Yes, sir. >> So, good evening. Um, I would like to call this meeting of Charlottesville City Civilian Police Oversight Board to order. That's in our regular monthly meeting. It is Thursday, April the 9th.
Yes. Um, and the time is 6:31 p.m. Mr. Walker, would you please do the roll call? >> Sure. >> Mr. Bowen >> here. >> Mr. Lefave >> here. >> Mr. Fry >> here. >> Mr. Frasier. Dr. Fraser >> here. >> Mr. Dillard
>> here. >> Mrs. Lenwa Kelly >> here. Did I say it right that time? >> You did. >> And Mrs. Reeves >> here. >> Thank you all. Thanks for coming. Um, so just quick review of the ground rules. Um, and they're on the back of the agenda if you want to read them. Um, but
we're going to we want to adhere to respectful conduct, treat all attendees with courtesy, listen actively, avoid interruptions, refrain from verbal attacks or inflammatory language, learn the public comment periods for which there will be two opportunities. Um, you
will have approximately three minutes to speak for individual comments and you're welcome to speak during those public comment periods. We request that you clearly state your name, your organization, affiliation if any, and whether you're a resident of
Charlesville, Elmore County, or another jurisdiction during public comment. The board will not be responding to questions. We will not be entering into dialogue. We will listen to your comments and take them on advisement, but if you want a response, please direct that to the office in writing
some anytime after the meeting. So that said, um the agenda, can we uh can I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight, April 9th? >> Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I.
>> I second item is the approval of the minutes from our February 23rd meeting. You have that in front of you. >> That was that work session, I believe. >> Was that the work session? >> Yeah, the February 23rd. And then >> Oh, yeah. We have them in March 12th. Just clarify, there's two of them in
there that >> there's two >> catching up on >> from the work session that we had next door on February 23rd and then um the public meeting or the meeting here actually downstairs at 6:30 on the 12th.
So, um, you want to take a minute to review those and then I'll ask for approval of votes that we are or welcome any changes or concerns. If there are no changes uh requested for
the meetings, can I get a motion to approve both sets? >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Um an announcement about the calendar, Mr.
Walker. Yep. So, just um I wanted to mention, you know, when I send it tends to be a Tuesday or Wednesday email. Um I'm just going to stick to that pattern of when I can get the email out to you. Depends on what's going on on a Monday and Tuesday. But that weekly update email always will include that calendar
link that I've been sending. And that just opens up that Outlook calendar, but I am updating that as soon as I get events or know about things. The last time I did it, I actually invited all of you to the events I added so that you'll get a notification in your inbox. Um, I don't know if that's helpful or not, but
it's always live, so you can always go back, click on it, see what I've put on. Um, and the reason is is because the police department releases their events, like their community walks usually on Monday. Sometimes it's Monday afternoon. So, I try to add them right then, but you know, you might not get the email
from me with updates until Wednesday. That's usually when they do them. So, um, if you're interested in going on a community walk or other CPD event, just take a look or or just ask me. Good. Thank you. I just had a couple of things to mention. Um
I want to um this walk will be sending out a doodle poll. I want to schedule another work session. Um this one's going to have a little looser agenda and really involve just some opportunity to get to know each other a little better and do some brainstorming about going
forward talking about outreach, some of the other things, but in a in a sort of a a looser kind of format. The other thing is um you have in front of you the first draft of the uh ordinance
revisions. It's um I would ask that you read it carefully. It's not exactly easy reading, but the just to let you know the uh what that we've done is taken the original ordinance that Mr. Walker's really put time in on this. The green
the green print is new language. Um the red strikethroughs are pretty self-evident. That's stuff that's being removed and either replaced. If there's no change in a section of the ordinance, it will indicate that as no change. Um
but anyway, that just to give you some guidance there and we will be discussing it. We will be passing it on to our council which I'll introduce in a little bit. Um, but this is this is what we're going to be working with and have this in a form to take after it's been vetted
by our council, the city attorney, chief of police, city manager. Miss anybody or the board, >> the board obviously we have to vote and approve on it first. Um and then uh it will go in a very kind of revised
concise um and this won't happen the the May 18th work session with city council is not to necessarily get into the weeds on this. It's just to sort of give them an overview, let them know that we're what we're asking for. Let them know that we've had it vetted by all these
various folks and and then have it come up at a later council meeting. So it'll probably require two readings, two two successive readings. um have it come up to a vote for council. What do we think? Later in the summer, Mr. Walter, >> I So, I'm kind of in terms of timeline,
I'm probably for all the reviews and and fixes and things to be done, um we're looking at late summer, okay, for when it's on the council's agenda. Um and that I think is reasonable. >> I I really would like to get it done by the fall. And so, anyway, please spend a
