9-8-8 Technical Advisory Board Meeting 20260812 163311UTC Meeting Recording mp4

And we've established a quorum, we're moving on to the next part of our agenda, which is the approval of the previous meeting's minutes from the June meeting. Um And so, I'll uh go through essentially the same exercise here asking for a roll call vote um as to whether to approve the meeting minutes from the June meeting. So, I'll start uh with the top of the Oh, oh yes, please. Thank you. >> Terry, uh motion to approve. >> All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. We will then um Yeah, we will call for public comment before we take the vote. So, to that point, uh is there We'll start in the room with the public comment section. Please keep in mind if you're making your public comment that there are many people who might like to make comment and so, limit your remarks to under 3 minutes if you would, please. In the room is there any member of the public who would like to make comment on the motion? Seeing no hands, uh we'll say there's no comment in the room. How about online? Is there any member of the public online who would like to make comment? And we're not seeing any hands online. So, okay, we'll move then to the roll call vote um starting with Dr. Bowie. How do you vote? >> Approve. >> Thank you. Sherry Sin Welsky. >> Approve. >> Approve. Thank you. Diana Gutierrez. >> Approve. >> Thank you. Amitria Sydney. Aaron Riley. >> Approve. >> Thank you. Serena Lewis. Dr. Raflo Yuan. >> I will abstain. I unfortunately was not able to make the June meeting. >> Very well, thank you. Lan Nguyen. Dr. Garzon. Approve. Thank you. Terry Galvin. Approve. Thank you. Jamila Fields. >> Abstain. I wasn't present June meeting. >> Thank you. Ivan Bardwaj. And Tracy Gonzalez. All right, so >> One, two, three, four. >> All right, with the given that we have the abstain votes, the motion doesn't pass and so we'll carry that item over for our next meeting. Um at that time we'll consider it again. Thank you, everybody. Uh moving on to our next agenda item. Um this is the CalOES Legislative and Governmental Affairs update wherein Office of Legislative and Governmental Affairs will step to the microphone over there and provide an update on bills that are being tracked. >> Uh thank you, Steve. Um good morning. My name's Paul McGuinness, Legislative Coordinator at CalOES. Um I'll provide a couple key dates that are upcoming in the legislative um cycle and then um give an update on six state bills and four uh federal bills that we are tracking closely. So tomorrow, um August 13th, um is the appropriation suspense file hearing. So, this is the deadline for all the bills to pass out of the fiscal committees. Uh also the deadline for fiscal committees to meet. Um after 2 weeks after that will be the end of session, so August 31st is the last day for the legislature to pass all bills. And then, um the governor has another month after that date to act on all the bills that will be put on his desk. So, that's September 30th. Um and then, January 1st, um statutes will take effect um that do not have an urgency clause. If a bill has an urgency clause, they take effect upon a governor's signature. So, getting into just a quick update on uh six state bills. So, first bill is AB 1540 by Assembly Member Gonzalez would um require uh CalHHS to just to annually determine whether an adequate uh federally-operated uh specialized LGBTQ+ uh suicide prevention hotline is available through 988, and if not, requires CalHHS to request that SAMHSA establish a uh press three option to route callers to a specialized call center. Uh following federal approval, CalHHS would be required to ensure necessary technology is available. Uh while um CalHHS would um identify um and contract with qualified providers and administer associated funding. This uh measure is um on the suspense file, so it will be heard uh tomorrow. Uh next is AB 1832 by um Assemblymember Ranson. This bill would create a 211 uh fund and require CalHHS to distribute uh funds for purposes of statewide uh 211 capacity. Um also, among other things, including system alignment with 911 and 988. This bill is uh will also be heard tomorrow [clears throat] on the suspense file. AB 1872 by Assembly Member Ta would uh increase penalties for repeat uh false 911 emergency reports and extend liability to property damage caused by emergency response. Uh this bill is also on the um suspense file. AB uh 2041 by Assembly Member Correa would require a public safety agency that was not providing pre-arrival instructions to 911 callers on or before Jan 1 of '26 to report their uh to their local emergency medical services agency the status of that uh their compliance on or before Jan 31 of '27. And this bill is on Senate third reading. Um AB 2093 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan um would, among other things, extend the state's 988 advisory bodies through 2029 uh would shift uh some statewide 988 governance to CalHHS, uh require CalOES, in consultation with DHCS, to procure, implement, and designate a statewide interoperability platform uh to be capable of facilitating real-time communication and warm handoffs between 988 centers and 911 uh PSAPs. The bill would also set additional statewide standards for 911 and 988 handoffs. Uh this bill is also on the um Senate Appropriations uh suspense file to be heard tomorrow. And then um last state bill is SB 985 by Senator Strickland, which would require CALOES uh to submit quarterly legislative reports on NG911 development, implementation progress, spending, and responses to uh state 911 advisory board recommendations. That bill's also on the suspense file. Um uh real quick, just four federal bills we're continuing to track. Um HR um 6505's the um Next Gen 911 Act by uh Representative Hudson. Uh would amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to provide further deployment and coordination for Next Gen 911. Um as of January 26th, this bill is in the subcommittee. Um and is going to a full committee voice vote. Uh HR 7031, Representative uh Fulcher. Would direct the Secretary of the Interior to upgrade existing emergency communication centers in units of National Park System to Next Gen 911, as well as for other purposes. Um this one is also in subcommittee as of March uh 2026. And there's two more bills, S 725. Um this is the Enhancing First Responders Act. Senator Klobuchar would require the FCC to report on certain activations for the Disaster Emergency uh Information Reporting System. Uh this bill uh passed the Senate and is being held at the desk. And then um last bill is S 2826, 988 LGBTQ+ Youth Access Act. Um directs the Secretary of HHS to dedicate sufficient resources for the support of LGBTQ plus youth seeking help from 988 suicide prevention hotline and for other purposes in this bill as of March is in the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions. Uh so that completes the um legislative update for this morning. Um I will make this