WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=tJGY-tr0ZnQ Part: 1 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:15.240 Excellent, thank you. Okay, we're recording, please go ahead. >> All right. Um, it is 6:31 on Tuesday, June 23rd, and I'm going to call this meeting of the Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee to order. I will begin by checking with each member 2 00:00:15.240 --> 00:00:31.720 to make sure that they can hear and be heard, and to confirm they are present. Let's start with Counselor Ryan. >> I'm here. I can I'm present. >> Excellent. Lynn Griesemer? >> Present. >> Councilor Canavan Martin? >> Present. >> Great, and I am here as well. So, 3 00:00:31.720 --> 00:00:47.480 um, we today the bulk I got to say I'm like I got to I'm I'm a uh obsessing over making sure I said the exact time that we started the meeting [clears throat] cuz when you have a lawyer on the meeting, I'm a little bit like, "Okay, got to be got to be really good about it." Um, not that I don't always try to be my best, but 4 00:00:47.480 --> 00:01:03.080 we are going to likely spend the bulk of today talking about the Resident Oversight Board with Janelle Austin from KP Law. Um, Janelle, welcome. We will start with public comment as we always do, um, before shifting to our discussion, but I wanted folks to know 5 00:01:03.080 --> 00:01:20.040 that the bulk of the meeting today will likely be kind of a Q&A, um, and and talking through things with with Janelle. So, um, we will probably if you're here to talk through charter review and rules of procedure, I'm not guaranteeing we will not get to them, but we've got a lot to talk about. So, um, 6 00:01:20.040 --> 00:01:36.120 that will likely be the bulk of our our time. We're going to move to public comment. Residents will have up to or community members will have up to 3 minutes to make their comment. Uh, if you have public comment to make, you can raise your hand on Zoom, and I will go ahead and call on you to make public 7 00:01:36.120 --> 00:01:55.440 comment. All right, let's start with Erica. Uh, go ahead, Erica. You should be able to uh, give your comment. >> Thank you very much. Uh, my name is Erica Pyatt. Um, I'm a resident I've been a resident of Amherst since 1994. I've lived here 8 00:01:55.440 --> 00:02:12.520 since 1994. I'm also a member of the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee, and I just wanted to make a public comment to reiterate what the CSSJC has presented to Town Council multiple times, which is that we support the 9 00:02:12.520 --> 00:02:29.200 CSWJ's report recommending that the ROB be and have investigative powers. As stated in the report in 2021, the their mission was to ensure that um that that that the ROB provide accountability and 10 00:02:29.200 --> 00:02:44.080 consultation so that equitable and effective public safety services are provided by the APD and that these services are provided in a way that contributes to eliminating institutional racism and white domination in Amherst. 11 00:02:44.080 --> 00:03:01.040 The ROB with investigative powers will increase trust by residents of Amherst, especially by POC community. By increasing trust, it will also increase cooperation in terms of the community and APD as well as CRESS because the oversight board will also have 12 00:03:01.040 --> 00:03:18.680 responsibilities overseeing CRESS. And with increased cooperation, there'll be increased public safety. Um the oversight board as the CSWJ um CSWG recommended, it was to be an independent investigative body. 13 00:03:18.680 --> 00:03:34.519 They were to have a budget in order to do its job. They were to have access to legal and other resources, including training, and uh the composition was also supposed to have been five BIPOC, uh at least five BIPOC members with at least two being from the African 14 00:03:34.519 --> 00:03:50.320 American community. Um the draft of the ROB that's being presented in terms of option, the investigative piece does not equal what the CSWG uh recommended, and we as the um the option 15 00:03:50.320 --> 00:04:06.959 of review. In order for the ROB to actually be effective in Amherst and with uh the community members in terms of trust, it needs to have the ability to have investigative powers and it needs to have the resources in order to do its job. So, um I think all of you 16 00:04:06.959 --> 00:04:22.520 have actually heard a lot of what the CSSWJC has uh presented and recommended. So, I'm going to stop here to allow other community members to present their comments. Thank you very much and we really appreciate all the work that you're doing. Um we understand it's not 17 00:04:22.520 --> 00:04:39.520 easy, but we know that you have the best uh in mind for the members of our Amherst community, especially by public members. Thank you. >> Thank you, Erica. Um we do have six attendees right now. Uh if anyone would like to make public comment, anyone else would like to make public comment, you can go ahead and 18 00:04:39.520 --> 00:04:55.520 raise your hand. Otherwise, we will move to the rest of our conversation. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. All right. So, as I said before Oh, did I miss one? I'm sorry. Um as I said before 19 00:04:55.520 --> 00:05:13.000 um we are speaking with Janelle Austin from KP Law today. Um Janelle, I would love if you don't mind, if you'd like to take a moment to introduce yourself, explain why you are here with us um as one of our our fabulous reps from KP Law. Um 20 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:31.760 and then we'll get into the we'll get into the questions, but if you want to just take a moment to introduce yourself and I'm going to just grab my water, which I left it on the other side of the room. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone for having me here this evening to talk about this important matter. My name's Janelle Austin. I'm an attorney at KP Law um and 21 00:05:31.760 --> 00:05:47.120 I've been working with communities throughout the Commonwealth um primarily the past couple of years in terms of implementation of the POST Commission's requirements and police reform. Um I I also work um I've been at the firm for 22 00:05:47.120 --> 00:06:04.040 20 years. I handle significant amounts of government transparency issues, both compliance with the public records law, as well as the open meeting law, um, and also in terms of, um, compliance with other privacy laws in terms of public records requests, juvenile laws, 23 00:06:04.040 --> 00:06:20.000 CORI laws, and working with police departments, um, across the Commonwealth in terms of compliance with post statutory requirements, as well as regulatory requirements. I'm happy to be here tonight, um, to provide, you know, high-level overview of any potential 24 00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:39.760 legal considerations that are at issue, um, as you all, um, review this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. There we go. Um, okay. So, I received questions from one other member of the committee. Thank you very much. And, um, put together a list, um, Athena helped 25 00:06:39.760 --> 00:06:55.919 me, uh, with with kind of putting it together a list of some main We're going to try to stay high-level at first questions, um, and then we will we'll get down into it as needed. Um, my thought is that I'm going to kind of ask the bigger picture question, uh, 26 00:06:55.919 --> 00:07:12.600 have Janelle ask Janelle to answer that, and then we'll open it up if there are follow-up questions. I am going to committee members, um, if we start to get too far in the weeds, because I really want to make the best of our time, I may pause you and ask you to write your question down and we'll come back to it, um, just to make sure we hit 27 00:07:12.600 --> 00:07:27.640 the the big topic areas and don't fully head down into a rabbit hole. Please know that if you don't get your question answered, I will do my best to make sure, um, or please send it to me, and so I'll make sure we catalog what remaining questions we have, so we can continue our discussion. 28 00:07:27.640 --> 00:07:45.080 Um, so, Janelle, you talked about the, uh, and and then in terms of formatting our conversation, I'm going to try to start with the kind of, even before a hypothetical, um, investigation would take place. Let's Let's think about the the bodies that are out there that 29 00:07:45.080 --> 00:08:01.800 conduct investigations on uh complaints against We'll focus on police right now, and Crest will kind of come in a little bit later, but it seems like most of the concerns um around POST, uh for obvious reasons, are around how that relates to APD. So, 30 00:08:01.800 --> 00:08:18.080 the the POST Commission handles um complaints that are on a on a larger scale. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything. Um so, given that POST tends to deal with kind of larger issues and does not handle with the handle what they call minor matters, um those minor 31 00:08:18.080 --> 00:08:33.000 matters are left to local departments like Amherst Police Department. Given that, is it legal or feasible for um a resident oversight board to be engaged in a process, or is that a form of double jeopardy, whether the process is 32 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:49.760 review or investigatory? Can Can what's left for an ROB to address if they can't touch something that an internal review or a POST Commission review does? Or, if they can, is that considered any is How would that slot into their process? I 33 00:08:49.760 --> 00:09:04.520 can restate that cuz I stumbled it, and I even had it written down, and I stumbled it. >> I can I can certainly address it, and and feel free to obviously correct me if if you want me to go in a different direction, but there are a variety of different mechanisms in place, and we'll 34 00:09:04.520 --> 00:09:20.280 focus primarily on complaints involving um law enforcement officials or police officers in in in a community. Um the POST Commission, which was um is part of police reform in early 2021, has been coming up to speed and 35 00:09:20.280 --> 00:09:35.360 promulgating regulations the past couple of years. There is a comprehensive statutory schemes under state law, Massachusetts Chapter 6E, that um empowers the POST Commission to um both certify police officers, um potentially 36 00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:51.800 suspend police officers, or revoke police officers um certification, as well as conduct investigations or review. The past couple of years um since the POST Commission has been implementing its regulations, which 37 00:09:51.800 --> 00:10:07.000 really have been ramping up since 2021, there is a comprehensive scheme. There's a separate state regulation that empowers the POST Commission to work um either in consultation with a police department or independently to conduct 38 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:22.960 review of complaints. Um that is fairly broad review, in my opinion. There is um a provision as as you had mentioned with respect to minor manners, and the POST Commission has recently um indicated what constitutes a a minor 39 00:10:22.960 --> 00:10:39.920 matter is more not a public-facing incident, more of an internal complaint. Um you know, some examples, and there's guidance on the POST Commission's website, it may involve say a uniform infraction, or a locker room infraction of a more minor administrative matter, 40 00:10:39.920 --> 00:10:56.120 tardiness is another example that um has been put out there, but not public-facing matters. So, the process is essentially, if a complaint comes in either to um someone in town, the police department, town manager's office, another 41 00:10:56.120 --> 00:11:13.520 community leader, um that that complaint would be submitted to the POST Commission within two business days. Um and then, following that review of a complaint, there does need to be an investigation that takes place, and that investigation results then get reported 42 00:11:13.520 --> 00:11:30.080 to POST. Um and as part of that internal process, as as you all know, there's also internal affairs policies that are at the police department, but the POST Commission has oversight and review in terms of those complaints. Now, the past couple of over 43 00:11:30.080 --> 00:11:46.120 the past couple of years, as as you all may know, the POST Commission has also established a public portal that allows individuals to report complaints directly to the POST Commission. So, separate and apart from the process to submit them internally in a 44 00:11:46.120 --> 00:12:01.320 community, if a person feels more comfortable, they are allowed to go to the POST Commission through this online portal, submit a complaint, and then POST does intake. They have a whole standards division now, and they do review that complaint and then 45 00:12:01.320 --> 00:12:17.560 work in consultation to obtain the relevant reports to conduct a review of that complaint as well. Any discipline imposed, um, not to jump ahead, but any discipline imposed or any review that the POST Commission does, um, is subject to their specific 46 00:12:17.560 --> 00:12:34.800 regulatory requirements, if that's helpful. They certainly have the authority to decertify an officer, suspend an officer's certification, revoke an officer's certification, or recommend additional discipline other than what has been, um, imposed at the 47 00:12:34.800 --> 00:12:51.040 local level as well. Just to give a big overview process. So, there's the internal, um, internal affairs process that happens internally, and that was before the POST Commission. And then, since 2021, subject to the statutory requirements and regulatory 48 00:12:51.040 --> 00:13:07.040 requirements, there is this oversight through this comprehensive state scheme in terms of the POST Commission, um, both for when an officer first becomes an officer or in response to any particular complaint submitted locally or to the POST Commission. 