHT? WE'LL COORDINATE IT WITH HPD, SO YOU CAN PICK IT UP FROM THERE.
BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE REALLY.
CONSUMPTION ITSELF ISN'T, YOU KNOW, OVERLY FREQUENT AS WELL.
UM, I THINK WHEN WE WERE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THE NUANCE OF THIS POLICY, WE WERE IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR MAYBE LIKE A, A MONTH OR TWO AND FORENSIC BIOLOGY ONLY HAD LIKE TWO OR THREE AT THE TIME.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE.
BUT I MEAN, THE PROBLEM THOUGH, EVEN THE PROBLEM WITH THE, IN GETTING A LAB TO INDEPENDENTLY TEST IT, IT'S GONNA BE AN ASCL CERTIFIED LAB IN ORDER TO GET THE RESULT IN FRONT OF A JURY ANYWAY.
AND SO MORE LIKELY, YEAH, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS A FEW TIMES.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT OFTEN, BUT THE, THE DESIRE TO DO OBS OBSERVATION OF THE ANALYSIS KNOWING THAT WE'RE GONNA CONSUME IT IS SOMEBODY'S THERE TO OBSERVE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM.
THIS IS, THIS IS PART OF WHY WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DISCUSS THIS HERE AS WE'VE BEEN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S BEEN A LONG ARC GETTING TO THIS POINT AND IT'S THE NATURE OF HOW WE TRY AND WORK THROUGH THESE THINGS.
I WANNA ADD ONE THING FOR YOU.
THIS IS SOMETHING NEW THAT THE DA'S OFFICE IS SENDING OUT.
I GET A, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY MORNING AT FOUR 50 WE GET AN EMAIL WITH OUR DISCOVERY AND THEN I GET A DISMISSAL DOCKET NOW.
AND SO SOMEHOW THE LAB COULD BE PART OF THAT.
UM, IT TELLS ME WHAT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES PROSECUTORS DON'T TELL ME THEY DISMISS CASES AND IT'S TRIAL CASES THAT ARE SET TWO OR THREE WEEKS DOWN THE ROAD.
AND SO IF SOMEHOW THE LAB GOT THAT EMAIL, IT WOULD, THEY WOULD NEED THAT WOULD BE LOVELY.
MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.
UH, WE NEED TO CONSIDER APPROVAL, UH, FOR A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND INQUISITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS FOR THE REDESIGN AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CORPORATION'S ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY WEBSITE.
THE TOTAL BUDGET IS NOT TO EXCEED $490,993, WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH THE ARPA.
AND, UH, LET'S SEE, MEMBERS, YOU'VE RECEIVED A SUMMARY SHEET, SO THAT SHOULD HAVE COME OUT IN A SEPARATE EMAIL AND CON CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REDESIGN OF OUR E-DISCOVERY WEBSITE.
PLEASE NOTE, THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED BY FEDERAL ARPA DOLLARS, WHICH WERE GENEROUSLY GRANTED TO HFSC BY THE CITY IN 2022.
BEFORE I TURN THIS OVER TO DR. STOUT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, I WANT TO REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE AT HFSC.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE TRANSPARENCY WITH OUR RECORDS AND OUR STAFF DOES AN AMAZING JOB ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS EVERY DAY.
THAT EFFORT IS PARTICULARLY LED BY OUR CLIENT SERVICES AND CASE MANAGEMENT TEAM WHO TRULY HAS THIS PROCESS DOWN.
WE ARE EXTREMELY GRATEFUL FOR THEIR WORK AND PROFESSIONALISM IN DEALING WITH ATTORNEYS.
HOWEVER, THEY, UH, THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EFFORTS OF OUR ANALYST, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, QUALITY DIVISION, AND DR.
REARDEN'S GROUP IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT SIDE.
HFSC HAS ONE OF THE MOST ROBUST E-DISCOVERY
[01:20:01]
WEBSITES OF ANY LAB IN THE US.THIS AGREEMENT WILL ALLOW US TO, TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE THE SITE, TO MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY AND FUNCTIONAL FOR STAFF WHO ARE UPLOADING DOCUMENTS.