list available uh through the liaison to the board and happy to answer any questions. >> All right, thank you. Any questions from the board members here in the room? All right, seeing none here in the room. How about our board members online? And seeing and hearing no nothing there, we'll thank you for your report out, sir. >> Thank you, Stu. >> Um all right, this time uh we'll move to the public comment for the legislative and governmental affairs update. It's uh same uh structure as before. We'll start here in the room. Uh if there's any um please keep your comments to under 3 minutes. Um Yeah, and this is yeah, related to the report out that we just heard, which is the legislative and governmental affairs update. So, in the room, any takers for public comment? Seeing no movement, uh how about online? Any any public comment on the legislative and governmental affairs update? Seeing no takers there, then we will move on to the next item on our agenda. It's item number four, the 988 surcharge rate setting. Uh and so Mary, if you want to go ahead and take it away. >> Great. Good morning. Um my name is Mary Rucker and the assistant director of Cal OES of administrative services. Today I'm just going to go over the methodology for how the rate is established. It's based on the authorized appropriation from the final budget act and we take into account the fund balance that's left over from the prior year. To calculate what the revenues needed is the difference between what the authorized expenditures are and the fund balance. From that we then take the um the number of access lines per month and come up with the rate per month to get us to what the revenue is that's needed to be collected. From that then we will adjust it further to account for a 10% balance to keep in reserve. Um and then once that number is finalized, we will commit communicate that out and we will establish a rate letter that goes to Department of Tax and Fee Administration to set the fees effective January 1. >> And just a quick question on that. I recognize that it relies on the number of access lines that come from the carriers. How close are we would you say to getting the full set of data we need to perform that calculation? >> We're We're hoping by early next week. There's still a couple carriers that are larger communication operations that have numbers that could swing it still. >> All right. Thank you. Any any questions from the board members on that? How about our board members online? Any hands raised out there? No. So I'll just comment on this uh we you know, this is the time of year where we talk about the rate setting obviously over the next couple of months is when uh when it'll actually be accomplished and we recognize that we're going to be uh performing that. I think the deadline to submit it to tax and fee administration was October 1st if I'm correct. Yeah. >> And so uh we've made a commitment in the past to share it with uh with the members here uh 30 days in advance of that. So, um you can look forward to that coming along. As soon as we get the data, then we'll perform the calculation and we'll begin the sharing process so that we can meet that deadline. Um okay. So, with no questions then um we'll turn uh to the opportunity for public comment on the surcharge and rate setting uh starting in the room. Any takers in the room to make public comment on the rate setting methodology? Seeing none in the room, we'll turn our attention online. Any takers for public comment on the rate setting methodology? And we're seeing none there either. So, we'll thank you Mary for your report out. And we will move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the working group reports. Um And so, we'll start um the first one we have up there on the on the slides the 988 and 911 interface working group report. And so, this one includes Shaheen Saeed and Dr. Hernando Garzon. If uh you'd like to please go ahead and make your report, we'd be we'd be gratified. >> Yes, good morning. We're we're happy to report out. So, we had our first work group meeting and we have shared the purpose of the workgroup as well with Samantha which is we'd like to focus on a high-level document in terms of the protocols that way each 911 and 988 Center can curate the document in a way that fits best for them. In addition to that we have recognized that it's important to have a recommendations and a consideration section as well especially since we have various SMEs on our workgroup and so that's something that we're planning on incorporating as well. And we do understand that there's it seems like there's an urgency to get this document completed. It looks like there one of the agenda items is to vote on it. We would like to request that we have some time to work on the document before the board is able to vote on it if that's okay. >> Yes, thank you for that and it seems sensible not to you know make a premature move to vote on something. So I think that's a reasonable recommendation. I don't have any objection to not moving for a vote on that item today given its current state. So thank you for that report out. I'd ask if if there's any questions from the board members on that report out. Seeing none in the room are there any hands from the board members online raised? No. All right. Well, thank you for that yeah, go ahead. >> We yeah, we had one question. So we understand that the initial purpose of the workgroup was to really focus on interoperability between 911 and 988 and we wanted to ask the board if it's possible to help identify an individual who is an SME when it comes to interoperability because that's the one piece that's missing. >> Thank you for that question. Any members of the board have an idea around who a subject matter expert might be? In that regard, it occurs to me that it's something of a technical question. >> Yes. >> And as such, it probably then falls to the technical team here at OES that would be useful for that conversation. And so I'm looking I see my chief engineer here in the room and and he's nodding his head saying yes, they'd be happy to assist with that. So, what we'll do is we can uh identify one of the staff resources here that can talk talk with the work group about that. And so, we'll put you in contact through our board liaison afterwards. >> Sounds great. Thank you so much. >> Right. Yeah, thank you for that report out. Um All right, if no objections, then I'll move on to the next working group. >> Sorry, sorry to interrupt. I this this is Eric on online. I I did have a question for the the working group, if that's okay. >> Oh, yes, by all means. >> Um so, thank you to to both of our working group chairs and the working group members for taking on this document, which as you referenced has uh been a work in progress for months and now years. Um did uh I think the request on uh time for now that's been assigned to the working group and so, you need to actually work on it. I think that does make sense. Um do you have a timeline