49 00:13:07.040 --> 00:13:22.640 If that's helpful. >> Anything, I I I think any information you give us is going to be helpful, today. So, to follow up on that, you said that a complaint, roughly the process, a complaint comes in, POST reviews the complaint to determine whether it's a minor matter that should 50 00:13:22.640 --> 00:13:39.000 be handled by the department or whether it rises to something they would handle. And then, you said an investigation takes place. Who conducts that investigation? >> So, um let me just be clear. So, the when the complaint goes to POST, they retain oversight over that complaint, 51 00:13:39.000 --> 00:13:55.520 but there is also local oversight as well, just so I'm clear. Uh or so I was clear to all of you so you have the correct information. In terms of In terms of review, um there's an option for that review to be handled either internally through the internal affairs 52 00:13:55.520 --> 00:14:10.680 process, or there's always the option to hire an outside investigator, but ultimately the findings of any of that review, if it does happen at the local level and not through POST, gets reported to POST, and POST reviews both 53 00:14:10.680 --> 00:14:26.400 the findings of any investigation that's conducted either locally or through an outside investigator, as well as any discipline that is recommended or any infractions or violations of policies and procedures that gets reported to 54 00:14:26.400 --> 00:14:42.040 POST as well. There's a public database um of any sustained findings now available of all the law enforcement officers um throughout the Commonwealth. So, that gets reported to POST. They do it They do an essentially review of that and determine whether or not any further 55 00:14:42.040 --> 00:14:57.160 action should be taken either through this preliminary inquiry or further investigation on their end. >> So, where would you see a resident oversight board slotting into that process? >> So, I you know, I think one of the big 56 00:14:57.160 --> 00:15:14.360 overarching considerations for for you all to um to consider is essentially the jurisdiction of of POST under its statutory and regulatory is a comprehensive scheme. And so, any local 57 00:15:14.360 --> 00:15:30.360 oversight, whether be of an investigatory nature or review nature, could result in in inconsistent results of what either is done by an outside investigator, what ultimately is done by the post commission, or if there's any 58 00:15:30.360 --> 00:15:46.400 allegations of criminal misconduct, obviously that would flow in a different direction relative to the district attorney's office as well. So, there would there would need to be, you know, a clear delineation of what if any action the board could take to not 59 00:15:46.400 --> 00:16:01.280 interfere with post statutory or regulatory requirements. Um, because there could be these parallel tracks in terms of how a complaint is filed, whether or not there's a court case for instance, um, and what review if any 60 00:16:01.280 --> 00:16:18.680 post is doing, which may go to like a preliminary hearing for a more serious, um, allegation and and they have, um, certainly authority to conduct that as well, in my opinion. >> Um, questions from committee members as I'm looking down my list and I'm trying 61 00:16:18.680 --> 00:16:34.800 to take notes here. Counselor Ryan. Uh, wait, I'm sorry. We're going to focus right now just on the on the post responsibilities part. We're going to get into all of the other topics, Eric, as we go, but let's, um, try to stick with that the questions centering post. Go ahead. Draw back, Counselor Ryan. 62 00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:51.680 >> So, the first question has to do with the issue of double jeopardy. Um, if a local police agency conducts its own internal review and then post conducts its review. But, if I understand you correctly, the 63 00:16:51.680 --> 00:17:09.120 review is done at the local level either by the department itself or by some outside investigator. The results are sent back to post and post reviews that. Um, but could post then say, "Okay, we're not happy with what we got, so 64 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:24.760 we're going to conduct our own review and our own investigation?" Or would, yeah, what what happens there? >> Thank you, that's an excellent question. I appreciate that. Um there there is the option in my opinion under their broad regulatory authority for them not to 65 00:17:24.760 --> 00:17:40.840 agree with what the local jurisdiction imposes in terms of um discipline and make separate findings. Um in addition, there is the ability for them to conduct a further investigation and conduct a hearing on 66 00:17:40.840 --> 00:17:56.040 specifically certification or decertification of an officer. So, separate and apart from say a 5-day suspension um or, you know, particular personnel action subject, of course, to to the applicable collective bargaining 67 00:17:56.040 --> 00:18:10.440 agreement, POST also has the authority, the sole authority, to to make a determination whether or not an officer should be their certification, which is issued through POST, should either be um suspended or decertified. 68 00:18:10.440 --> 00:18:29.680 Um so, that is within their authority. >> Did that answer your question, George? >> Yeah, for the moment I think um it it's uh I guess the main thing that I want to be clear on is that at least initially whatever review is done 69 00:18:29.680 --> 00:18:44.880 is done internally by the police department or the police department could choose to hire an outside investigator, but it's their their call. And then that's what POST reviews. 70 00:18:44.880 --> 00:19:00.000 >> That's correct. There are certain enumerated allegations that do require um the the review to be conducted by an outside investigator >> um under the POST complaint procedure. So, that's a great question. Um for 71 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:14.880 certain types of offenses, it requires the local agency POST requires the local agency to hire >> To hire an outside investigator. >> to hire an outside investigator, and then that report of the outside investigators findings do get 72 00:19:14.880 --> 00:19:31.680 submitted to post for its review. >> Last question, I'll shut up. To your knowledge, have there been any cases like this where post has gotten back a review or by a local police department and said this is not satisfactory and then proceeded to 73 00:19:31.680 --> 00:19:48.320 either decertify or provide additional punishment. Are you aware of any incidents like this having taken place? >> So I I won't get into any specifics because of the confidentiality, but I am aware generally speaking that 74 00:19:48.320 --> 00:20:03.440 they have exercised their authority in that manner, yes. >> This doesn't get published? It's not a part of the public record once they make a decision. This is not, you know, in the newspapers or whatever. It's Is it all kept under seal? I mean, >> No, there the the certification and 75 00:20:03.440 --> 00:20:19.960 suspension decisions are put online. That is that is all put online through the post commission and they do review those while allegations are still pending or while there's what's called a preliminary inquiry process, meaning that there are allegations that the post 76 00:20:19.960 --> 00:20:35.720 commission is reviewing. There are, you know, due process and and legal considerations for the employee involved and so those are confidential executive session matters. But once there is a finding of the post 77 00:20:35.720 --> 00:20:52.880 commission's I'll give an example. If a law enforcement officer is arrested or charged with a a crime, there's a temporary That's This is at the post level, not at the local level. There's a suspension of that officer's 78 00:20:52.880 --> 00:21:08.800 certification and those are all put online and then pending further review, that is a matter that would remain obviously within post jurisdiction. That's that's one example. But post does publicly report both in 79 00:21:08.800 --> 00:21:23.960 their comprehensive database all sustained discipline of law enforcement officers as well as all of their determinations or findings of suspension of officer certifications as well as 80 00:21:23.960 --> 00:21:40.480 revocation as well. And I would also just add that officers are required under the post regulations to be recertified every 3 years and that's something that post has oversight on as well. >> Thank you. 81 00:21:40.480 --> 00:22:02.360 >> Lynn. You're muted. >> Um, first of all, thank you for being here. And um, I think that learning more about the post commission is educational for all of us. So, thank you. Um, 82 00:22:02.360 --> 00:22:21.480 is the post commission, can you describe the members of the post commission? Just start with that. >> Sure. There are a variety of stakeholders that serve on the post commission. I am aware that 83 00:22:21.480 --> 00:22:38.120 my understanding, I don't know the current membership but that there's no current law enforcement officer that currently serves on the post commission. They do have an executive director Enrique who works closely with the commissioners and then I can tell you 84 00:22:38.120 --> 00:22:53.080 that there are also hearing officers, some of which are retired judges that oversee particular adjudicatory hearings. When it when the post commission was established, the commissioners the goal was to get the commissioners to come 85 00:22:53.080 --> 00:23:10.280 from a diverse background in terms of police reform and implementation of the mission of the post commission. >> In terms of racial diversity, do you have is there a commitment to that and have they kept that commitment? >> I can't speak to that based on the 86 00:23:10.280 --> 00:23:26.640 current um composition. I not one way or the other. I just I just don't know, to be honest with you. >> Okay. Does the post commission oversee anything other than police? >> They do not. They are charged with um both oversight, certification, and 87 00:23:26.640 --> 00:23:42.360 training of law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth. So, it would be um any local police officers, state police officers, um as well as officers that um serve for for college campuses, as well. 88 00:23:42.360 --> 00:23:58.880 So, it is a broad definition of what constitutes a law enforcement officer, but those are the general categories that fall within the post commission's jurisdiction. So, local, state, and um college campus officers. >> Okay. 89 00:23:58.880 --> 00:24:15.280 Uh and so, if the reason that's relevant is because of CRESS as an an additional body uh in Amherst, and there are a couple other bodies like it in other municipalities, and I just wanted to know what they, you know, how 90 00:24:15.280 --> 00:24:31.960 they have dealt with that. Obviously, they don't oversee that. Uh is every policeman in Massachusetts required to be certified? >> Yes. Um in order to serve as a police officer, a law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth, you have to be trained 91 00:24:31.960 --> 00:24:49.080 and certified in compliance with uniform um post commission training, as well as certification requirements. There was an initial certification period um when post was first established, and then from there, there is a requirement, as I mentioned, to be recertified, depending 92 00:24:49.080 --> 00:25:04.720 on where your name falls in the alphabet, um every 3 years. So, that is an ongoing process. In addition to those certification requirements, um there's also the complaint process. So, if something happens in the interim, obviously, of that certification period, 93 00:25:04.720 --> 00:25:20.680 that is required, in my opinion, to be submitted to the POST Commission. Um and it it can't be handled solely at the local level. It's something that POST Commission keeps a record of. Um in addition, an individual always has the option, of course, to report it directly 94 00:25:20.680 --> 00:25:36.200 to POST through that public-facing portal. >> You mentioned earlier that they have the authority by law to decertify. And um and but you implied that 95 00:25:36.200 --> 00:25:51.080 that can only be done by them. It could not be done locally. Am I correct about that? >> The decertificate So, an officer is certified by POST and and can be decertified or their suspension their certification can be suspended. That is 96 00:25:51.080 --> 00:26:07.320 within POST's jurisdiction solely, in my opinion. >> Okay. >> A local poli- um a head of agency or an appointing authority can certainly, you know, make a recommendation. Um however, that is within their jurisdiction under chapter 6E and their 97 00:26:07.320 --> 00:26:22.880 regulations. >> Um in your opinion or in your observation about POST, now that they have had uh 5 years, if you will, to come up to speed, um which is an interesting 98 00:26:22.880 --> 00:26:39.960 timeline, cuz they obviously um were created just about the same time uh as we were having discussions in Amherst about whether or not we should have a resident oversight board. Um are there similar bodies in other states? 99 00:26:39.960 --> 00:26:55.360 >> Similar to the POST Commission? Yes, there are. >> Okay. >> And there are something called a national decertification index, as well, that pertains to law enforcement officers. Um and so, if an officer is decertified, 100 00:26:55.360 --> 00:27:12.000 their information would flow flow to that national decertification index, including for all the other states that they now have something similar to the post commission. >> And I'm being cognizant of time. If you just want to make sure it's tied to the ROB part, I'm happy to schedule another time to 101 00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:26.920 learn more specifically about post, but linking it >> Yeah. Only other question that does relate to post and our police department because our police department is also certified. Is that related to post or is that separate? 102 00:27:26.920 --> 00:27:44.400 >> So, any accreditation is going to flow separate and apart from the post requirements. However, the post commission has promulgated model regulations in terms of policies and procedures and updated them on several matters, which 103 00:27:44.400 --> 00:28:01.160 obviously flows into that accreditation process as well. They've issued, since they have come into existence, several model policies, including for use of force, school resource officers are some examples, but there have been model policies that post has promulgated, 104 00:28:01.160 --> 00:28:19.160 which usually work in tandem with the accreditation in my experience. >> In your In your observation of post, do you feel that they have been that their rules and regulations are significantly sensitive to racial and BIPOC issues? 