little time looking at that if you would. Uh and then the other thing is if you have not yet uh signed up or had have done a ride along, please do so at your earliest convenience. I want to be able to Yes. >> Oh, just I think you had sent me your
form, but we haven't scheduled one, right? >> All right. We can >> There's a form if you have any questions, Mr. Walker can help you with the type of work. And are you in touch with Sergeant Johnson? >> Thomas. Yeah, Sergeant Thomas. Uh we can we can kind of coordinate at any point. So, if you're ready to kind of think about a date, let's
>> let's get them done. Yeah. I want I would like everybody to get them done in the next six or eight weeks if you would, please. Uh, okay. Any other announcements from other board members. Okay. And it's with a tremendous
pleasure that I'd want to introduce Mr. Martin Khan, our newly uh acquired outside counsel. Um, I will ask him to tell us a little bit about himself and introduce his colleagues if you would, Marty. >> All right. Uh, nice to meet you all. I
got to meet a few of you in in person before the meeting started. Uh, Marty Khan, Martin on my website. Uh, my team, uh, is here in Niva Beck, >> Lisa McMurdo. Uh, we're with the law firm of Moran Reeves and Khan in Richmond. Um, I guess I really want to
start by thanking y'all for volunteering your time. We're not volunteering. Uh we're volunteering tonight because we wanted to come and see y'all in action. Uh but we share uh your mission uh and we applaud your mission. And so when we had the opportunity to kind of pitch the
city council's office and to and to pitch uh James and and Jeff for the opportunity to serve in this capacity, uh we were enthusiastic about it. Uh we have been practicing since 1995. uh and Richmond. Lisa's here
in Charlottesville. I'm going to say probably since 2000. UA is a little greener. You might be you could tell that. Uh uh but uh but we've got um governmental experience. We we primarily
are litigators uh by trade. Uh we represent corporations. We represent individuals. We represent government entities. This is kind of a foray into a different kind of service for us and and we um we know what you guys are trying
to do and we just want to be your support. You guys are making the the wheels turn uh and whatever we can do to help y'all uh to do that and do it efficiently uh and and overcome obstacles and trying to achieve your goals, that's what we're here to do. And
uh call on us when you need us. >> Any questions for Mr. Khan or the board? Welcome. >> Thank you. >> So, we I think we'd like to hang around and see y'all in your natural habitat for a little while. Get to know you a little bit better, at least through the ordinance uh part of the meeting, and uh
we may sneak out after that. But, thank you for having us. >> As I think I shared with the board, the city attorney forwarded us the names of three attorneys. Mr. Walker and I interviewed each of them. It was really unanimous decision that we go with Mr. kind of his team because their
enthusiasm and their commitment to our mission and we're very pleased to have you on board. Um, I would ask of the board if you have questions or inquiries for our council to please put them through the office. Don't reach out indirectly because this is going to be
billable time and we need to track it and we need to contain it so that we don't um >> and just as a a reference because you know our default tends to be the city attorney's office. So we have a lot of just general legal questions that are just about how we do various things that
can go to the city attorney's office just fine. they are a primary representative. But this whole concept exists because the city attorney's office represents both the police department as well as us. And so there are times when that is not ideal. There's a conflict there. Um and
drafting of an ordinance revision is is one of such examples. >> Anytime there'd be a conflict with this put the city attorney's office in the position of having a conflict that loses. We haven't had outside council for I mean several years. So we're very
excited and they do. So again, thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, for thank you for coming. We appreciate we appreciate it. >> So next item is public comment number one. Any any ideas? Anyone online? Kyle,
>> let's see. Couple participants. No hands. No hands. Anybody online want to raise a hand to share? Guess not. Okay. Um let's um we've now all had
an opportunity. As you know, we were not uh permitted to uh review the case together in close session because of a glitch in the law. Hopefully, an exception to that is on the governor's desk. We don't know yet whether she signed it to give oversight boards
permission to go into close session uh specifically to review oversight cases. So we've each everyone thank you by the way has gone individually into the office and looked at the file looked at the body cam footage and so forth. So
I don't want to get into the um um specifics of the case but I want to talk a little bit and have Mr. Walker talk a little bit about the process for case reviews because once we get the green light to do them in close session that's what we'll begin to do and we want to
create a format which is efficient allows us to do it thoroughly but doesn't eat up unnecessary board time when we are in that closed session. So Mr. W you want to think >> Sure. I so what I did was I actually tried to create um in the presentation it's like the third document down that
looks like slides >> this one. >> Yes. It's I have it in the wrong order, but if you flip further back in it, there's a section that starts with a title page like that about um the case review process. And what I did was it's just really short slides trying to bring
up the key issues that we want to just discuss. >> Yes. >> All right. I know it's front to back trying to save paper. Um but yeah, one of the things that I do want to highlight before we start is just that when we review cases, uh we
