RE: Questions re: emails

BDRT Alison PSRB {Alison?DRTijtonregongov} i- 1? Reply all i 
Fri yrs, mam-x

Jayme Fraser 3

Inbcx

I 1'r'ou replied on 
Hi Jayme,

Thank you for taking the time to discuss your follow-up questions with me yesterday afternoon. after speaking with you subsequently, you explained that your position is to seek
clarity and solely to fact check; however, respectfully, they continue to strike me as loaded and conclusive that our agency has been intentionally dishonest. In the spirit of
collaboration, transparency and our commitment to providing the truth, I will provide a single response to your questions as a whole.

You explained that your questions stem from our records release of communications about the post-recidivism study started by my predecessor. As I have shared, since I started in
June 2018, this study has been placed on hold until a time when the resources are available to continue with it. 1u'v?hen we released the records you requested about the study, I was
hoping that it would shed light on the work the agency has done to address the questions that you were asking, demonstrate that our agency shares the concerns others have with
post-jurisdiction, and explain [consistent with the Board?s responses] that partnerships with statisticians and credentialed researchers are required for our agency to do this type of
rigorous research. Unfortunately, your follow-up questions suggest that our agency has been untruthful or dishonest. This interpretation is truly disappointing, especially given the
hours of time, staff and ?nancial resources our agency has dedicated so that you can conduct your investigation and info rm the public on how our agency does its work.

1I.I'i.ihile standing by the previous responses our agency submitted to you, I would encourage you to re?read them, as there is not anything that would suggest we are being
inconsistent, dis honest or untruthful about our role or about the information we have provided. As written, I believe those responses will give your readers a very good
understanding of the Boa rd?s duties and limitations.

I also wanted to respond to the several questions you ask about the preliminary data that was gathered in the infancy of our project. This data has not been statistically analyzed,
and it would not only be irresponsible land for me as a licensed unethical}, but potentially harmful for the agency [or any entity] to share it with the public at its current
stage. Please review our previous response #5 which gives examples of the types of analyses one might consider and evaluate with regards to these types of statistics.

Regarding an update on your request for exhibits. We have summarized all of your requests into independent files. This required approximately 3 hours of agency staff time and
resources, and we are waiving those fees. The next step is that I need to review the files in the context of the public statements your provided to determine whether they can be
released and if so, if they need to be redacted. Previously, we have sent this to our legal counsel to complete. Thus far, our agency has spent $1?,125 solely in legal fees completing
requests for you. Due to timeframe in which you hope to receive these records as well as the cost our agency has already spent, we will be completing this part of the records
request within the agency. We will continue to waive the fees associated with your requests up to this point. Any additional requests for records will require reconsideration of your
fee waiver.

I believe that we will be able to have our response for Fliesch el completed by the end of today.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Than yo u,
Al ison