105 00:28:19.160 --> 00:28:34.480 >> I I can't speak to how the post commission specifically operates because I don't have all of what's before them. I can say, since they they have come into existence, they have worked, you know, across 106 00:28:34.480 --> 00:28:50.960 with various stakeholders to ensure transparency regarding their government operations. They meet monthly and they have reached out to various stakeholders to ensure their operations are equitable, but I can't speak specifically to how how they operate, to be honest with you. 107 00:28:50.960 --> 00:29:06.800 >> And do they have a required timeline by which they have to make a decision? >> So, there are various timeline benchmarks that come into play. It depends on the nature of what proceeding or what stage of that complaint or 108 00:29:06.800 --> 00:29:23.440 review process they're at in particular. And obviously, there is going to be implications. There may be requests for a continuance. If there's, for instance, a criminal matter, that case might be stayed or held in abeyance because of the 109 00:29:23.440 --> 00:29:40.040 constitutional considerations for a particular defendant. So, the criminal case may resolve first and then POST takes over, you know, the the underlying case back on the administrative side. So, it's a very fact-specific in terms of how things move, but I can tell you 110 00:29:40.040 --> 00:29:55.120 and it's it's on their website, the the initial suspensions happen very quickly, as you can see. And, you know, I think there are specific time frames in play in terms of how quickly they move. And I can tell you from going to their meetings that 111 00:29:55.120 --> 00:30:11.440 they actively track their timelines for compliance. >> I'm going to pull us back here because we're we're half an hour in. If that's okay, Lynn. And George, before I go to you, I want to just recap what I'm hearing about the um 112 00:30:11.440 --> 00:30:26.960 to kind of get at answering the concern [clears throat] that the ORB could be duplicative of POST or possibly contradictory to POST. And so, I just want to what I heard you say is that um POST has defined minor matters which 113 00:30:26.960 --> 00:30:42.120 tend to be internal and I'm I'm painting with a broad brush here, so bear with me on that, but tend to be internal, not public-facing. POST will handle things that are more public-facing, generally speaking. Um that the investigation that takes place 114 00:30:42.120 --> 00:30:58.120 is conducted either by internal police local police departments or an external investigator depending on the case. Um and then the post reviews the findings and any resulting actions recommended. 115 00:30:58.120 --> 00:31:13.360 So I think one of the questions that I still have on this is is there space for an ROB to be doing work concurrently or within this process? And so could the Could a resident oversight board be the body doing that 116 00:31:13.360 --> 00:31:29.960 investigation or is there are there regulations that dictate who who should be doing that the investigation? Um and and really kind of I know that there are so many things that are dependencies, but generally speaking, what would happen if an ROB 117 00:31:29.960 --> 00:31:45.800 Can an ROB have their own process running at the same time for the same complaint as a post commission is doing its work? >> In my opinion, there is with respect specifically to the investigatory piece for now, there's 118 00:31:45.800 --> 00:32:03.280 significant legal risk in terms of a potential for inconsistent results if an ROB is conducting its investigation parallel to any processes that may be in play both under the police department's internal affairs policy or separate and apart from post broad 119 00:32:03.280 --> 00:32:20.000 jurisdiction and oversight which is established by state law and regulation. So um you know, I think they have broad jurisdiction in terms of oversight over allegations of police misconduct um and anything that may 120 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:37.560 contradict or contravene that in addition to the labor and employment considerations, obviously could could create potential risk. Um as you mentioned, a lot of these issues are incredibly fact-specific and independent, um but overarching 121 00:32:37.560 --> 00:32:54.320 you know, in the past couple of years POST has broad jurisdiction over complaints of law enforcement misconduct. >> Okay. Um, and then the second part is could the could an ROB be the body tasked with doing the investigation 122 00:32:54.320 --> 00:33:10.200 of a in a post report post complaint? So, what you said before was that the local local police typically are doing the investigation. Is that something that an ROB could do or not? >> In my opinion, no. That under the regulations, that is solely left to the 123 00:33:10.200 --> 00:33:25.440 jurisdiction of a local agency and outside independent investigator and or the POST Commission. >> Okay. >> There is no um, there it does not contemplate that a res- resident oversight board would have jurisdiction 124 00:33:25.440 --> 00:33:40.760 over those um, allegations or any complaint filed. >> Okay. Um, everyone feeling clear, not no no lingering questions about how an ROB would in be 125 00:33:40.760 --> 00:33:57.080 functioning alongside a post or not alongside a post or APD uh, investigation. Any follow-up questions on that? Otherwise, we're going to get into um, my next topic here. I'm looking I'm looking at my like notes 126 00:33:57.080 --> 00:34:15.080 on what questions I wanted to make sure that we could we could ask. Okay. Um, or that got asked. So, generally speaking, if we think about the operation. I'm shifting from POST to the operations of a resident oversight board. Um, Okay, sorry. There's a lot There's a lot 127 00:34:15.080 --> 00:34:30.639 here. So, broadly, there are a few other communities that do have resident oversight boards in some capacity. Uh, Springfield and I think Cambridge are are two that come to mind. Are you familiar with those cities 128 00:34:30.639 --> 00:34:46.560 and how their resident or civilian I can't remember what Springfield calls their something different but um how they function and how it's going or kind of a broad general thoughts on that uh and and how it's kind of worked in other communities. 129 00:34:46.560 --> 00:35:01.840 >> So I I I I am aware that there are a couple of other communities that have um similar oversight boards in in some capacity or others that are considering them at this time. Um I know Cambridge is for example I think has been in 130 00:35:01.840 --> 00:35:19.520 existence since 1984 so well before the post commission. I can't speak specifically in terms of how they're operating at this juncture in light of the post commission or internal policies and practices in Cambridge um but I am aware that they they do have a um an 131 00:35:19.520 --> 00:35:36.560 oversight board but I'm not sure in terms of the mechanics specifically of how they operate in a in um in the post post post context right? >> Okay, thank you. So the other part about operating gets into I had two categories 132 00:35:36.560 --> 00:35:51.640 that kind of overlap here which is access to information and general operations so they're they're related. How can so I think one of the things that this committee will have to discuss is really based on your your first answer which is 133 00:35:51.640 --> 00:36:08.640 what is left for an ROB to engage in um if post has jurisdiction over anything that's uh community facing and APD has jurisdiction over local facing kind of I I think this one of the topics I anticipate this committee discussing a 134 00:36:08.640 --> 00:36:24.920 lot is kind of what now what or like then what would an ROB be able to take up? Um and so assuming that there are areas that we've figured out an ROB can address what could they do? So this is getting to the questions of what records 135 00:36:24.920 --> 00:36:42.280 can they access? Um what should we be keeping in mind about ensuring, um, you know, confidentiality? Is there confidentiality? Are there cases that they cannot legally be involved with? Um, kind of generally, when would their work be public or private and who gets to 136 00:36:42.280 --> 00:36:57.240 decide that? So, George talked about this a little bit earlier with with POST and investigations not being public until they're fully kind of complete. Uh, what what does that look like? When would the work be public or private and who makes that determination? 137 00:36:57.240 --> 00:37:12.960 >> So, I can certainly start maybe with a public records considerations just for everyone's, um, everyone's background. So, all records, um, created or received by any town official or employee, so either the police department and their officials or 138 00:37:12.960 --> 00:37:30.160 employees, as well as anyone that would serve on a resident oversight board would be subject to the public records law and the exemptions that may apply. Um, with respect sort of broad picture, um, and I'm happy to to address any specifics, but broad picture, um, in my 139 00:37:30.160 --> 00:37:46.120 opinion, the the oversight board wouldn't have a greater level of access to confidential information outside of a public records request. Um, so, POST obviously has access as part of its investigatory authority under its regulations and statutes to request 140 00:37:46.120 --> 00:38:02.480 certain information. Obviously, the district attorney's office would have access to the certain information to perform the functions of its job if there was an open criminal case. Um, there are going to be, in my opinion, um, likely 141 00:38:02.480 --> 00:38:19.120 confidentiality considerations for any records and I'll give a couple of examples. Um, one would pertain to CORI information, which is obviously confidential under state law. And so, to the extent that the oversight board needed to access any confidential 142 00:38:19.120 --> 00:38:34.360 information if a complaint came in and involved an open criminal matter for example, um that there there would be a restriction in terms of accessing criminal history under state law, and that's covered by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Systems, which is a separate 143 00:38:34.360 --> 00:38:50.360 state agency that has jurisdiction over that. And the police department is only able to share confidential, we call CJIS information under state regs, for authorized criminal justice purposes, um and it would be limited in that case. 144 00:38:50.360 --> 00:39:06.840 The other example I would include is there's a specific confidentiality provision relative to any allegations of sexual sexual abuse or domestic assault or 209A orders, um and that's a separate state statute, chapter 41 section 97D, 145 00:39:06.840 --> 00:39:24.080 and that statute specifically, um restricts access to any of those highly confidential documents or information to either the victim of an alleged crime, um or to law enforcement or victim witness advocates. So, it's very 146 00:39:24.080 --> 00:39:39.760 enumerated in terms of who those confidential records can be shared with. Um there also has been a movement in the past couple of years to restrict access, um to juvenile information. So, to the extent that the oversight board needed 147 00:39:39.760 --> 00:39:54.080 to review any information involving minors or juveniles, that would be restricted as well under state law. Obviously, if there was any information that was also pending as part of a DCF matter or other state agency that was reviewing something, there would be 148 00:39:54.080 --> 00:40:10.640 confidentiality associated with that. Um there would also be potentially medical information, substance abuse information, mental health information, and then the last category, um I would I would include in these highly confidential, um 149 00:40:10.640 --> 00:40:26.560 categories of information would obviously be if there was an open criminal case, um because we wouldn't want to be in a position where the oversight board was um taking any action or there was the public release of information that may impact any criminal defendants due process rights or 150 00:40:26.560 --> 00:40:42.320 constitutional rights. Um so that would be another consideration as well. Those are generally exempt under the public records law um until a final conclusion of a criminal case. So those are broad broad categories. Obviously there could be more depending on the particular 151 00:40:42.320 --> 00:40:58.840 facts, but those are really the big privacy and confidentiality considerations that would likely come into play in terms of what act what access to information the board may have um to perform its functions. >> So to make sure I've got my notes right, 152 00:40:58.840 --> 00:41:16.080 there is no way that you're you're saying there's no way under state law for us to grant the IRB access to information beyond what the general public can access through public records and we cannot legally grant them power to They don't they can't have investigative 153 00:41:16.080 --> 00:41:33.720 investigatory powers. Is that That would be a state law change. >> Absent like a very specific um provision which I'm which isn't popping, you know, popping in mind that would apply in this in this case, there's no ability to compel information absent a 154 00:41:33.720 --> 00:41:51.360 court order to obtain information um that is otherwise confidential under state law which falls into those those couple of categories I had indicated including Corey um you know domestic um domestic information allegations of 155 00:41:51.360 --> 00:42:07.800 sexual assault, restraining orders, juvenile records, etc. Um and personnel records may are also exempt under exemption C. And so to the extent there was a request to have access to individuals personnel 156 00:42:07.800 --> 00:42:24.360 information, that that would also be um subject to withholding or redaction under the public records law. >> Then then there's one piece that I have and then I'll go to counselor I'm um in my initial question, which was really five questions, sorry. Uh when would the work of the ROB be 157 00:42:24.360 --> 00:42:39.800 considered public or private and who makes that determination? Who who gets to say this is now executive session or this is now on the record? Um because I'm I'm I'm hearing that the ROB is is everything done by them would would be 158 00:42:39.800 --> 00:42:56.360 subject to public records law. Is there a case when it could be private and who gets to decide that? >> So the the the open meeting law would govern the operation of a public body such as the ROB. Um as you all know from our meeting tonight and your your other work in the 159 00:42:56.360 --> 00:43:11.520 community, the open meeting law very narrowly construes the reasons in which a public body can enter into executive session. In this case, um you know, the most likely um purpose to go into executive session would be purpose one, which would be a 160 00:43:11.520 --> 00:43:28.560 complaint involving a specifically named individual. Um let me just backtrack a little bit and say, you know, in my opinion, I I don't think there would be a way to um guarantee the anonymity of either a complainant or a witness in light of the public records considerations as well as 161 00:43:28.560 --> 00:43:44.080 the open meeting law. And so even if the ROB just provided notice to the individual and said that to