WE ARE EXCITED TO SEE THAT THIS PRO, UH, WHAT THE END PRODUCT WILL BE.
DR. STOUT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD? I THINK YOU HIT THE BIG PARTS THERE.
I MEAN, YOU, Y'ALL ALL FAMILIAR, WE'VE TALKED OVER THE YEARS ABOUT E-DISCOVERY.
THE, THE, THE MAIN PART IS WHAT HA THE, THE FRAMEWORK AND THE SOFTWARE THAT IT RIDES ON RIGHT NOW IS COMING TO END OF LIFE.
IT'S, IT'S TIME TO DO A REDESIGN.
UM, SO WE HAVE THE MARVELOUS OPPORTUNITY WITH SOME ARPA DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS 'CAUSE IT GOES TO HOW WE PROVIDE ALL THIS DOCUMENTATION.
BUT YEAH, IT GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION.
WE WILL NOW HAVE A VOICE VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN INQUISITIVE AND THE CORPORATION FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE CORPORATION'S ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY WEBSITE.
THE TOTAL BUDGET WILL NOT EXCEED, UH, $490,993.
AND TO AUTHORIZE DR. STOUT TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON THE BOARD'S BEHALF.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION? OKAY, THANK YOU.
IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, DR. STOUT, WE'LL GET GOING.
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 IS OUR REPORT FROM JACKIE MORRELL, OUR QUALITY SPECIALIST, INCLUDING AN OVERVIEW OF THE BLIND QUALITY PROGRAM, UPDATES ON QUALITY AND TESTIMONY METRICS.
UM, MY FIRST TOPIC FOR TODAY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS THE BLIND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY SLIDES, WE MET OUR SUBMISSION, OUR SUBMISSION GOALS, BOTH FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH AND THE MONTH OF APRIL.
MOVING ON ONTO QUALITY UPDATES OR BLIND UPDATES, WE RECENTLY HAD OUR HFSC BLIND TESTING AND FIREARMS PUBLICATION GOT RECOGNIZED AND AWARDED TWO CERTIFICATES BY WILEY PUBLISHERS AS THEY WERE RANKED THE TOP 10% DOWNLOADED AND RECOGNIZED AS THE TOP, TOP 10 MOST CITED PAPERS IN THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES.
UH, BETWEEN THE TIMEFRAME OF JANUARY TO DECEMBER OF 2023.
IF, IF YOU NEED ANY MORE DEMONSTRATION THAT THIS WHOLE FIREARMS CONVERSATION IS A BIG DEAL, YES, WE'RE GETTING
UM, I KIND OF HAVE AN INKLING THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN ALSO THE FI THE TFSC FIREARMS, UH, REPORT GOING AROUND AND WELL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THING, THE THING I FIND AMUSING IS I'VE, I'VE GOT A LOT OF PUBLICATIONS IN TOXICOLOGY AND THE FIRST TIME I GET A HIGHLY CITED PAPER IS IN FIREARMS
WELL, NOT ONLY HAS IT BEEN RECOGNIZED, BUT IT'S ALSO THE, THE DATA IN THIS PAPER HAS BEEN USED AS DR. STOUT EXTENSIVELY MENTIONED IN THE DISCRIMINABILITY TABLE, UH, FOR THE TFSC INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.
AND, UM, AND ALSO IT'S ALSO GONNA BE USED IN A MANUSCRIPT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN APRIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCE.
UM, THE AUTHORS OF THAT PAPER COLLABORATED WITH DR.
ALBRIGHT, UM, FOR, ON THE NEED FOR TEST OF TEST BLIND STUDIES AND FORENSICS.
SO HOPEFULLY IT'LL, UM, IT WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND, UH, MOVED ON TO PUBLICATION.
JUST, JUST FOR ALL OF YOU TO BE AWARE.