in mind of when it would be brought back for us to review and approve? >> What would the the board prefer? Is there a timeline that they have in mind? >> I think the general preference is that sooner is better because we have um had had this this document in being brought forward for a number a number of months and it keeps getting delayed. But, I will also allow other folks. That's just my impression of of how the the the board meetings have gone. I'll let other folks say their opinions as well. >> Could you share when the next board meeting is? >> Yeah, so I I believe it it generally occurs in November, if memory serves. I think it's November 12th this year. Um and I'm hoping Yeah, so it sounds like that's confirmed, November 12th. >> [snorts] >> What we could do is plan to have the document ready by November. >> That seems reasonable to me. Um any any objections from any of the board members with that as a a >> No, I I think that that's Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. I I don't have an objection. I just want to make sure for process, would it need to be submitted 30 days in advance so that it could be considered for approval at the November 12th? >> Um I don't think 30 days in advance is required. It uh would need to be posted 10 days in advance in order for us to deliberate on it and and ultimately cast a vote. So, um and that, of course, can be coordinated through our board liaison, Samantha Barton at caloes.ca.gov. Um So, uh yeah, if you want to work on the product and get in touch with uh with Samantha as to when the date that it needs to be posted by. I think it's 10 calendar No, 10 business days. >> On the agenda. Yeah, so target somewhere right around the 1st of November is when we would need to have that ready so that we could post it online and so forth. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah. >> I have a follow-up question from last meeting. Um >> Okay. >> And it had to do with um that the technical advisory board is responsible for the document and not Cal OES and I had asked a question about what are the legal ramifications of the responsibility of each individual board member in terms of taking responsibility for this document. >> We can talk about that off offline. I'll get um some materials over for you. >> All right. Thank you for that. Um Yes, then. Um Okay, where were Yeah, then we'll move on to uh within the working group reports agenda item uh part B is the accessibility and equal access working group. And I believe that is um doctors Bui and Raufli Wan reporting. >> We have not had a chance to meet um and I'm going to hand it over to Dr. Yuan. He has some uh updates. >> Yeah, so these these will be pretty brief. Uh the work group members corresponded over email to review and and finalize uh working group charter. Um and so the most important part is pretty short, so I'll just read this out loud. The purpose of the accessibility and equitable access working group is to advise the technical advisory board on the technical, operational, and policy considerations necessary to ensure that California's 988 system provides equitable, accessible, high-quality crisis response services to all Californians, regardless of disability, language, geography, age, race, or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status, insurance status, or veteran status. Um so, hopefully that's mostly self-explanatory. One of the the reasons why we haven't had a lot of activity these past few months is that we have not received um action items or or directives from the board. So, if there are specific items that you feel would be strengthened by our working group reviewing or providing feedback, whatever way we can support, please do consider that. Um and then uh somewhat associated with that uh later this month is the Tribal Health um Coalition's third Tribal 988 uh conference that is in San Diego. Um and so, we hope to be able to be able to attend that. And if there are important pieces of information there relevant to the board to relay that back. >> Wonderful. That Any questions from the board members on that report out? Not seeing any here in the room. Are there any hands raised from our board members online? All right, hearing no comments from the board on that. Thank you for that report out. We'll move to part C of this agenda item, which is the 988 Implementation Working Group Report. And that is Terry Galvin and Lan Nguyen. I trust that I've updated the name correctly. >> [laughter] >> It It is correctly labeled. Thank you. Um we were able to meet one time, and our next meeting is Friday since we moved this meeting it ends up after. Um but our at our last meeting we discussed as a work group that our work should pause in favor of the call handling solution analysis working group because we are the implementation group. Um and so we don't want to work at cross purposes and we do need that information to then participate in implementation. Um so the only questions that we had outstanding we're we are curious about the impact on implementation when we're there um if we don't end up with a signed MOU. Um I know that up until this point we've just assumed that the signing will be forthcoming but we are curious if it doesn't get signed or they or it is is a long way in the future, what is the impact on us implementing at all. Um so I don't know if that can be answered now or later. And then the other comment we had out of our group was Ryan was able to on your team was able to join our meeting and it was really helpful and Tara attends our meeting and it's really helpful. So um as these working groups are really trying to advance um the work we were just curious whether we invite members when we need a technical expert or whether we can have standing um participants or or how that particular part will work because we do find having the expertise very helpful. >> Yeah, I think uh you know, as as the need arises, it would be appropriate to request the representation of one of the staff, you know, like as we mentioned even just a moment ago, when when there's a need for like a technical SME, that would be an appropriate use of the staff here. And so we're happy to help um elucidate some of the more technical elements and and certainly, you know, when it comes to an implementation project um then we have staff who are tasked through the course of their jobs to implement the project. And so it would be appropriate in that regard as well. >> Do you have any thoughts about the MOU signing? >> Um yes, I have several thoughts on that, but the ones that I prepared to share um I was going to cover in a later agenda item, if that's all right. Yeah. So just a a couple agenda items from now I'll talk a little bit about the status of that MOU and then I'll of course um you know answer the question stated here about what the impact, should it not be signed or delayed in signing, would be. All right. >> Thank you. And that's the end of my report. >> All right. Um thank you. Any questions