the individual that the complaint is about, we're going to meet in purpose one. Under the open meeting law, as you know, there's always the 162 00:43:44.080 --> 00:44:01.640 option for an individual to elect in their own discretion to hold that meeting in executive session, I'm sorry, in open session and remove it from executive session. And so it could be a situation where even if a complainant um chooses not to become public or is 163 00:44:01.640 --> 00:44:18.560 hoping that the topic would be reviewed in executive session, that that authority lies with the individual who is named in the executive session and receives notice. So, it would likely be the employee and they can elect at their own discretion to hold that discussion in open session. So, it'd be difficult, 164 00:44:18.560 --> 00:44:37.840 in my opinion, to guarantee confidentiality to either the employee or also to the you know, to the individual complainant themselves. >> Thank you. Counselor Ryan? >> So, just a clarification about these 165 00:44:37.840 --> 00:44:52.960 various restrictions that exist and protect certain records and so on that the ROB could not get access to because of various laws and so forth. Does that also apply to the post commission or to internal reviews done by the police 166 00:44:52.960 --> 00:45:09.160 department? So, because these are police you know, internal done by the police department or done by post, are they able to get access to information that the resident potential resident board would not be able to get access to? Are they too governed by the same 167 00:45:09.160 --> 00:45:23.240 restrictions? >> No. That's a great question. In my opinion, the police department is able to access its own records, the district attorney's office is able to access police records to perform its law enforcement functions, and the post commission is 168 00:45:23.240 --> 00:45:43.600 authorized to indeed directed directs police departments to provide information to them upon request is part of their regulatory authority. That's a great question. >> So, if they get access to that information and they make a decision, could a resident oversight board in a 169 00:45:43.600 --> 00:46:00.160 review function as opposed to investigatory function, could they then share some of that information with the review board under the understanding that it cannot be shared publicly? Is it Is that make any sense? In other words, that if you had a review function and the investigation is done and 170 00:46:00.160 --> 00:46:16.560 they've got access to lots of information that that a they the ROB could never get access to, but when they then review and get information back from the the police department and from the reviewing body, um is there a way to share some of that information or again is that restricted? 171 00:46:16.560 --> 00:46:31.440 >> Uh the the >> make sense? I don't think >> It does make sense. I'm not aware of any specific ability to share it outside of that >> Within the confine >> of that law kind of I don't mean law enforcement, but adjudicatory 172 00:46:31.440 --> 00:46:47.440 adjudicatory realm. >> Um you know, in practice I know that the post commission will request reports and other information which has to be provided by the agency to the post commission as part of its review. 173 00:46:47.440 --> 00:47:04.600 Their process is handled internally, so I don't I don't know what you know, besides what is put online in terms of being transparent regarding its operations, I'm not sure in terms of the information sharing back. >> So in the review model, it may very well 174 00:47:04.600 --> 00:47:20.440 be the case that what they're seeing some of the information simply will not be shared with them because it can't be shared with them. >> That's correct. And obviously I just wanted to flag that consideration because any oversight board would want to be 175 00:47:20.440 --> 00:47:36.680 able to access information to perform its functions and so I just wanted to be candid with the group in terms of those restrictions under state law with respect to highly confidential information. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Lynn. 176 00:47:36.680 --> 00:47:54.160 I want to confirm what I believe I've heard and that is that an ROB that has investigatory pow capabilities cannot do a subpoena and also does not have access 177 00:47:54.160 --> 00:48:11.680 to any records that John Q. Public or you know, Mary Q. Public could get through public records request. Am I correct? >> That is correct. In my opinion, there is no separate authority to issue a 178 00:48:11.680 --> 00:48:26.720 subpoena um pursuant to a bylaw or pursuant to a um administrative uh ask, so to speak, to obtain or compel records. Correct. 179 00:48:26.720 --> 00:48:41.640 >> Okay. Uh uh before we I let me ask one other question, that is uh the town of Amherst has the somewhat unique, but totally not unique uh situation where there are two other 180 00:48:41.640 --> 00:49:00.000 police departments within the town. Would the resident oversight board have any authority over the Amherst UMass Amherst police or the Amherst College police? >> Not in my opinion, um unless there was voluntary compliance, but it would it would not be limited. The jurisdiction 181 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:16.120 would not flow to other agencies or entity legal entities. >> Thank you. >> But I would say, as I mentioned before, and that's a great question, um those officers are also certified and any complaints involving them would also need to be submitted to POST, in my opinion. 182 00:49:16.120 --> 00:49:31.600 >> Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> Mhm. >> Thank you. Councilor Cannon-Martin? >> Yeah, I'm I'm just confused because about the um you know, saying that they're uh not able to do investigation because doesn't the Boston 183 00:49:31.600 --> 00:49:49.440 um model include investigation and the ability to issue subpoenas, the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency? >> I'm not aware of whether they've actually issued a subpoena or effectuated that at all. I'm you know, I I'm not aware of in terms of 184 00:49:49.440 --> 00:50:05.440 how they've implemented their oversight board. Um I'm happy to certainly look at that, counselor, um, if you would like it or reach out with any specific questions on how they've implemented it. Um, but in my opinion, it wouldn't apply here. And Boston may have other, you know, other 185 00:50:05.440 --> 00:50:20.960 specific They have a lot of special acts that may apply as well. Um, so I'm certainly happy to look at it, but I can't speak to that specifically tonight. >> Yeah, I think it it just would be helpful to know in Massachusetts, um, if there are any investigatory boards 186 00:50:20.960 --> 00:50:36.920 operating and if so, um, how does that work? >> Yeah, and and Counselor Kanner Martin, I already have it on my list to, um, contact folks in Springfield and, um, Cambridge. And so I can, um, well, I am going to bet Janelle would do a better job than I would. I, uh, 187 00:50:36.920 --> 00:50:53.000 I'm I'm free, so I'm happy to do it as well. [laughter] Um, I think it's it's depends on what I think let's figure out what questions we're asking and then we can figure out if it's a Janelle reach out or me reach out, but I I'm going to add Boston to my list, too. Um, >> Okay. Sounds good. >> Thanks. 188 00:50:53.000 --> 00:51:09.760 >> Thank you. >> Um, okay, made that note. So, anything else on access to information? Um, oh, one of the questions that I had, if we're looking at So, so based on this, in your opinion, Janelle, 189 00:51:09.760 --> 00:51:25.720 would we be I think one of the concerns that's coming up for me as you're talking is that there's going to be a sort of an unbalanced level of review based on the type of complaints. So, if the ROB can't, if we if we don't figure out a way if all of the hypotheticals 190 00:51:25.720 --> 00:51:42.600 for them to access the information or or conduct investigations into complaints that relate to Corey information or sexual assault or um, juveniles or things like that, if they cannot do that, are we then, in your opinion, creating an unbalanced level of review? And this 191 00:51:42.600 --> 00:51:58.520 question is really probably more for the committee, but factually, is does that really mean they can only handle would that mean they can only handle some complaints and not others or would it just mean a lighter touch that they're missing information? 192 00:51:58.520 --> 00:52:13.400 >> Well, I think I certainly, you know, defer to the committee in terms of the policy considerations, but just from a legal perspective, um it would be the the board's review of anything would be limited to the 193 00:52:13.400 --> 00:52:28.640 information just globally of what they can access and what individuals voluntarily provide. And so, in essence, you know, if there's confidentiality under state law that's restricting access to information the board can 194 00:52:28.640 --> 00:52:45.920 review or alternatively if an individual um ultimately decides that they don't want to cooperate in the review um whether it be an employee or whether it be a you know, an individual or another witness to the event, um certainly there're going to be restrictions in 195 00:52:45.920 --> 00:53:00.760 terms of um what what oversight can be conducted. >> Thank you. Athena? >> If it's okay, can I ask a question? The the the proposals also imagined 196 00:53:00.760 --> 00:53:18.080 um testimony under oath. >> Mhm. >> Can can you speak to that the the a body's ability to accept sworn testimony? >> That's an excellent question as well. Um I in my opinion, there's no way to legally 197 00:53:18.080 --> 00:53:33.600 require an individual to testify under oath without a statutory or regulatory authority to do that. Um I would also say that there may be Fifth Amendment considerations. Um I for instance, if there's um you know, potential criminal action for any 198 00:53:33.600 --> 00:53:48.920 individual involved um or any named individual that may implicate the Fifth Amendment, um there there are a host of legal considerations with requiring individuals to testify under oath, but there does need to be a legal ability to 199 00:53:48.920 --> 00:54:05.040 do that. Um, and I'm not aware of of what the what the source of that would be here. So, that's a great question, Athena. And certainly would warrant um, careful consideration cuz an individual may say no, I'm I'm not going to be under oath. Um, and then it comes down 200 00:54:05.040 --> 00:54:21.240 to really, you know, how is enforcement going to play out, if any, um, or what additional steps can be taken. >> Thank you. Um, I think this is the last question in this area. So, now I'm I'm double checking. Um, 201 00:54:21.240 --> 00:54:36.800 and it is along the same lines. What type of uh, evidence, for lack of a better word, um, would the ROB have access to? So, for thinking about complaints coming in, do they only have access to records? Um, is there any access that they would 202 00:54:36.800 --> 00:54:53.360 have to uh, physical evidence in an in a complaint process? Um, I'm thinking through concerns about accident Well, and maybe this gets at it. Thinking about concerns of accidentally uh, um, damaging or something um, for folks 203 00:54:53.360 --> 00:55:08.680 who maybe don't have the extensive amount of training. And I know maybe the the flip side of this is give them all that training, but um, is there is there Is that a type of evidence that an ROB could hypothetically have access to? Um, could we give them access to that to 204 00:55:08.680 --> 00:55:23.200 in order to conduct thorough investigations? >> So, there's just broad broad brush, obviously very fact specific. Um, there are going If it's an open investigation or an open criminal matter, there are going to be, of course, chain of custody 205 00:55:23.200 --> 00:55:39.680 considerations in terms of potential evidence or spoilation of evidence that would would hinder, in my opinion, the board's ability to gather evidence or potentially, you know, risk an an investigation or something that the post commission was ultimately reviewing. So, 206 00:55:39.680 --> 00:55:54.800 that's a significant legal consideration. In addition, obviously, individuals would have to voluntarily provide it. So, if there was a pending say there was a complaint and that has been referred to an outside investigator 207 00:55:54.800 --> 00:56:11.600 and that investigation is going on and the outside investigators have access to certain information and the ROB wanted access to that information, you know, who has jurisdiction over that and how does that impact the outside investiga- outside investigators role in terms of 208 00:56:11.600 --> 00:56:28.720 what they need to do to report back to post. So, those are some of the legal considerations that do warrant careful consideration in my opinion because obviously the criminal due process, right? And constitutional considerations usually 209 00:56:28.720 --> 00:56:45.560 come, you know, give rise to everything else and everything flows from there. >> So, could an ROB begin before the post commission has completed its review or no, because the post commission has all of the materials and is using them and may not give them 210 00:56:45.560 --> 00:57:00.480 over? >> The post The post commission may not even have If we're talking like physical evidence versus documents, you know, physical evidence like I can't speak specifically to that would likely come up if there were allegations of a 211 00:57:00.480 --> 00:57:15.840 of a criminal case or if there was an open criminal case involving any of the individuals involved. Obviously, that would have to flow through separate police department evidence policies as well as any district attorney's requirements and Brady requirements and 212 00:57:15.840 --> 00:57:31.800 automatic disclosures as part of a criminal case in terms of criminal discovery. So, those are some of the factors that would warrant careful consideration in terms of what post would access, you know, given their overarching authority, you know, post 213 00:57:31.800 --> 00:57:49.840 I would sus- I would that process would flow first usually just given the time frames for which the the investigation needs to be completed. >> Okay. Lynn? >> I would unmute. [clears throat] 214 00:57:49.840 --> 00:58:09.360 If you had if we had an ROB um either investigatory or um evidence of the other options. Um could the police chief or the officer who is being 215 00:58:09.360 --> 00:58:24.200 questioned as to whether they've done something inappropriate or wrong or illegal? Could they just say immediately decide they just want the post commission to handle it? And what would that do to the authority 216 00:58:24.200 --> 00:58:41.440 of the ROB? >> So the post good question. The post commission has statutory and regulatory authority over that. And so there are significant collective bargaining implications and employment implications 217 00:58:41.440 --> 00:58:58.880 for allegations involving an officer because of the post both the internal affairs policy policies and procedures of the police department as well as the post commission's adjudicatory and administrative review process of any 218 00:58:58.880 --> 00:59:14.560 complaints. So that is a consideration of course um where the post commission has statutory and regulatory authority over complaints and has laid out an entire regulation dealing with that complaint process. 