NICK KIRCH AND TOM ALBRIGHT, UM, I'VE DONE A FAIR BIT OF WORK WITH THEM OVER THE YEARS, BUT THEY ARE TO, UH, PROMINENT CRITICS OF FIREARMS. IT WILL MAKE WAVES OF US BEING ON A PAPER WITH THE TWO OF THEM, SO STANDBY FOR COMMENTARY.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK OUR INTENT IS TO CONTINUE PROMOTING THE BLIND QUALITY CONTROL, UM, TO, UH, PROGRAMS, WHICH IS ALSO AS WELL BEING PUSHED THROUGH THE COMMISSION SIDE AS WELL.
SO THAT'S OUR INTENT WITH OUR COLLABORATION WITH THEM.
UH, MOVING ON INTO MORE QUALITY UPDATES.
AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, UH, WE, UH, PER ACCREDITATION WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT YEARLY INTERNAL AUDITS.
SO WE HAVE FINALIZED AND CONCLUDED FIVE AUDITS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AND APRIL.
WE'VE, UM, CONCLUDED FIREARMS, CRIME SCENE, MULTIMEDIA, TOXICOLOGY, AND LATENT PRINTS.
UH, DURING THIS MONTH OF MAY, WE ACTUALLY, UH, STARTED THIS WEEK, UH, THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION INTERNAL AUDIT, AND THEN NEXT WEEK WE ARE SCHEDULED TO COMPLETE THE CEASE DRUG SECTION.
SO AT THE END OF MAY, WE WILL HAVE FINALIZED ALL OF THE INTERNAL AUDITS FOR OUR 17 0 2 5 PROGRAM.
AND, UH, WE'LL RESUME IN AUGUST.
UM, AND WE WILL DO THE INTERNAL AUDIT FOR CSEM FOR THE A AND A B, UH, PROPERTY AND ACCREDITATION PROGRAM, THE AR 31 81, AND THEN I'LL JUST PROVIDE YOU MORE FEEDBACK AND UPDATES FOR THOSE INTERNAL AUDITS.
[01:25:02]
A AND A B OR ACCREDITING BODY IS REQUIRED TO COM TO COMPLETE A SURVEILLANCE VISIT EVERY YEAR.IT COULD BE EITHER REMOTE OR ON SITE, UH, TO VERIFY THAT WE'RE CONFORMING TO OUR ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS THIS YEAR.
WE, THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO COME HERE ON SITE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE SPECIFICALLY AUDITING QUALITY AND THE TOXICOLOGY SECTION FOR THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THIS IS SCHEDULED TO HAPPEN DURING THE WEEK OF JULY 22ND THROUGH THE 25TH.
AND IN ADDITION TO US QUALITY AND TOXICOLOGY BEING AUDITED, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE A AND EB COME AND COMPLETE AS, UM, AN AUDIT OF THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION FOR SPEC, UH, FOR QAS STANDARDS.
SO THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION, IN ADDITION TO HAVING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ISO 17 0 2 5 STANDARD AND ALL OF THE FORENSIC SPECIFIC A EB REQUIREMENTS, THEY ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW A SET OF STANDARDS CALLED QAS STANDARDS THAT ARE SET BY THE FBI IN ORDER FOR THEM, WHEN THEY SHOW CONFORMANCE TO THESE TECHNICAL, UH, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, THEY'RE ALLOWED PER, AND THEY'RE ALLOWED AND THEY'RE GOING TO PERMISSION TO UPLOAD DNA PROFILES INTO THE CO IS DATABASE, WHICH IS, WHICH WAS CREATED AND IS MANAGED BY THE FBI.
AND, UH, SO WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE HAVING IN CONJUNCTION THAT AUDIT GOING ON AND, UH, IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT OF A BUSY WEEK.
BUT, UM, I WILL SURELY, UH, PROVIDE YOU ANY UPDATES OF FOR THAT ASSESSMENT.
MOVING ALONG TO TFSC DISCLOSURES, UH, WE, THEY RECENTLY HAD THEIR QUARTERLY MEETING, UH, ON APRIL 26TH.
AND WE HAD TWO DISCLOSURES, UH, THAT WERE REVIEWED BY THEM ON THE AGENDA.