from the board members um about the report out from this implementation working group? All right. Uh any any board members online have a hand raised? No. All right. Uh in that case, we'll move to part D of this agenda item, which is the call handling solution analysis work group. And that is uh with Amitria Sydney and Sheri Senwelski reporting. >> Thank you, Steve. Uh I actually put a couple of slides together just to try to help walk us through this. Um Thank you for putting those up, Sam. Um so, just as a reminder of where we were last time we met um in this meeting in June, um the work group had presented five goals or recommendations of what we thought needed to be done uh in regards to the Cal call handling system, which was to define interoperability, determine a requirement for whether or not centers needed to be on the platform, if if it was determined yes, um then based on the definition of interoperability, as well as the rest of the centers' needs, we would redetermine the technical requirements of a platform and and then make recommendations as to who might be best or a process to determine who might be best uh to meet those requirements as a vendor. Um and lastly, we also asked for improved transparency and communication regarding processes with CalOES uh because it felt like it was often taking a long time to to get some of these things accomplished. Um as my as I recall, CalOES OES agreed to try to get us the answers to the bolded items on the top. So, a definition of interoperability, as well as the requirement for the platform uh within about 3 weeks, so that we wouldn't get stalled and um be able to actually make some progress on this before today's meeting. Um I did receive a memo on July 23rd, um a quite lengthy memo, it was about 12 pages, that did um uh look to answer bullets number one and two, and it had a lot more information in it as well uh that I did have some questions about. Um I wasn't sure at that time uh how to get those questions answered, and I had posed them several times and didn't get um any responses to them for quite some time. Um but, on July 31st, I did get permission to share the memo with the working group um so that we could try to react and respond to it. Unfortunately, that permission did not come until after our working group had already met. So, we really I did share it with them, but we didn't really get a chance to discuss it or formally um respond to it or for me to put those uh reflections into any format that's um really a consensus at this time. Um and then yesterday I did receive direction that we could ask some of our questions and discuss the memo in this meeting today. Um so, the memo, as I mentioned, was quite lengthy and there's >> Excuse me, I just wanted to um summarize what you're speaking about. So, in your last in our last meeting, you as the chair of this group asked um several questions, which we worked with uh PSC in trying to get these communications to you. >> Mhm. >> Um once that was done, there was a memo that was sent to you. >> That's right. >> Um and the working group. >> It was actually just sent to me and Demetrius, but yes. >> Okay. Um so, that was sent to the working group or at least the leads of the working group. Um and then just for everybody's reference here, um that was discussing interoperability and statutory requirements for the 988 board just so that we know what you're speaking about. >> Thank you for that clarification, Sarah. Um so, yesterday I received uh permission that we're able to ask some of our questions here um and to discuss the memo in in the meeting today. Um so, I've tried to summarize uh the memo as well as our questions, but I just want to give the caveat since I just got this direction yesterday. Uh my summary might not be complete. Um also, I didn't write the memo, so I'll I'll my best to summarize it, but it's long. Um and I and I don't have consensus from the work group because again, I only got this direction yesterday. So, I'm just trying to share the best that I can because I don't want to have to wait another 3 months to our next meeting to make some progress. Okay. So, um we can go to the next slide. So, the first key takeaway that I had from the memo, and please Steve or Sarah or others correct me if I've misinterpreted anything. Um but the first takeaway I had was that state law doesn't empower CalOES to impose a mandatory platform or the usage of a mandatory platform on the centers uh nor dictate which platform centers must use. Um and so, I believe that so, that's good to know. That's helpful. Thank you for getting that information. I think the issue of the requirement is being in our contract still remains. And so, we need to determine who might be able to answer that question for us. You know, there's no statutory law agreed to know. Um but what about this requirement that's still in um our contracts? Do you want to pause and discuss each one-on-one or do you want me to go through this whole thing? >> Uh we could No. >> Actually, I think what would be uh better cuz you're doing a report out from your working group is presenting these ideas to the board. So, if you're taking these back for consensus from your working group, that would probably need to be done before the >> Well, I do have some questions for you all though before we move forward for from from so that I can move forward with the working group. I believe your email yesterday said if we had questions, we could ask them. >> Your You're You're providing a report out from your working group. >> Okay. >> To the board. >> Okay. >> So, you're summarizing what's going on from the working group. That's what the agenda item said. >> That's what I'm trying to do, yes. >> Okay, so um we can absolutely take questions from the working group. And if you have questions regarding the the memo from the working group, we can absolutely talk about that offline. >> Can you Can you Can you tell me the best way to do that, Sarah? Cuz I actually tried about four times to talk about it offline, and no one answers. >> Okay, well, you can always email the board liaison. >> Done that. >> Which is Samantha. >> Done that. >> You can also reach out to Steve Ybarra. >> I've done that. >> Okay, well, and we've been working with you trying to provide you with information. >> Mm, sort of. >> Did we provide you with a memo? >> You provided me with a memo, and I asked for how do we get our questions about the memo answered, and no one answered until yesterday, when you said we could do it today. >> What I said was you can report out on the summary from your working group. That's what's agendaized. >> Okay. >> This memo has not been Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it hasn't been included in the agenda. It's not an item. >> Okay. >> So, I mean, you're more than I'm more than happy to have you, you know, raise these questions regarding this um this matter with your working group. We can always, you know, at your working group, we can always figure out