219 00:59:14.560 --> 00:59:28.960 Um that does warrant careful consideration in terms of complaints involving allegations against a police officer and what if any jurisdiction the ROB would have regarding that same exact complaint. And obviously, if there were 220 00:59:28.960 --> 00:59:46.720 inconsistent results, that could you know, raise significant um legal considerations as well. >> I appreciate the answer. I just want to be very clear. An individual police officer 221 00:59:46.720 --> 01:00:03.000 and/or the chief of police or someone acting in his stead could decide immediately upon becoming aware of something that was inappropriate and wrong. Could say, "We're referring this 222 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:19.080 immediately to the POST Commission." >> They're required to do that under state law. That is a requirement that if there is a credible report of allegations, that needs to get reported by state law to the POST Commission. It's not a 223 01:00:19.080 --> 01:00:35.800 discretionary decision, in my opinion. >> Within a two two day a two day limit. >> Correct. It's within two days. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then I think after that complaint, there is various timelines to to that come into play as well. 224 01:00:35.800 --> 01:00:54.400 Thank you. >> Um all right. Excuse me. So, I think we've covered most of my other ones. Um let's talk collective bargaining agreements. Would both a review option and an or an investigatory model be subject to 225 01:00:54.400 --> 01:01:09.640 collective bargaining agreements and kind of how how would that be handled? Is it that the change to the collective bargaining agreement would need to be made first or the adoption of an ROB? Kind of how who how would that process play out? And is 226 01:01:09.640 --> 01:01:25.000 it different depending on which model the it either of the models? >> So, in my opinion, under I would have to look at any final language, of course, but under either model, there would be collective bargaining obligations with all three. I believe there are three 227 01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:41.240 different collective bargaining units that um that um would be covered by this particular um bylaw. So, that would have to be that would have to take place um at the initial stage. >> Okay. Um so, 228 01:01:41.240 --> 01:01:57.560 would Okay. Uh maybe that's the maybe that's the end of the question. Um >> I would just also flag if there's if it implicates any changes to the to any inter- other policies and procedures, personnel policies and procedures, 229 01:01:57.560 --> 01:02:14.200 internal affairs policy, um as well as any other policies involving um other employees that are non-law enforcement. Um for SEIU, those would also need to be bargained as well if it implicated any changes to those policies. Um and obviously, if the 230 01:02:14.200 --> 01:02:29.960 police department is accredited, that would have to be part of the equation as well. >> Could you speak more on that? What is What do you mean? >> Sure. So, as part of the accreditation process, um generally speaking, I can't speak specifically to to how um the town's was, but generally as part of 231 01:02:29.960 --> 01:02:47.040 that accreditation process, um the accreditation team reviews all of the police department's policies and procedures. And so, if there were any changes to the internal affairs policy as a result of an ROB, that might have have trigger additional review as part of the accreditation process. 232 01:02:47.040 --> 01:03:04.920 >> Okay. So, I want to zoom out. Um Sorry, notes. I want to zoom out and go a little bit back to the beginning because I will be uh this is speaking as an individual, I'm still feeling a bit 233 01:03:05.040 --> 01:03:22.320 confused or fuzzy on where the pathway is for this. Um And I I want to look into Boston, Springfield, Cambridge, and and they seem like three really different models for it. And so, I'm very curious how they've gotten it through because again, 234 01:03:22.320 --> 01:03:37.400 one has full investigatory and subpoena power. Um the others I'm not sure about, but I think that I do think it's it's worth looking into how they have figured this out because I feel stuck um frankly. 235 01:03:37.400 --> 01:03:55.440 I am still unclear on what without a special act, and maybe that's the separate conversation, right? Of um what special acts would we need in order to get something that would be effective? Um without special acts, 236 01:03:55.440 --> 01:04:13.280 it doesn't seem like there is a lot this an ROB could do review or otherwise because it cannot So, if an ROB looks at a case for example and says um that we believe these should be the ramifications or the the disciplinary 237 01:04:13.280 --> 01:04:30.000 actions taken, and it's more intensive than what POST says, is the community under an like who who kind of wins out in that battle? Like what happens if they come to different conclusions? Or is that why we can't have two at the same time? 238 01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:45.120 Sorry, I'm spinning out live on live on the meeting here cuz I'm trying to figure out where that like where is the ground where an ROB would go with POST existing the way it does without causing conflicts like that? Again, eight questions lobbed at you, Janelle. I'm so sorry. 239 01:04:45.120 --> 01:05:00.880 >> No, no, no. I'm I'm I'm I'm processing. Uh I think that's a great question. I think that Cambridge has had their board for a long time, right? As we talked about way before the POST Commission was established or there were 240 01:05:00.880 --> 01:05:17.440 um statewide certification requirements. I'm certainly happy to look specifically at Boston. I I'm not sure in terms of their processes and how it has played out and whether or not it's a referral um or what their specific oversight is 241 01:05:17.440 --> 01:05:33.720 post post commission in terms of complaints involving individuals. I know that the Boston Police Department has a separate internal affairs policy. I know that they are obviously required to comply with post. I'm not sure in terms of that space as 242 01:05:33.720 --> 01:05:49.040 you had mentioned, you know, what what they're currently reviewing or how whether they're held or in abeyance or whether it's more they'll receive a complaint and then serve as a resource for individuals to report to post. I'm 243 01:05:49.040 --> 01:06:05.280 not sure in terms of practice of how Boston is navigating it in light of the post commission's jurisdiction at this point. >> Okay. Um but for us without special act 244 01:06:05.280 --> 01:06:26.360 where do you see the space? Like if we were to say to you as our legal team, we want a resident oversight board, we want it to be as investigatory as possible, we don't want to break the law, where's the where's the runway? >> I think that there would be 245 01:06:26.360 --> 01:06:43.200 significant legal considerations in terms of how it is implemented both from a practical perspective and in light of the fact that there could be conflicting findings. Um you know, I think there there are overlapping 246 01:06:43.200 --> 01:07:00.160 jurisdictional considerations that didn't exist as of even a couple years ago. So post now has a full division that has a police standards division and that division specifically is charged with oversight over police 247 01:07:00.160 --> 01:07:17.480 complaints and that is fully operational and up and running. You know, certainly we could look at any final language, but there would be significant, you know, labor and employment considerations in terms of potential inconsistent results. Um, the concept of double jeopardy that was 248 01:07:17.480 --> 01:07:34.440 raised earlier, if one discipline is imposed and then there was an additional recommendation for discipline, as well as just to be practical, like enforcement of this, you know, of any specific finding um for an investigatory body or even a 249 01:07:34.440 --> 01:07:50.240 review board in terms of how that would be enforced versus the, you know, overarching statutory and regulatory authority of POST to decertify an officer. >> And so when you're talking about the concerns about double jeopardy, the 250 01:07:50.240 --> 01:08:06.680 concerns about um, I guess everything I'm saying is kind of still about double jeopardy. You're talking about concerns with uh, litigation, with being sued as a result of that, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah, okay. >> Both in terms of you know, from from a labor and 251 01:08:06.680 --> 01:08:22.200 employment perspective or from an individual's perspective for a potential invasion of privacy or or other, you know, significant legal considerations that could come into play in terms of process. >> Okay, thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Um, all right friends, it is 7:40. Do we 252 01:08:22.200 --> 01:08:38.799 have further questions for uh, for Janelle tonight? Anything else that you're confused about? I feel like I've tried to model that there is no perfect question and that is okay to ask a messy question, so I hope everyone feels comfortable doing so. While we've 253 01:08:38.799 --> 01:08:55.640 got Janelle here, Counselor Ryan. >> So you want a messy question. Um one of the things I raised in my uh, one question I have in my mind is the what what qualifies as a complaint? And maybe the answer is a complaint is whatever we define it to be. 254 01:08:55.640 --> 01:09:12.160 Um, but right now this entire process that's envisioned uh, begins when there is a complaint. So, that What is that What is complaint mean? Who defines it? 255 01:09:12.160 --> 01:09:29.160 What's What's, you know, what What is a complaint? >> [clears throat] >> Great question. I think that would obviously need to be defined. I just wanted to pull up the specific definition, which is is very broad in terms of the POST Commission 256 01:09:29.160 --> 01:09:46.520 regulations. It's essentially, um, any any credible report, written or oral, evidencing or alleging the misconduct of an officer from a member of the public, personnel at the agency or, quote, any 257 01:09:46.520 --> 01:10:02.000 other source. So, it's it's pretty all-encompassing in terms of what it, you know, what it addresses. I will say, um, a lot of questions had come up with respect to what constitutes credible and who makes that determination on 258 01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:17.440 credibility. And the POST Commission has defined that as well. So, um, to essentially say that a credible report is one that is capable of being believed by a reasonable person and is 259 01:10:17.440 --> 01:10:33.960 not based solely on speculation or conjecture. Um, so, you know, most, in my experience in the past couple of years, um, most complaints involving law enforcement do get reported to POST. 260 01:10:33.960 --> 01:10:48.960 >> So, for the sake of argument, or at least example, say you're pulled over and the police officer, in your impression, is abrupt or rude, or you see them as being rude or not being sufficiently, whatever. 261 01:10:48.960 --> 01:11:05.400 And so, you you, um, call in or write in and say, "I thought Officer X was very rude when he gave me my speeding ticket the other day." That is a complaint. And that starts the whole apparatus up and the whole process starts from there. >> That's correct. And that can be reported 262 01:11:05.400 --> 01:11:21.200 if someone feels more comfortable either at the police department or to another entity in town or directly to the post commission. And in practice how that works is the post commission will do an intake of that complaint and request further information regarding that complaint and the circumstances 263 01:11:21.200 --> 01:11:42.040 surrounding that complaint. So they may ask for the police report or other details regarding the incident. >> Thank you. Athena. >> Thank you. So Attorney Austin, Counselor Ryan was asking a question about complaints and you spoke to the 264 01:11:42.040 --> 01:11:56.840 the post commission's complaint process. So if Amherst police received a complaint in the manner that Counselor Ryan described, they would be required to send that to post. The um and I just wanted to point out 265 01:11:56.840 --> 01:12:14.320 for the committee the the proposal does include in its draft rules a complaint intake and accessibility section, but it doesn't get into the details like Attorney Austin had described with the post commission's complaint submission process. So it 266 01:12:14.320 --> 01:12:31.520 doesn't define what needs to be included in a complaint or um you know, whether a person's name needs to be attached to it or if it needs to include an officer's name or badge number or any of those details. It just has filing channel channels 267 01:12:31.520 --> 01:12:47.280 um language and ADA access and then an acknowledgement requirement. But again, those are draft rules. I just wanted to point that out because that's part of the um the proposal that was submitted. >> Thank you. Lynn. 268 01:12:47.280 --> 01:13:03.640 So again, just using an example. Um if I were black, which obviously I am not, um and I was pulled over for uh ostensibly for speeding, 269 01:13:03.640 --> 01:13:20.400 and I felt that it was probably a racial issue. I personally could go directly to POST. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> not I would not even have to raise that to the Amherst police. >> That's correct. 