THE BOTH OF THOSE DISCLOSURES WERE CLOSED AS NO ACTION NEEDED, MEANING THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT OUR ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS WAS APPROPRIATE AND ALSO THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT WE IMPLEMENTED TO REMEDIATE AND PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
THE FIRST DISCLOSURE WAS IN THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION.
I KNOW I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE.
IT WAS A VERY EXTENSIVE DISCLOSURE 'CAUSE IT WAS A VERY LONG AUDIT.
UM, THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION, UM, IDENTIFIED AN INHERENT SUBTLETY AND THE PROBABILISTIC GENOTYPING SOFTWARE THAT WE USE, UM, WHERE THEY ACTUALLY HAD TO GO BACK WHEN THEY FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE SOFTWARE BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2019 TO AUDIT ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS AND CASES THAT THEY HAD PER PERMEATED IN THIS SOFTWARE TO ENSURE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT GLITCH OR INHERENT SUBTLETY AS PART OF THE SOFTWARE.
WE DID IDENTIFY FIVE CASES WHERE WE RELEASED SUPPLEMENTAL OR AMENDED REPORTS AND WE PROVIDED NOTIFICATION.
AND, UM, IN ADDITION, WE MADE, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T MAINTAIN THE SOFTWARE, WE ARE USERS OF THE SOFTWARE, WE RE RE WE REMEDIATED ON OUR END AND WE IMPLEMENTED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND MADE PROCESS CHANGES IN ORDER TO PREVENT THIS GLITCH, ALTHOUGH IT'S STILL THERE OR INHERENT PART OF THE SOFTWARE TO PREVENT THIS FROM AFFECTING OUR, THE RELIABILITY OF OUR PROCESSES.
WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER, WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER DISCLOSURE THAT WAS IN THE CRIME SCENE SECTION WHERE WE HAD A CSI TRAINEE, UM, THAT PRODUCED AND PRESENTED A CASE FORM AS THE AUTHENTIC OR THE ORIGINAL RECORD.
UM, ALTHOUGH INITIALLY STATING THAT THEY HAD SHREDDED IT.
SO FOR US, THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF OUR HSCS COURT OF ETHICS.
UH, THIS PERSON IS NO LONGER WITH US, AND AGAIN, THE COMMISSION FELT THAT WE DID APPROPRIATE CHANGES AND THIS WAS CLOSED TO CLOSE AS NO FURTHER ACTION NEEDED.
UM, DROUT DID A PRELUDE IN IN HIS, UM, PRESENTATION TO KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT PROFICIENCY TESTING.
SO WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPEN DISCLOSURE THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE COMMISSION'S MEETING AGENDA IN JULY AND, AND THEIR NEXT QUARTERLY MEETING.
AND, UH, FOR THIS INSTANCE WE HAD A DNA ANALYST THAT MISTAKENLY HANDLED THE WRONG PROFICIENCY TEST SAMPLE.
UM, RATHER THAN ANALYZING THE ONE THAT THEY HAD BEEN ASSIGNED, THEY ANALYZED ANOTHER SAMPLE.
NOW, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD, UM, PROFICIENCY TEST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SET DEADLINE, THEY CAN'T BE ANALYZED WITH OTHER CASEWORK.
THEY'RE TYPICALLY TAKEN OUT, UH, OUT OF ORDER AND PROCESSED.
SO IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS ONLY ONE SAMPLE.
UM, BUT THIS JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THE, THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR, OF COMPLETING OUR VERIFICATION PROCESS.
'CAUSE REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE HANDLING 14, 20 OR ONE SAMPLE, YOU NEED TO COMPLETE THIS VERIFICATION STEPS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE THE CORRECT SAMPLE IN YOUR CUSTODY BEFORE YOU PROCESS THIS.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, WHEN WE INVESTIGATED, WE DETERMINED THAT THESE VERIFICATION STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND IF THEY HAD BEEN THERE WERE THREE STEPS, THEY WOULD'VE CAUGHT THAT THIS WAS THE WRONG SAMPLE.