some dialogue we can have with that. But, I don't want to get into the specifics of the memo, only because it hasn't been >> I just want to note something that you said to me yesterday, Sarah, in this email. I'm just trying to improve our communication. >> And yeah, I'm I'm >> It says "Memorandum was not distributed to the Cal HH the I'm sorry, to the CHS work group." >> please do not read a confidential email into public notice, public record. Thank you. Um the and I'm just trying to keep us in line with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. We are not discussing the memo itself. The report outs are very similar to like the legislative reports or um like uh the set of fund report. They're to the board to provide a summary of the the issues that were there. I'm more than happy to improve our communication. I can give you my business card. You can call me anytime. Um we can figure out how to get these these questions answered from the working group. My concern is that we're talking about something that has not been agendaized. And we're getting into a a deliberation, a consideration, or um a discussion relating to any sort of future action. That's my concern. >> I understand. Although I did ask if this could be put on the agenda. >> I apologize. I I I didn't see that email. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm not really sure what what else there is for me to say now if I can't ask any questions. >> I I get again you you can ask questions regarding this memo, just not in this forum. That's a like a working group issue. But if you have something that you want to share with the board, um if you would like any anything from you know, your report out from your working group, that's perfect that's that's the agendaized item. >> So, is it permissible then for the report out to include the questions that they've come up with? >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Which is what I was trying to do. >> Well, but you're getting into the the substance of the memo as opposed to we have questions for the >> Okay. So, there's a queue there which was to indicate that we have a question that this this issue of the requirement being in our contract still remains. And our question is to how do we determine who can provide that answer to us. Thank you. We can go to the next one. So, an another item that we are another point that was made in the memo um was that hold on a second, I'm going to pull my slides so I can see better here. Um, >> [gasps] >> so CalOES shared a definition of interoperability, um, which from Nina is the ability of disparate systems to communicate with one another. Um, and CalOES, I believe, was noting that interoperability for 911 988 has been established, um, as shown by the Buckaloo pilot. Um, so our questions on that one is we were trying to understand whether or not interoperability is simply the same transfer of a 911 call to a 10-digit number as it was prior to the platform being implemented, um, or if there is something different or special about using the platform to transfer these calls. Um, if it's the same process as before, um, some of the centers have reported that there's some challenges with that at times, and so we were wondering, will CalOES, uh, still be available to help with technical issues? I know in the past Kurt has been very helpful for DDHSD specifically, and so we just wanted to know if CalOES is still available for one-off concerns. Um, and then we were also wondering if interoperability related to 988 chat, text, and follow-up calls was completed, um, cuz from right now we only understand that there's the ability to transfer, um, calls, but we're concerned or curious about chats and texts. Um, the next thing that we noted that was in the memo, um, is it went on to review what is allowed or not allowed to be, um, a use of the funds from the 988 surcharges. Um, specifically, you all have seen this before, so I don't think I need to go into all of this, but it just reiterated that the 988 surcharge, um, makes clear, uh, where those funds should be used, including administrative costs being paid first, um, including that the centers, um, are prioritized first, and secondly, uh, that funds can be used for mobile crisis teams. Um, and I believe that it was also suggesting that the provision of a CRM, a customer relationship management platform, either as part of what's already been developed or separate, um, would potentially be something that AB 988 surcharge funds could be used for, um, because it looks like other states have done similar things. Um, so I think that finally, in conclusion, if I'm allowed to say this, if not, stop me. Um, the last slide, um, is that, um, basic interoperability of 911 to 988 transfers exist, um, but perhaps other elements of interoperability do not exist. So I think that maybe, as we talked about last time, there's a lot of different definitions of what interoperability is. Um, that there is no interoperability right now at a state-wide level for 988 and mobile crisis, um, so while those things are happening, they're happening between simple as simple referrals, as direct transfers, or some 988 centers have their own technology to dispatch. Um, CalOES CalOES has asked the work group, um, if we seek deployment of the current NGA platform, um, and I believe that we still need some further information, which are the questions that I posed, um, which is, are we required to use it? And specifically, if it's doing anything special for 988 911 transfers. Um, and that perhaps further support, so this goes into goals four and five that we had in my initial recommendations that further support of interoperability could be explored if that's so desired and properly defined. So, the work group is happy to comment on whether or not we want to move forward with the platform, but I don't believe we're ready to do that right now because we need to still try to get the answers to those two questions. >> Thank you for that. And then in terms of evaluating whether to move forward or not with the platform, is that that's on a location-by-location basis or is it a broad answer for all call centers? >> That's a great question. We haven't dug into that yet. Um My gut might tell me that it might need to be location-by-location since Buckaloo's already on it and other centers aren't. So, I don't I don't know if there will be or could be consensus, but we can certainly try to clarify that when we bring a recommendation. >> Yeah, that would be helpful. I It has been hypothesized by me >> [gasps] >> that each of the each of the centers has their own you know, personality for lack of a better word where they perform their tasks and and arrange them in ways that is somewhat unique to each of them and therefore they might each have a different set of requirements that would serve their purposes best that wouldn't necessarily align with all of the others. And so, it kind of makes sense to me that you know, given that they're independent of one