270 01:13:20.400 --> 01:13:50.120 >> Okay. >> And there's a specific reference, and I'm happy to provide it as well. Um I'm just what up. If the complaint is related to minor matters, a category that includes discourtesy and basic work violations, 271 01:13:50.120 --> 01:14:07.880 such as tardiness, inattention to detail, equipment violations, grooming violations, or comparable infractions, and the complaint does not include evidence of an allegation of bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual 272 01:14:07.880 --> 01:14:23.560 orientation, age, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status, or socioeconomic or professional level, excessive, prohibited, or deadly force, or an action which which resulted in serious or bodily death. So, those are specific categories that are 273 01:14:23.560 --> 01:14:40.520 enumerated in POST regulations as being required to be reported to POST, but an individual can certainly provide that directly through the public portal that's online. >> So, one of the issues that um 274 01:14:40.520 --> 01:14:57.280 often comes up for individuals is the concern that if they report it, there'll be retaliation. And the retaliation will come, you know, by additional traffic stops or any number of other issues. And 275 01:14:57.280 --> 01:15:14.240 one would assume that, in fact, that looking at the reports that have been made, it looks as if uh some police have had several reports made on them. Um I think I saw one with probably as many as eight 276 01:15:14.240 --> 01:15:30.440 on the POST website. So, the issue of retaliation, uh well, it's certainly real. There is no question about that. Um but the the way to deal with that is to continue 277 01:15:30.440 --> 01:15:47.280 to report. Does the POST Commission then take into account that they're receiving so many complaints about an individual officer? >> I can certainly certainly review that. They do review patterns of conduct in my 278 01:15:47.280 --> 01:16:03.960 experience um with specifically named officers or law enforcement officers. So, patterns of conduct are something that can be reviewed. And certainly filing one complaint if there are allegations of retaliation wouldn't preclude an individual from filing that. 279 01:16:03.960 --> 01:16:21.640 Um there's specific um information that is requested as part of the POST portal, but there's also a narrative portion as well to provide as much information regarding um allegations involving the law enforcement officer. >> Okay. 280 01:16:21.640 --> 01:16:39.920 >> Any other questions for Chanelle, Attorney Austin, excuse me. >> The other Sorry. Anna, I just actually found that section. I just wanted to make sure um you all had it. The agency, so this would be the police department, but 281 01:16:39.920 --> 01:16:56.600 someone can report it directly as POST as well. Any agency shall forward any pattern of complaints alleging the misconduct of an officer to um to the commission. And um so I just wanted to flag that specifically regarding the pattern issue. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. 282 01:16:56.600 --> 01:17:12.680 >> You're welcome. >> Councilor Ryan? >> So, for those of us who want to look more closely at things like their definition of complaint and so forth and the things that you've been quoting to us which I find very helpful. Um I mean I'm on their website right now as we speak, but on their website are listed 283 01:17:12.680 --> 01:17:28.920 their regulations. Um they can be found there essentially. Um I'm not asking you to do that work, but the the to find these kinds of specific uh statements that you're giving us, it's there publicly under regulations or where can we find it? >> That's correct. Um great question. So, 284 01:17:28.920 --> 01:17:48.040 the complaint regulations are 555 CMR 1.00. And that is under if you're on their website, it's the about POST section, regulations, advisories, and guidance. >> Okay. >> And then um the advisories and guidance 285 01:17:48.040 --> 01:18:04.480 spec- the specific one I was referencing earlier is guidance to law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies regarding 555 CMR 1 and 6. >> I've got that one. I'm sorry. The first one I apologize. The very first reference was to 286 01:18:04.480 --> 01:18:23.040 >> Um 555 CMR 1. It's called procedural rules. >> Got it. Good. It's in there. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh Lynn? Um actually, Anna, this is more to you or 287 01:18:23.040 --> 01:18:39.560 to however we decide we're going to reach out to the communities that have had ROBs. >> Yeah. >> Um and the real interesting thing to me would be how has that ROB changed 288 01:18:39.560 --> 01:18:55.960 given the evolution of post over the last 5 years? And I I raise this because again, if you start looking at the list of officers by name and where they're from, you see a lot from Boston, a lot from 289 01:18:55.960 --> 01:19:12.560 Cambridge. This is on the post site and a lot from Springfield. And so the question I have is what's the role of the ROB in relationship to now now to post? >> Okay, and I'm hoping that one of the yeah, one of the things I'm hoping to do 290 01:19:12.560 --> 01:19:29.040 is kind of solidify [clears throat] a a general list of questions for when I do that outreach so that we're making sure we're getting what people need to hear from those communities. I do think Janelle specifically Boston is is one of the bigger questions for me. Um, just given I just took a really quick glance at the the um 291 01:19:29.040 --> 01:19:45.600 ordinance that formed that that commission and um it's pretty robust. Um, and so yeah, I I think my question is how from your from a legal perspective is what I'm asking you. Um, how 292 01:19:45.600 --> 01:20:02.520 uh and then I I think all that what I also saw from there is that one of the challenges they faced is that there isn't required compliance with it um from the officers and so that's been one of the critiques is that while they can investigate supposedly, there isn't 293 01:20:02.520 --> 01:20:18.040 seemingly an obligation to follow through. So I if if from your from your professional perspective, you could look into that, um I would I would I appreciate it, but I will um I think the committee sounds like we're going to land on some questions to ask hopefully each area and 294 01:20:18.040 --> 01:20:34.800 I'll do the the work of figuring out um reach how to reach out to them how to best reach out to them. >> And I am aware I'm happy to certainly do that and I I am aware that there's been some media reports specifically involving um conflicting decisions both internally at 295 01:20:34.800 --> 01:20:51.640 the police department in Boston as well as what the accountability board had recommended and a decision to not go forward with the recommendation of the board compared to and this is all public information so that's online for the members as well in terms of 296 01:20:51.640 --> 01:21:07.600 enforcement that enforcement consideration I had raised earlier. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, with that I will say a huge thank you to attorney Austin for joining us and we may have some follow-up for you some 297 01:21:07.600 --> 01:21:23.840 follow-up questions but maybe hopefully it'll be via email and we you get to keep your Tuesday nights but but thank you so very much for joining us and answering those questions tonight. >> Thank you all for your time and happy to answer your question. Nice seeing you all. If anything else comes up, please 298 01:21:23.840 --> 01:21:40.000 let me know. Have a good evening. Thank you. >> All right, thanks. >> So committee members, um I want to just kind of talk through our next steps. First off, I'd love to hear you know obviously we we didn't want to uh waste the time that we had with our 299 01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:56.360 with the attorney by kind of sharing our reactions but if folks want to take some time to digest we we will be coming back to this obviously but I'm happy to hear if people do have initial thoughts or reactions to those questions um before we go on to the questions that we have for um other areas. I'd love to 300 01:21:56.360 --> 01:22:12.560 kind of hear where folks where folks are at following that conversation. Lynn? >> Um I would really like to make sure that the um CSSJC also has an opportunity to submit questions once they have listened 301 01:22:12.560 --> 01:22:28.120 to the tape today. It just seems to me that um this discussion with the attorney today has raised a lot of questions in my mind and I want the CSSJC 302 01:22:28.120 --> 01:22:43.400 to have the same privilege of asking questions as we have. >> Absolutely. I can once the recording is available, I will reach out to the chairs of the CSSJC and ask them if they would like to provide feedback or not feedback if they would 303 01:22:43.400 --> 01:22:59.080 like to ask more questions. >> I would also this this has to obviously go through the town manager, but if the police department also has questions, >> Mhm. >> I think it's important that we hear from them as well. 304 01:22:59.080 --> 01:23:14.280 >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I think it's interesting because because the initial group that convened the recommendations that we received is no longer in existence. It seems like we're kind of pulling together de facto pieces of feedback from different 305 01:23:14.280 --> 01:23:29.680 different entities. So, I acknowledge that that is not a perfect system. Just to name that. All right. Counselor Cannon Martin. >> Yeah, I mean I guess I was kind of left with the question >> [clears throat] 306 01:23:29.680 --> 01:23:46.240 >> as we were going through the limitations of an ROB as to when we did receive the report from our consultants, they did present us with a both a review model and an investigatory model, and I'm like racking my brain just trying to remember if all these things came up at the time. And then did 307 01:23:46.240 --> 01:24:02.080 we have a KP Law opinion at the time? I thought we did, but maybe we didn't. >> [snorts] >> There is a legal opinion that was in your packet, but I believe it's just it's much broader. I will say that that Counselor Cannon Martin, I have similar thoughts. I am 308 01:24:02.080 --> 01:24:20.120 kind of a little confused as to why we've got these two recommendations when there are such significant concerns. >> Yeah. >> And yeah, so I will also say right now I don't know what to do with those concerns. 309 01:24:20.120 --> 01:24:35.960 You know, I think we Yeah, so so I don't know the level of the depth to which the the committee was it a committee or working group what then that entity. Um, I don't know cuz it was the consultants working with a group of people and I believe that the 310 01:24:35.960 --> 01:24:52.120 membership changed over time um and I I believe that they sought or or a legal opinion was provided on the final recommendations, but I I have to look back in our old packets to see exactly what it said. >> Yeah, I I will be looking back at that 311 01:24:52.120 --> 01:25:07.840 myself because it does it seems really odd to me that they would have recommended that if there wasn't a legal foundation. Um and then the the other thing that I just wanted to reflect on is that you know, I understand that there is the existence of the post commission and there is the existence of internal affairs that does 312 01:25:07.840 --> 01:25:22.440 investigations, but you know, just remembering that the significance of this body is that it is made up of residents and it is reflective of our population and that um you know, it may seem duplicative in some ways, but it's composition is different and it's local and it's 313 01:25:22.440 --> 01:25:38.920 diverse intentionally so. So um I think we just should keep that in mind. >> I do one thing that I was flagging with this was we've run into the issue with GOL before where we cannot dictate racial composition of a body 314 01:25:38.920 --> 01:25:55.200 um and that answer came very clearly and so while I think that's something Oh, you know, am I wrong? I really thought I had it I I had the language on. But but we can we can seek it um but we cannot mandate that there be and and cuz I remember we dealt with this with the 315 01:25:55.200 --> 01:26:10.920 reparations um with the reparation assembly. Uh and I think you probably have the exact wording, but what do you remember? And you may have raised your hand for a totally other thing and you love I know you love when I'm like, let me jump the line and assume that I sorry. Um >> It wasn't about that. It wasn't about that. 316 01:26:10.920 --> 01:26:26.960 >> Okay. Okay. But yeah, so but but Amber or sorry Counselor Cannon Martin, that was one of my questions too is like I don't think that we can do that um legally. I don't think that we can say this body must have X number of people who represent these identities. We can say that the committee strives 317 01:26:26.960 --> 01:26:43.600 to. Councilor sorry Councilor Cannon Martin did you have anything else? No, okay Councilor Ryan. >> Just want to point out to all of you that we got the initial memo from from manager Bachmann about this and what the 318 01:26:43.600 --> 01:26:59.720 whole history of this and the all the various parts and pieces in October 3rd on October 31st, 2025 and in November 3rd of 2025 we got a memo from attorney Austin that spells 319 01:26:59.720 --> 01:27:15.760 out many of the concerns that she just gave to us tonight in our interviews. So this has been not something surprising. It's been something that was raised fairly quickly after the attorneys finally saw what was being proposed. They were not involved in creating this. 320 01:27:15.760 --> 01:27:31.280 That was not their role. But they were asked to review it once it was created and the memo has been in our packet I believe for quite some time and I encourage everyone to read it carefully but what you will discover I believe is that most if not all the concerns that 321 01:27:31.280 --> 01:27:47.080 have been raised tonight and things that have been said are in that memo. >> Thank you George for looking at the dates on those. That was the part that I was missing. Was that the memo was based the KP law memo from attorney Austin was based on Paul's memo with the final 322 01:27:47.080 --> 01:28:02.520 recommendations but that the attorney was not involved in the process of making those >> That's correct. >> drafting those. So I think that's where Councilor Cannon Martin if I'm understanding you correctly it sounds like that that was a miss in terms of kind of the committee of the working group didn't have the opportunity to 323 01:28:02.520 --> 01:28:18.880 hear that feedback and then adjust accordingly or or possibly adjust if they decided they wanted to. I don't intend to put words in Councilor Cannon Martin's mouth but I think that was the date piece is the key element there. Councilor Ryan, did you have something else? >> Nope. 324 01:28:18.880 --> 01:28:33.360 >> Uh Athena? >> Uh Council Ryan, thank you for coming with the receipts because I was I was ready to speak to the same issue. Um and I think that, you know, the conversation tonight really um 325 01:28:33.360 --> 01:28:49.320 the the the review that was requested that you referred to, the memo from KP Law, um you know, it it raises issues specific to public records law and open meeting law and then the post commission's considerations, but I think 326 01:28:49.320 --> 01:29:05.120 with without getting into more questions, it's hard to understand what the ROB must ensure that doesn't doesn't inter- interfere or otherwise conflict with the broad legislative mandate of the post commission. It's It's difficult to understand what that means without kind of getting into the nitty-gritty. 