UM, BUT I DO WANNA MENTION THAT WE QUALITY, WHEN WE GO AND INVESTIGATE THESE TYPE OF NONCONFORMANCES, WE TAKE A PROCESS STANCE, UM, AROUND THIS SAME TIMEFRAME LAST YEAR, THE SAME, THIS SAME ANALYST WAS INVOLVED IN A PROFICIENCY TEST SWITCH.
AND UH, WHEN WE INVESTIGATED, WE SAW THAT
[01:30:01]
THE PROCESS WAS LACKING A MORE ROBUST VERIFICATION STEP.AND UH, WE MADE THOSE CHANGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE, WITH BIOLOGY.
UM, AND WE MADE THAT STEP MORE ROBUST.
HOWEVER, WHEN INVESTIGATING THIS CURRENT SITUATION, WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN, UM, WE SAW THAT THIS VERIFICATION STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THEREFORE THIS WAS THE COST OF THIS UNFORTUNATELY.
UM, SINCE I'M A VISUAL PERSON, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT ONE OF THE VERIFICATIONS, ONE OF THE THREE VERIFICATIONS LOOK LIKE.
IN THIS EXAMPLE YOU MIGHT SEE UP THERE.
SO YOU CAN SEE, UM, 14, NO 12 SAMPLES UP THERE.
IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS ONLY ONE PROFICIENCY TEST SAMPLE AND TWO OTHER REAGENT BLANKS.
AND, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BIOLOGY DOES IS THAT THEY MAKE SURE IT'S PART OF THEIR WORK LIST THAT SHOWS THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED.
THEY NEED TO BE PROCESSED BY THEM THAT SHOW THE ORDER.
AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE FORENSIC CASE NUMBER AND THE ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED THAT YOU NEED TO VERIFY THAT NOT ONLY THAT IT IS CORRECTLY PUT IN SEQUENCE, BUT ALSO FROM THAT SEQUENCE THAT IN THE SIDE OF THAT CENTRIFUGE TUBE THAT THEY HAVE THE CORRECT FORENSIC CASE NUMBER.
AND IF THEY HAD COMPLETED THIS, THEY WOULD'VE REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE WRONG SAMPLE, NOT JUST LOOKING FROM THE TOP.
UH, MOVING ON ONTO MY LAST TOPIC.
SORRY, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE DISCLOSURES? OKAY, MOVING ON TO MY LAST TOPIC.
UH, I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF TESTIMONY.
UM, THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE REPORT HAD ACTUALLY HAD SOME TESTIMONY RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY'RE CALLED RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THEY'RE, BUT THEY'RE MORE REQUIREMENTS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
UH, THEY REQUIRED, UH, FOR FIREARMS EXAMINERS TO NOT RELATE OR ASSOCIATE CERTAINTIES, UH, TO THEIR TESTIMONY.
MEANING WHEN THEY'RE ON THE STAND, THEY CAN'T SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THAT IS AN ID OR AN EXCLUSION.
AND THEY ALSO SAID, UM, REQUIRED THAT EXAMINERS CANNOT ATTEST THE NUMBER OF CASES OF THEY, THAT THEY HAVE EXAMINED AS A, A SORT OF A, A RATE OF THEIR ACCURACY TO THEIR IDS OR EXCLUSIONS.
AND, UH, BUT I KIND OF WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT.
I CAN STAND HERE AND SAY THAT OUR FIREARMS EXAMINERS DO NOT TESTIFY IN THAT DEMEANOR.
UM, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT.
THOSE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THAT REPORT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON US BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY, AND THE REASON WHY I CAN SAY THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY STRICT TESTIMONY, TESTIMONY MONITORING PROGRAM THAT ALTHOUGH YES, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON OUR TIME, UM, WE ARE STRICT, STRINGENT IN THE ASPECT OF THAT ALL OF OUR ANALYSTS, IF THEY GO TESTIFY, THEY HAVE TO AT LEAST BE MONITORED ONCE A YEAR.