another to a large extent, there would be unique sets of requirements or preferences for each of them. So, >> Yeah, I mean I think for sure Steve if we're getting into those more expanded definitions of interoperability, uh, I think that there there would be differences, um, between center to from center to center and maybe there's a process of developing consensus there. I know it's been done in other states. Um, but maybe maybe people don't want to achieve that consensus. I'm not really sure. That's not for me to say. >> Sure. Yeah. No, that's uh that's helpful and I I look forward to more uh more digging in, refining, and analyzing what the what the features and findings would be. So, um yeah, and I take a note here that, you know, there are questions that you have posted and uh we'll figure out how to get you an answer sooner rather than later. >> I appreciate that, Steve. I mean, I I do recognize that I think you guys tried to answer the are we required, um, and so we might need to be going somewhere else to to understand the requirement of our contracts and, you know, we can try to do that. >> Yeah. >> Um, but the second question of whether there's something different that's happening with the transfer that's going through the NGA 911 platform as opposed to our doing our regular 10-digit transfer, that would be really helpful if we could get clarity on that. Oh, and the chat and text piece, sorry. >> Right. Got a note here on that part as well. So, thank you for that. Um yeah, and yeah, I I agree, um, you know, it it there's been reference to a contract stipulating that you must use, uh, you know, and I would suggest that perhaps the people who are party to that contract might be the ones who could weigh in on that. >> Yeah, we can try to explore that. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, any questions from the board on this report out? >> Um, I I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but one of the things that has come up is is how we are to work in between the meetings when we have three board members who are 988 consortium members. And so we want to be very clear that we're never violating any groups when we're together trying to advance these um trying to advance our progress in between meetings because that's something we're really committed to um so that we don't go 3 months by 3 months and never accomplish things. So um any clarity or documents that says you guys can discuss this this way would be helpful. >> Balakian has a whole section on that, so I'll I'll disseminate that to the board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh any other comments from the board members on that report out or any of the report outs for that matter? Not seeing any hands raised. Um then we will uh open it up then to public comment on the working group reports. Um we'll start here in the room. Any public comment in the room on working group reports? Seeing no hands or movement. How about online? Any members of the public online who would like to make a public comment about the working group reports? And we're not seeing any hands raised uh online either. So we will then move along uh to agenda item number six, uh which is the 911 988 transfer recommendations document. Um I perceive that this uh this particular document was covered in the uh interface working group report out, and I feel like that information also uh referred That report out referred to a lot of the material here in what would be this uh this particular agenda item. And so I'll have the opportunity here for the board members if there's any questions they had or comments they wanted to make on that point um that they didn't make earlier. Um now, you know, you could have an opportunity again if you'd like. I'm not seeing any takers in the room, any any board members online who would like to discuss anything further on the 911 988 um transfer recommendations document. All right. Um it is uh on the agenda here. Now, we move to the public comment portion concerning the 911 988 transfer recommendations document. Any public in the room who would like to make comment on that document? Seeing none. How about online? Any hands raised online about the transfer recommendations document? All right. Seeing none online either. Um >> Sorry, this is Eric. Sorry, I >> Yes. >> should have jumped in at the Can you ask about board members online? Um something that has come up in the past and still is a little bit confusing for me is none of the drafts that I can find have the dates on the actual documents, and there's a multiple versions now of drafts kind of floating around over the past number of months. Is it possible to have the dates of the draft or a draft number um added to the documents themselves? >> Yes, I think that's uh a reasonable request. I suspect it will be included in the next version that is uh provided um from the work group uh as we approach the next meeting. Inclusion of a draft version number as a watermark or a page number um element so that we can keep track of which draft we're considering at any one time. So, excellent idea. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh we'll move on then to the next agenda item. Number seven, this is the CalOES 988 updates portion. Um So, I think one of the things I wanted to share here, and it's been alluded to in a couple of different ways. Um You know, back in the May time frame, uh the team here at OES reached out to the call centers asking of you know, engaging interest really about whether to uh adopt the the state call handling solution and uh client relationship management solution. Um And so, there was you know, some uh a a variety of answers that came back from that. Uh some you know, were not interested, some had some questions, and some said yes, they were. And so, since then, the team is working closely. Um There was one one I I think it was the Contra Costa center um that indicated they would be interested in adopting that solution and being the next one to transition onto it. And so, uh my team and that uh team from that center are working together and and performing business analysis and in planning the implementation process moving forward. My expectation is that it could be transition onto using that net that platform sometime in the you know, towards the end of this calendar year is what my current expectation is. So, unless the project teams tell me otherwise, that's what I'm thinking will happen with that. Now, obviously you know, that would be contingent upon the the SAMHSA MOU that we've talked about a number of times here. Um that MOU right now is is sitting with SAMHSA. We're waiting their review and response back from the last version that we submitted to them. And as recently as this week, we heard back from them that they are not done considering it yet and are in fact considering other ones similar to that as well. So, we don't have a final MOU, which means that we don't have a green light to expand beyond the pilot at Buckelew. And so, given