327 01:29:05.120 --> 01:29:24.680 So, I I think this conversation really helped, but um that memo also was, you know, geared to address specific concerns about public records, open meeting law, and then and then some of the post commission, but without more context, it's Yeah. Lynn? 328 01:29:24.680 --> 01:29:42.600 Um from a perspective of dates, I'd also like to put this conversation in another perspective, and that is that following the murder of George Floyd, we had the CSWG. The CSWG recommended the Resident Oversight 329 01:29:42.600 --> 01:30:01.480 Board. They recommended that in 2021. The same point at which the post commission was created. And so, I want to make sure we're sensitive to the issues that have brought this forward in our community, 330 01:30:01.480 --> 01:30:19.280 but also ask all of us, including the successor body, CSSJC, to step back and say, "Given what we now know about the evolution of the POST Commission, what is our best path forward?" 331 01:30:19.280 --> 01:30:37.160 And that's really to me the crux of this issue. And as much as I love GOL, um I just don't think that decision rests with this body. >> What body do you believe it does re- >> I I but think it has to be a conversation 332 01:30:37.160 --> 01:30:56.640 between CSWG and the council, maybe. I I just don't They, you know, there this has been an evolutionary process. People came forward with all good intent in a body, in a report with recommendations for the 333 01:30:56.640 --> 01:31:13.720 ROB. The council included that in our seven points coming out of that report. Somewhere in here, we now need to look at this in today's current environment. 334 01:31:13.720 --> 01:31:31.760 And say, "What does Amherst really need given what the POST Commission has now evolved into?" >> When you you said CSWG, did you mean CSSJC? Because CS- the Community Safety um working group is is no longer 335 01:31:31.760 --> 01:31:49.160 >> No, you know, I I mean CSSJC, the successor body. But it was the CSWG report that first raised the need for a resident oversight board. And at that point, the POST Commission was barely, if if it was being discussed, 336 01:31:49.160 --> 01:32:06.240 it was being discussed not broadly. There's there's been a lot of lot of evolution that has happened. And I think we need to resolve this in a sensitive way for our community as to what really is our best path forward. 337 01:32:06.240 --> 01:32:23.520 >> So, I think I'm sorry. >> That's all. >> I I think that it there have been in past packets we've had letters regarding this from the CSSJC. I think that it is clearly still desired by that body. I think my only thought line is is 338 01:32:23.520 --> 01:32:39.200 when we think about who this decision rests with and I say this with all due respect to the CSSJC, but they were not the body that did the report making these recommendations. And so, I think that one of the questions I have is who do we bring this back to with 339 01:32:39.200 --> 01:32:56.320 questions? And I think that the CSSJC is one entity. I think that there were others involved in that process. The consultants, there were residents, there were members of the very I think various police unions, I'm not positive, but there were a number of individuals involved in making this proposal happen. 340 01:32:56.320 --> 01:33:11.640 And so, I don't I think that I'm not comfortable asking clarifying questions about the proposal or about kind of in now several many years later what the status is of 341 01:33:11.640 --> 01:33:28.600 only one group that had membership on that initial committee, if that makes sense. So, so I think that that for me is is there is a larger question of who who can we bring to the table that is the most similar to the initial body who made the recommendation so that we're still kind of 342 01:33:28.600 --> 01:33:44.360 honoring the that work that they did. >> But my point is that the charge of CSSJC is to follow through on those recommendations of the CSWG. So, in always viewed them as a successor body to CSWG. 343 01:33:44.360 --> 01:34:00.360 >> They are. No, I'm not that's I'm not disputing that. I'm saying I want to make sure I'm understanding your question. So, your what I heard and maybe this is where I'm confused is that you were saying that maybe we should consider requesting a meeting between CS SJC and the council 344 01:34:00.360 --> 01:34:15.840 to discuss whether or not they would still like us to be moving forward with an ROB proposal in light of the post commission's work and um their thoughts on how to frame that in light of the responses that we're getting from KP Law in terms of what's possible, what's not. 345 01:34:15.840 --> 01:34:31.160 My My thinking is that the first point I think has already been made clear that they do still want this and that they are still actively pursuing it with a or they would like us to continue to do the work that we're trying to do. But the second point I I don't believe that we can only ask one 346 01:34:31.160 --> 01:34:46.960 part of the initial body that made this recommendation what they feel the updated recommendation should look like. Um I'm I am not comfortable with that piece. I think that they are one of many groups that we should be talking. >> I totally agree with that. I'm not suggesting that 347 01:34:46.960 --> 01:35:03.200 it stands alone. I But I well I want to at at it as we talk about future agenda items, I want to bring up another point, but it's not appropriate here cuz it's not on the agenda. >> Okay, but don't let me forget to talk 348 01:35:03.200 --> 01:35:18.560 about uh future agenda items. So um any other reflections or thoughts before I'm going to ask you questions that I should ask to Boston, Cambridge, and Springfield? Or anyone else I'd discover, but those are the only three I 349 01:35:18.560 --> 01:35:34.040 thought of. All right, let's shift. So, I'm going to you can assume that in front of me I have a representative from Boston, a representative from Springfield, a representative from Cambridge. One, who do you want me to talk to you from those communities? Who 350 01:35:34.040 --> 01:35:48.840 would you like me to reach out to? Is it the chair of each of their respective commissions? Is it their mayor, town administrator, whoever? Who do you think would be best suited to respond to these questions? It can be multiple people. Let's start there. I'm looking for marching orders. 351 01:35:48.840 --> 01:36:04.160 >> They're different forms of government. >> Uh-huh. >> Um, in Cambridge you've got um a mayor that's more token than actually administrative. >> Mhm. >> So, and I also think that your um chief 352 01:36:04.160 --> 01:36:18.640 of police is an interesting body to talk to since a lot of these um again, if you look at the actual POST Commission um website, you see enormous numbers of reports coming out of those three cities. 353 01:36:18.640 --> 01:36:36.880 Um, it's it's almost startling. Um, and I So, I I mean, in Springfield you have a mayor and and Boston you have a mayor, in Cambridge you have a mayor, but it's a figurehead mayor um versus a town manager and in all 354 01:36:36.880 --> 01:36:54.360 three of them you have councils. >> But who do you want >> And then you have commissions and whatever their commission is. So, it seems to me there's three or four different kinds of people. >> Great. Councilor Ryan? >> I guess I would like to hear from the 355 01:36:54.360 --> 01:37:11.480 commission and hear what their experience has been and um have they had problems, challenges, difficulties? Do they feel it's working? Um, have there been conflicts? Have there been issues of double jeopardy, lawsuits, etc.? Um, I'd like to 356 01:37:11.480 --> 01:37:28.840 understand um whether um what their experience has been like. Uh, I'm not really interested in what the mayor thinks. I'm really not interested in what the chief of police thinks at this point. I'm interested in what the experience of the commission has been since they are charged with this task of review and in it sounds like 357 01:37:28.840 --> 01:37:45.920 investigation at some level as well. How's that going? Um, and um particularly what's the relationship like with POST? Have they seen a change in the last five years, especially with Cambridge who's had the most experience? Has the POST Commission brought about a sea change in how they operate or is it 358 01:37:45.920 --> 01:38:03.160 pretty much business as usual? >> Thank you. Councilor Cannan Martin? >> Yeah, um I mean I would echo George uh Councilor Ryan. I would like to hear from the commission itself um about their experiences and um I think 359 01:38:03.160 --> 01:38:18.920 um whoever there might have an idea of the legal framework that was established or required to um give them investig- investigatory powers. I don't know who that would be if it would be like a town council person or like somebody who was 360 01:38:18.920 --> 01:38:34.560 there when it was formed. Like I don't know if that's changed since their boards were formed. So, actually I don't know who that would be. So, someone involved in the creation would be useful as in addition to somebody who is currently serving on it. 361 01:38:34.560 --> 01:38:50.920 >> Yeah, well and it's also I think looking through I'll look through and folks are welcome I'll um I will find them and put them in a a packet, but the the um charter or the the ordinances forming each entity or a charge where applicable. Um I know I have that from 362 01:38:50.920 --> 01:39:07.320 Springfield and Boston. I need to find it for Cambridge, but that may also speak to it and I I can dig into if there's any if there were any um special acts or things like that and I'll ask them. They should know how they can legally function, right? Like that I'm sure >> Theoretically, but 363 01:39:07.320 --> 01:39:25.240 >> But yeah, but fair. If they don't If they don't, I will ask who I should talk to. Um okay. Uh anything else? All right. Um if I will [snorts] I will do a little research on this, but if you hear of any other communities that you'd like me to speak to, I I do think this 364 01:39:25.240 --> 01:39:42.280 is going to be Massachusetts specific um just cuz post uh I think it's not going to be a great use of our time to go elsewhere outside of the state. Um I also I I think that something that was interesting to me, this is down the road, but when I was looking for some info on Boston earlier, in their 365 01:39:42.280 --> 01:39:58.640 ordinance forming the the It's a long name. Um their version of an ARB, it is one, it's a little bit different, it's appointed by their mayor, and two, it is um the the training is so intense. It's a lot a lot of training. So, um it'll be 366 01:39:58.640 --> 01:40:14.520 interesting to kind of hear from from them on terms of their perspective, hopefully down the [snorts] road, too, depending on where we go with this. Are there other steps that folks believe we need to take? So, just in to confirm my action steps here, I'm going to do outreach to uh the the 367 01:40:14.520 --> 01:40:30.760 ARBs, whatever they're called, in those three communities, ask them these questions, or ask to ask to chat, um and then reach out to the CSSGC and the APD to say, "Here's the recording of the meeting with our legal team, and here's the legal memo, just because it's 368 01:40:30.760 --> 01:40:45.880 depending on which you want to read uh or watch. Do you have any questions remaining based on this conversation? Um I will say, while the memo is helpful, sometimes uh a lot of legal speak starts to real really blend together. So, I 369 01:40:45.880 --> 01:41:00.920 think the recording might be might be beneficial maybe beneficial. I would find this more beneficial um uh a little bit, too. So, I'll recommend that and ask if they have questions. Um and then my my the next thing is just continuing to 370 01:41:00.920 --> 01:41:17.200 gather further questions from you all in terms of what we want to do. But, let's think about other next steps that we want to take. Counselor Ryan? >> So, one has to do with the cost of this, and to what degree we need to look into it, or can look into it, and who can 371 01:41:17.200 --> 01:41:34.520 help us understand um is that part of our remit? Because this has a fairly substantial price tag attached to it. I just don't know how much. Maybe it depends on what finally is created. I'm sure it does to some degree. But, can we get some input uh 372 01:41:34.520 --> 01:41:51.200 as to the financial aspects of this? Um or is that really not Are we just doing this and we'll leave it to the manager to figure out how to pay for it? >> Let me make sure I'm understanding your question. When you said can we get some input on the financial aspects of this, are you talking about asking the other 373 01:41:51.200 --> 01:42:07.840 communities for cost implications or are you talking about this body the GOL discussing cost implications? pertaining to >> I'm saying more the latter, but it's I mean cuz there's the cities are so different. I'm not sure the money figures they'd make, but um I think more 374 01:42:07.840 --> 01:42:24.560 the latter is what I had in mind. >> Yeah, I I it is absolutely I believe within our our purview to discuss that as a factor in our recommendation. Um I think that we also could recommend if we see fit that the town um I'm I'm saying options. I'm not advocating for any of them. We could say 375 01:42:24.560 --> 01:42:39.760 that recommend that the council refer this to finance for discussion on on the specifics of that, but I think it would be irresponsible of us to fully recommend something that we know has financial implications without having a vague idea uh of what they are. >> So who do we reach out for that? Is that 376 01:42:39.760 --> 01:42:55.800 to Paul, to Shawn, to who do >> I don't think that we I think that once we know the questions that answer will come. I'm I I think it'll partly be Paul and Shawn in terms of but I think more of it's going to be researched from our perspective on kind of some of it was already included in recommendations 377 01:42:55.800 --> 01:43:11.720 in terms of stipends. Some of it would be yeah, I I think it's really going to be so dependent on what we decide to move forward with. >> One last quick comment and then I'll shut up. And I'm willing to look into the post. I As you heard, I asked for the specific links. I'm willing to look 378 01:43:11.720 --> 01:43:28.480 into the post uh materials and at least put together some you know, some of their regulations and so on just to give us something to think about. >> That would be great. >> But is that pretty okay? You're willing I'm willing to do that and give it to the chair and then you do with it what you like. >> think that would be beneficial. 