IN ADDITION TO THIS, WE ALSO HAVE A TRANSCRIPT REVIEW PROGRAM WHERE WE REQUEST TRANSCRIPTS FROM COURT AND WE HAVE A COMMITTEE SET UP OF A LAY PERSON, A TECHNICAL EXPERT OR THE TECH, SOMEBODY WHO IS IN THAT, UM, WHO IS ASSIGNED TO THAT SECTION DEPENDING ON THE TRANSCRIPT WE GET.
AND ALSO A QUALITY PERSON WHERE WE REVIEW THESE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE ASPECT OF THE TECHNICAL TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AC EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE, UH, TECHNICALLY ACCURATE, AND ALSO FROM A LAY PERSON THAT THIS WAS TRANSMITTED IN A WAY THAT IT WAS EASY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AN EXPERT FOR THEM TO EASY TO FOLLOW.
AND THEN QUALITY, WE, WE ALWAYS, WE GO THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE ACCREDITATION AND ALL THE OTHER PARAMETERS OR OR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE ARE AC ACCURATELY RELAYED ON IN COURT.
SO YES, THROUGH THESE MONITORING SYSTEMS WE CAN SAY THAT OUR EXAMINERS DON'T, DO NOT TESTIFY THAT WAY.
FOR, UH, 20, FOR THIS TIMEFRAME FROM JANUARY TO APRIL, WE HAD 33 UH, STAFF MEMBERS GO TO COURT AND TESTIFY 51 TIMES.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FOR MONITORING, WE ARE AT HITTING AT A RIGHT, THAT 85% FROM THOSE 33 28 HAVE BEEN MONITORED.
UH, BUT FOR THE OTHERS WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE SECTIONS IN ORDER TO GET THEIR TRANSCRIPTS TO REQUEST THEIR TRANSCRIPTS SO WE CAN DO THAT MONITORING.
SO IT'S MORE OF A HUNDRED PERCENT NOT 85.
UM, TALKING ABOUT TIME WE HAVE IN THIS TIMEFRAME, 217 HOURS FROM THAT WE HAVE, YOU CAN SEE THAT 176 IS IDLE TIME WAITING.
AND I'VE UM, SPLICED THAT IN THE WAITING HOURS BY SECTION.
I DID TAKE A PEEK AT MY LAST YEAR'S PRESENTATION, BOARD PRESENTATION AND UNFORTUNATELY CRIME SCENE DID NOT, UM, HAS NOT HAD A BREAK.
THEY'RE STILL LIVING OVER THERE IN COURT.
UM, BUT WE DID SEE A REDUCTION LAST YEAR.
SO I THINK THE OTHER, WE'VE SEEN THAT REDUCTION IN THE OTHER SECTIONS, NOT IN CRIME SCENE.
AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS MY FAVORITE SLIDE 'CAUSE I KIND OF LIKE TO RELATE AND JUST KIND OF SEE THE AVERAGE, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE AT 217 HOURS, BUT WE CAN KIND OF SAFELY PREDICT THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY BE AROUND THE 900 MARK LIKE WE WERE LAST YEAR OF JUST TESTIMONY.
BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT OUTPUT AS PART OF OUR PRO OF OUR SERVICES.
[01:35:02]
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME ONE THING, JACKIE, ON THE DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE PT AND THE ANALYSTS THAT GOT THE PT MIXED UP, SHE ACTUALLY HAD HANDLED 10 LINES OVER THE TIME, RIGHT? CORRECT.AND ALL, ALL OF THOSE BLINDS HAD PERFORMED YES.
SO, SO WE, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE BLIND SYSTEM, WE HAVE DATA IN THERE THAT IS HANDLED REAL TIME WHILE SHE'S HANDLING CASE WORK TO HELP DEMONSTRATE REASONABLY CONFIDENT THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IN CASEWORK.
IT WAS, IT WAS ISOLATED TO THE HANDLING OF THE PT.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, GREAT.
WE WERE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.
WE'VE COME TO THE END OF OUR MEETING.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.
AND UH, IT HAS BEEN, IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE.
SO WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING TIME.
I KNOW LAST TIME I GET TO DO THAT.