that that is a requirement before we could go live with another call center on that platform, then I'm expecting that we'll have to have a more intensive dialogue with our partners at SAMHSA to figure out the path forward. Because it is my understanding right now with that without that agreement from SAMHSA, we can't expand beyond the one pilot site. Now, um it has been raised to my attention that the other states perhaps don't have to enter into this MOU. And so, wondering, is that a unique requirement for some reason, or is there some element of it that we're not understanding? So, I think there's some clarification that we need to seek from SAMSA on that point. And if if it isn't a requirement for other states, it shouldn't be a requirement for California. And so, we would then you know, discuss you know, how is it that we move forward. I believe we should be able to get some some movement on that over this next uh I I would say month or so, is what I'm endeavoring to do, is get to a final resolution and answer in the next month. Um and that resolution could be that there's an MOU signed and in place, or it could be that we've determined that it isn't required after all. Or it could be that it will be provided at some time after that period of time. So, to your point, I think Terry earlier, um is having having it take a lengthy amount of time is effectively no different than just not signing it at all. It stops us. And so, if if that's what's happening, then we would need to pull some other lever levers to try to keep the project moving forward. Um because a bureaucratic document stopping us from delivering, you know, what is critical communication systems shouldn't be shouldn't be the way things are done. So, um I'm working with our legal team on that point to try and see, you know, how to read things more clearly so we understand it better. Um and then, you know, of course, we've mentioned there has been some you know, change in in our counterparts at the SAMHSA level that we're we're navigating through. So, um but I feel like we're getting good engagement from them now. I don't feel like we're being ignored. So, um I have confidence that we'll be able to work through with our counterparts at SAMHSA. Um one of the things, and I think it it relates to, you know, the idea of um Well, before I move on, actually. Did your your question was did that address your question, or was there another element of your question that I still haven't touched on? >> That that addresses my question. I I just wonder um it seems if we're going to be in this exact same space, let's say, in 1 year, I'm just wondering if we're structured right to do whatever we should be doing. So, I I I'm just trying to understand if we're talking about 3 months or by year end, and all of a sudden the path is going to become clear, and these decisions are going to funnel into >> Right. >> activity, or if we're going to have four more meeting, you know, that's what I'm just trying to get a sense of. >> Yeah. No, it's a valid valid point, and um I think, like I said, you know, the the process should exist to serve the mission, not the other way around. And so, um if if this process is hindering the mission, then we need to figure out how to, you know, adapt the process to suit the mission, not uh the mission to suit the process. So, I'm there with you. >> I I have a question, if it's okay. Uh two, actually. One, I really one's a comment, maybe. I appreciate the the willingness to potentially look if the process is supporting the mission, cuz I there's obviously been frustrations at times about the process and not understanding it and not being able to work within it. So, I think that's really important and you know, in the last part of the slides that I presented is that perhaps there may be an interest and a willingness in looking at other types of interoperability within the platform and you all stated that it perhaps that would be fundable. And I think a process in that would be crucial. So that we can be actually successful because there's there's a lot of stakeholders to consider. It's it's us, it's the centers. If we're thinking about mobile crisis, it's the mobile crisis dispatch teams who the counties who are overseeing that. So I just wanted to state my agreement with that process. I did have a question Steve about what you were saying earlier in terms of the surveying that you all did of the centers and their interest in moving forward in the current platform. Um We have a lot of people on my team, but I don't recall that we were asked that on that question. And the only reason I'm wondering is is because back to what you were saying before, if we're trying to actually understand what centers may or may not want to implement, it would be helpful to know what if anything has already been done so that we don't do it again. >> Yeah. Um so yeah, when you say we were contacted, you're referencing DD Hirsch. >> sorry. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. Um And so my direction to the team was to contact all of the call centers with the exception of Buck Luke cuz they were already on. So the other 10 and I believe that happened. I don't know specifically who it was. I can get that answer for you. >> Yeah. Well, in any case, I mean maybe we were and somebody else spoke to it and I just don't know about it which okay. But I guess my question is is would it be valuable for us to to do that again cuz I think that's what you were asking earlier. >> Well, so I mean the question that I had the team, you know, essentially conduct the survey on was do you want to move forward At that moment. And so, not necessarily under what circumstances would you or what is your preference otherwise. And so, >> yeah, I think it it it's a piece of the of the pie, but not the whole thing. So, if if they if they are overlapping, it's a sliver. But, um I think yeah, we can share um you know, I'll ask the team to to dig that up and find out, you know, who who we contacted and um because I think for your work group that you're talking about, it would be useful to have that information um for, you know, not just for the one center, but all of them, really. It's like, "Here's who we talked to and here's what they told us." >> If we're able to see that, that'd be great. Yeah. And and we can also just reassess where we're at a new point in time now and with different stipulations, so maybe it's better to find out again anyway. >> Yeah. No, I agree. Yeah. Um and then, you know, so thank you for that. The the other part was concerning chats and texts as a modality of communication. Um I know that voice right now is, you know, the one that comes in and is um handled and transferred about and that's included within the scope of the um the pilot project. Getting approval to have Vibrant send the chats and texts to the pilot project is something that we're continuing to work with SAMHSA on getting a green light for. And um we have tested the capability in our um test