379 01:43:28.480 --> 01:43:44.200 Yeah, okay. That would be great, George. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um Lynn. >> So, adding to our list of questions of those communities that have implemented this >> Yeah. >> and that is what is it costing them? How big are their commissions? How often 380 01:43:44.200 --> 01:44:00.640 are How big are their terms? Uh, I mean, how long are their terms? Can they be reappointed? What's the training? And what's the stipend? And what's the cost of it for staffing it as well? >> I'm going to see how much of that I can find out >> about 381 01:44:00.640 --> 01:44:17.440 >> um, cuz I'm But, but I think that we should I'll include that in my reporting back. Um, >> And And finally, the attorney from KP Law implied that some other communities were looking at this. >> Mhm. >> It would be interesting to know, to the extent that they are willing to and can 382 01:44:17.440 --> 01:44:34.400 reveal to us who those communities are what they're looking at. Okay. >> Okay, thank you. Um, Athena? >> Thanks. I think there are some of the questions that were raised, um, we could 383 01:44:34.400 --> 01:44:50.280 find out answers. Um, the cost of training, I think there was, um, some some initial training covered by the contract for the, um, consultants that were hired to, um, do the initial 384 01:44:50.280 --> 01:45:05.560 resident oversight board working group work. Um, but there would be there would be ongoing training required if there are members who are up for appointment every year. And so, that's a question that we might be able to find out based on the 385 01:45:05.560 --> 01:45:22.960 the contract that we had, um, if it if And And all of this is, you know, it it depends because it depends what the final recommendation the committee makes and what the council adopts and and then that will dictate how how much everything would cost, but we could probably estimate some of the training 386 01:45:22.960 --> 01:45:37.920 costs based on um, what the consultants provided and what they will provide for the initial members, which I think is is already been contracted. Um and then the the proposal also includes a stipend, but it doesn't give the 387 01:45:37.920 --> 01:45:53.760 amount. And in in my recollection, it doesn't also say subject to appropriation. So we'd need to kind of untangle that piece as well. Um and then it doesn't imagine any staffing, but we you know, it will need some staffing. And then there are a 388 01:45:53.760 --> 01:46:10.400 couple other things that um came to my mind when I was reading through the proposal. And one is um you know, maintenance of records and so on, especially if those records are um need to be maintained with any level of um privacy considerations because if if 389 01:46:10.400 --> 01:46:27.633 they're accessible on our network that that we we might need to look at some different system of maintaining records if they need to be kept private and so on. Um although from the conversation today, it sounds like a resident oversight board might not have access to um records that aren't 390 01:46:27.633 --> 01:46:42.840 >> [laughter] >> already public records. So all of this is it depends. So it's difficult to answer the the the broad scope of financial implications without knowing the exact proposal the council would adopt, but some of the questions we could answer initially. 391 01:46:42.840 --> 01:46:58.200 >> Okay. Thank you. Um Anything else, folks? So as you're thinking about it, if you've got anything else. Oh, sorry, Lynn, go ahead. >> Uh yeah, one other thing very quickly, and that is that um we should ask the 392 01:46:58.200 --> 01:47:12.640 president of the council in their next meeting with the legislators uh whether they're aware of any special acts and whether or not those special acts have passed or whether they've been sent to quote committee. Um 393 01:47:12.640 --> 01:47:32.480 much like rank choice voting. >> Um great, thank you. So >> You mean specific to resident oversight? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Not just generally. Um Okay. All right. So, 394 01:47:33.560 --> 01:47:52.840 for I need to look at my calendar. So, we are um not meeting on July 7th. No, we meet again on July 14th. Is that right? 395 01:47:52.840 --> 01:48:07.440 >> That is correct. >> I am not here on July 14th. So, um sorry. I'm sorry I just saw your face. So, here's the thing. Um what what we could do, I'm going to shift into the kind of logistical next parts of our 396 01:48:07.440 --> 01:48:22.920 meeting here. So, what we could do is um we could focus back, I know Council Cannon Martin, the last time I was not here, you focused on the Beyond the Charter recommendations, kind of shifting gears to those topics. You could focus on that and the rule changes and wait until I'm back. That gives us a 397 01:48:22.920 --> 01:48:37.840 while to reach out, communicate with these three communities. Um I I mean, selfishly, I would prefer that. Um especially given that we have had one member missing today from this conversation. So, I would I would love to kind of 398 01:48:37.840 --> 01:48:54.520 have uh us be able to bring bring our final member up to speed and um continue the conversation once I'm back. But, that is selfish, and so I'm I am fine if you choose to continue this at on the 14th. Otherwise, you could focus on the Beyond the Charter recommendations and proposed rule 399 01:48:54.520 --> 01:49:11.400 changes on the 14th. Um and we could continue our discussion on this The problem is I'm I'm so sorry, y'all. I've I've bad Tuesday plans. Um we could continue our conversation on this on August 11th. 400 01:49:11.400 --> 01:49:28.200 Or we schedule an additional meeting. That's the other option. >> scheduled to meet on the 28th. I will July of 28th, I will not be available. >> Yeah, I am I'm actually out of town on the 11th. Not that I'm essential for the conversation, but I would agree on the 14th. If you're not going to be here 401 01:49:28.200 --> 01:49:43.920 that we should focus on the charter recommendations again. >> Thank you. And I keep thinking that we were supposed to meet the 28th and Athena has told me probably 18 times that we were never going to be meeting on the 28th, but I still from in my brain we were. Amber, thank you for Councilmember Martin, thank you for letting me know. 402 01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:59.720 Um Councilor Ryan. >> I think you've answered my question, so I'll ask it again, why not? The next time we would take this up would be July 11th. >> August 11th. >> Oh, sorry. That Thank you. August 11th, thank you. >> Unless we decide to schedule an 403 01:49:59.720 --> 01:50:15.040 additional meeting. >> Okay. And we do have a fair amount of homework to do, fair amount of research to do, and we will have something else to occupy us on the the Tuesday evening that you will be away. >> On the 14th, correct. >> And 404 01:50:15.040 --> 01:50:29.680 >> Yeah, there's not a there's no lack of things to do. Um to be very clear for GOL. So, we do have a lot of homework to do. Um I What I would like to ask is individually, you're welcome. I would 405 01:50:29.680 --> 01:50:46.800 encourage and ask you to look into what materials you can find on those other communities. I will do the outreach to them in terms of taking up their time, but a lot of it's the public records. Y'all, this is all This is all publicly available. So, um there is a lot that can be accessed and I'm happy to share 406 01:50:46.800 --> 01:51:04.080 out things. I'll put them uh in I'll I'll put them in the packet for the meeting, but it's way down the line, so I I can also send that to you to review as I find it, but also just feel free to please look look those things up on your own. We will plan to take this up My 407 01:51:04.080 --> 01:51:18.200 concern is I just don't want anybody to forget, so stay fresh. I I might ask y'all to watch this recording again. Sorry, I know that's brutal. Um but stay stay up on it so that we can come back and actually continue to make progress on this. 408 01:51:18.200 --> 01:51:34.120 Um, on the 14th, you all will discuss the charter. Lynn, you had said you had a topic you wanted to make sure was mentioned with upcoming agenda items. >> Uh it's actually a past item. And I just want to say that I feel like some of the 409 01:51:34.120 --> 01:51:52.360 information we received tonight about availability of any additional information beyond public records is very applicable to the HRC. >> Some of the information that we received tonight about >> public >> Oh, confidential information. 410 01:51:52.360 --> 01:52:07.360 >> Confidential information. The only thing available to them is public records. >> Right. >> So, I mean, I I that's just we didn't we didn't have that information as clearly as we had it 411 01:52:07.360 --> 01:52:22.280 tonight at the time we discovered discussed HRC. >> Yep. And regardless, they're bound to it. Um, so, you know, in some senses, it it wouldn't have changed. Um, but I but you're right, we did not 412 01:52:22.280 --> 01:52:40.000 specifically discuss that as part of the Um, it's 8:23. We've got like one more thing we have minutes, I think. If folks are okay, I'm going to move us on to that. Um, every Does everyone feel clear about our next steps here? Um, when we come back together, just to 413 01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:57.000 bring it back to the IRB really quickly, when we come back together, where I am anticipating, I'm not guaranteeing, but where I'm anticipating this going is a very um factual look at the recommendations we were given and their feasibility, um, or 414 01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:14.520 which elements of them are feasible. And then I think that we will need to decide what a lot of our our conversation is going to be what is the path, um, forward on this. And and what uh Yeah, what what needs to fall into place in order to move on on this. Um I'm not 415 01:53:14.520 --> 01:53:30.480 going to predict any direction on that. I don't know um where the committee will go, but I just I don't want to be I want to be clear that I have a feeling in our next meeting we're going to say like, "Okay, what what is possible at this point?" Athena? >> We do also have some We have a little 416 01:53:30.480 --> 01:53:46.200 bit of time between now and the next meeting where the committee will take it up. So, if there are additional questions for um our town attorney, we can comp- if you send those to me, I can compile them and and um ask for responses before the next meeting, but you'll take it up in 417 01:53:46.200 --> 01:54:01.600 August. >> That would be excellent. Thank you very very much. Um and please CC me if you're going to send them directly to Athena, please let me know as well. Um cuz I'm trying to keep a record here. Uh all this talk about record keeping. Lynn? >> I just want to thank you, Anna and 418 01:54:01.600 --> 01:54:18.080 Athena, for arranging for the attorney tonight. This was probably one of the most productive conversations we've had. >> I'm going to say Athena threw me 17 life rafts because I was spiraling out about how to go forward on this because of it 419 01:54:18.080 --> 01:54:33.440 felt like so many questions in all the directions. So, all of the stickers go to Athena perpetually. Councilor Ryan? >> Just want to reinforce that if we have individually further questions for the attorney, they should be filtered through the chair, and then the chair would send them to Athena. We shouldn't 420 01:54:33.440 --> 01:54:48.800 be communicating with Athena individually. >> Right. I'm I'm actually George, I'm I'm the one staff member that you can communicate with. >> [laughter] >> I know, but it's not about your position, it's about No, I understand, but I I I would suggest and that 421 01:54:48.800 --> 01:55:04.760 >> Emails to me and Anna together are perfectly >> Well, if you if you do both, you copy Anna, that's fine. Um but um okay, fine. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Please keep me in the loop and thank you. There is a point where I will be away and I will email the committee ahead of time when I because I won't have my access to email. So, I 422 01:55:04.760 --> 01:55:20.800 will let you know ahead of time to to just reach out to Athena and I look forward to reading all your emails when I return. Um okay, folks. So, we have minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of June 9th, 2026? >> So moved. >> I have closed my report. No, there it 423 01:55:20.800 --> 01:55:40.120 is. Okay. Is there a second? >> I'm giving Amber a chance. >> Oh, okay. [laughter] I was like, what did you do? Okay, fine. I second. Thank you. Um okay. I'm going to call the vote. >> to have to adopt signs here like whatever. >> [laughter and clears throat] >> They're not and we cannot do that is my 424 01:55:40.120 --> 01:55:55.480 understanding. >> All right. >> Be audible. So, I mean, whatever baseball sign you want to get to get someone else to second is fine. Going to call the vote. Lynn. >> I. >> Councilor Ryan. >> I. >> Councilor Cannon-Martin. 425 01:55:55.480 --> 01:56:11.480 >> I. >> I am an I as well. It passes four in favor, none opposed, one absent. Um folks, that is all she wrote today. So, thank you so much. Um I am looking forward to seeing you at council cuz I'm not going 426 01:56:11.480 --> 01:56:28.080 to see you at your golf for a while, but please, please, please reach out with questions for the attorney um and and same if other questions come up for the other communities, um send them to me as well and I'll and I'll work those in um and generally just uh keep this keep this front of mind. 427 01:56:28.080 --> 01:56:43.840 Please, don't let it go dormant in there. >> Okay. >> Is there a motion to adjourn? >> I move to adjourn. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Um there any discussion? All right, 428 01:56:43.840 --> 01:56:58.600 going to call the vote. Councilor Ryan. >> I. >> Lynn. >> Watch mine. >> I swear to God, Lynn. >> [laughter] >> Lynn, how do you vote? >> I. >> Thank you. Councilor Cannon-Martin. [laughter] >> I. >> And I am an I as well. Four in favor, 429 01:56:58.600 --> 01:57:08.280 none opposed, one absent. Thank you all very much. We are adjourned at 8:28. Have a lovely rest of your day. >> Thanks everyone. Good night. >> Night.