environment, so not in the live production environment, but in the test of the lab area. And so, the the technical capability exists. It's just can't be deployed to a production environment until we get a green light from our partners at SAMHSA. And so, that is part of the MOU conversation. So, once that happens, then it's my understanding that we would be able to then open the door to all of the modalities, not just the voice modality. >> Can I Can I clarify something on that one? So, when you guys were testing it, um does that mean that the ability to transfer a chat or text also exists? >> So, I think depending on the destination. >> Okay. >> So, for example, if it was from center to center, then I believe text is capable center to center. Um I don't I don't want to speak out of turn. I don't have specific answer on the chat part. Um but I know that one of the one of the items that is, you know, uh fly in the ointment in all of this interoperability discussion is there is no analogous chat feature on the 911 side. >> And so, that obviously takes uh some more things happening before that would be possible that definitely are not in the control of CalOES, but um when the conversations arise, we know that it on that side, there would have to be some changes. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Good question and yeah, we'll keep digging in to understand with more clarity uh about the capability. Um so, yeah, I think that was That was sort of what's going on here at the at CalOES with regard to that. I know, um you know, during the the last, you know, quarter, uh I mean even before that, but certainly in the last quarter, there have have been continued uh requests for, you know, feature enhancement or development within the product, and the vendor has been working to include features and capabilities within the product, um and be responsive to um what's coming from the Buckaloo Center specifically. Um this would be helpful, or that would be helpful, being able to arrange, you know, windows on the screen, and so forth in custom arrangements, um cuz I think all of the all the people answering the calls have a preferred arrangement of of things on the screen um that makes sense to them. So, um you know, having being able to have those things arranged accordingly and saved, like with a personality profile or something that when you log in in the morning, it snaps back to what you wanted to see, those types of things. So, um yeah, we continue to continue to work with the vendor on features as well. So, um I think there's some, you know, some good things happening on that front, um and, you know, I think looking towards the future of being able to deploy at an additional center, resolving the SAMHSA issue would be uh you know, really one of the big key things that removes a lot of obstacles for us. So, um and that, I think, is the extent of the extent of the update from my side. If there's any other questions from the members of the board, um happy to hear those now. No hands online from the board members. Um okay, great. Um so, in that case, um move on to the public comment portion of the updates from CalOES uh 988 program. Uh we'll start here in the room. Any members of the public in the room want to make comment on the Cal OES 988 updates? Seeing no takers. How about online? Any members of the public online who would like to make public comment on the Cal OES 988 updates? And seeing no hands raised online, either. Thank you, then. Uh we'll move to our next agenda item number eight. This is the California Health and Human Services updates. >> We just have a very short update, which is the Cal HHS 988 Crisis Policy Advisory Group will meet next on Wednesday, September 9th from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Uh at a different location this time. It's a DHCS Stillwater building at 840 Stillwater Road in West Sacramento. I'll send all this information to Cal OES so they could put in the minutes. Um it's a hybrid meeting meeting so the Zoom link will be available in the public agenda, which we will post on our public website 10 days prior to the event. Um what will happen in that meeting is among state updates and um other exciting updates, we expect to review the draft annual progress report that Cal HHS is mandated to um publish uh yearly on AB 98 implementation. Um and then that will begin the public comment period the rest of September. So, we're inviting uh people to come and review. Uh materials will be posted on our website 10 days prior to September 9th. Um and that's it. >> Thank you for that. Um any questions from the board members on the update from Health and Human Services? Seeing none here in the room, any board members online have a question or comment on that? Seeing none there either. Um, okay. Um, in that case, we'll open it up to public comment starting here in the room. Any public comments uh for the California Health and Human Services update? Right, seeing no takers in the room. How about uh the public online? Any public comment for the California Health and Human Services update? No. All right. Thank you then. Um, our next agenda item is agenda item number nine and that is any ideas for future agenda items. So, does the board uh >> [snorts] >> board have any ideas about future agenda items they would like to see at this time? Noting, of course, that you don't necessarily have to answer now. You could always submit those to the board liaison ahead of the deadline for when the next agenda is finalized, which is always at least 10 days before the next meeting because we have to post it that uh time. Um, so. Oh. Oh, yeah. We Yeah, I'm sorry. You're right. Yes, uh so, it Yeah, it has to be posted 10 days before the next meeting, so we need to have time for approvals ahead of that. So, I would say make sure that it's probably say 20 days before the next meeting is uh when we would like to have those submitted if you don't have them now. But, if you do have them now, we're glad to hear them. So, yes. >> I don't have one now, but I would request that you send out to the board in writing the process for getting an item on the agenda because I did try to do that for this meeting and it was very unclear. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, process. I got that. All right, um not hearing or seeing any of the board members who have a future agenda item, we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is number 10, and that is public comment for matters not on the agenda. Um So, we'll start here in the room. Any public comment for matters that are not on the agenda? All right, seeing no no hands or takers in the room, any online for public comments for items not on the agenda. No? All right, no hands online either. Um okay, in that case, we'll move to our next agenda item, agenda item number 11, which is the adjournment. So, I will pronounce at this time that uh this meeting of the 988 Technical Advisory Board is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.