are as a board and as an office looking at personal information, confidential information. Um and so that is a key element of this of practicing that confidentiality. And so, you know, part of this process is um making sure we get
it right because if we get it wrong, that's a that's a concern and there's consequences for that. Um and so, just as we discussed tonight, we're we're really not discussing that case at all. Um the whole point was to get a sense of the process, not only for the board members, but for myself and prepping
that those items um and sharing them with you all. Hopefully we can do it in a more efficient way in the future in close session but for now this is this is the uh the approach it's just coming into the office. So um some of the topics that I wanted to bring up you
have the purpose of discussion there just kind of what I went over right there but number one is um just that independent judgment. So one of the things that we've talked about and this will be very relevant in close session if we're all doing a case
review together. Um the the ability for each board member to have their own opinions and to share those opinions and not be influenced by other board members is certainly always going to be a concern. And so um you
know one of the questions that came up and this is something we attempted to answer a little bit already is should each member have a scorecard where you are scoring the case um first on your own individually adding any comments that you want and that's brought
together as a collective and averaged from there. So any thoughts on just that conflict of board members influencing one another? Sorry. >> Would the print would the idea be that we would individually look at, you know,
case notes, footage, etc. fill out our score um individually outside of meetings, fill out our scorecard and then discuss in close session with the developer? >> Yes. Until we have a green light
statutoily to do it collectively, at which point we would do it collectively. We'd all gather and look at the notes on the screen or whatever, look at the body cam, but we'd have an individual score sheet which would we would score prior to discussion. So to try to minimize any
crosscontamination with regard to opinions and recommendations and that's the best way we could come up with to kind of try to lessen the logical peer pressure. >> Yeah. Other questions about that?
>> Are we talking about a consistent scorecard or on a case-by case basis? >> Case each, we'd have a a a form that we would use for each case. Each case would have its own scoring, not collectively
because, you know, if we can get this in a form that's fairly efficient, you know, there's nothing that would prevent us from doing cases in a closed session. you know, if it's given the the model that Mr. Walker and I discussed for
trying to make it as concise and access as accessible and to, you know, not take them with the four hours of body cam, but five minutes of the most reps. >> I mean, that most cases are not as long as the one that we reviewed, right? >> That was because that one went on 20 30
minutes, the interaction with the police and the the complaintant. Um, but that's unusual. And that I mean that gets into another topic and how how cases are chosen. Um does the board have any thoughts on that? It could be every case. It could be certain topics and we
pull cases that relate to certain topics. That's that's a board decision on what t cases it wants to review. >> And that feedback could be really important because keep in mind that you know if as it stands now under the current police chief, we have open access to all the cases. M. Walker can
sit in on all the all the I interviews all the body cam footage. So, it's really going to fall in his lap rather than us as a volunteer board to to make some determinations with our input about criteria as to which cases we want to review. And of course, he and I will be talking about it on a case to case basis
in our regular meetings. But I don't know, James, you have other thoughts about that. I just want to hear from board members if anybody has thoughts on >> I mean if you want to look at traffic stops if you want to look at you know the racial mix of the case if you want to look at
hands on you know there's going to be any number of categories we could we could welcome too >> that's what my question will be about categorization those cases and because there's surely going to be some overlap >> yes >> um in those questions if we if we're
reviewing all of the cases um But pri in order of priorities or prioritizing those once they're categorized. >> We're going to need to do that QR only because there's there's too many of us to look at all of them. >> You know, James is going to have to use some discretion with guidance from us as
to pull which cases to pull. But we can certainly give him boxes to put them in and we'll decide which boxes we want to give priority to. But >> okay, >> I can provide some categories of cases that they typically would fall into. For sure. that would be maybe tool,
>> but this is a work in progress. So, we really do want your input on on how you want to see that >> that process unravel because once we get this passed, you know, we're going to be busy. Um, so one of the other kind of
questions and you as you can flip through those pages and if anything stands out to you that feel free to just try to think about thresholds of what's important. You know, everyone can see something different in a case, right? And so when
the board tries to reach a consensus about a case, we're going to have to have ways that we prioritize what are the top three most important things that have to go into the the final product, the outcome. Um not necessarily every minute detail. And so part of the
scorecard thought process is okay, you have a scorecard, everyone scores separately. we can then bring it all together as a collective view of okay um there's actually some categories on the scorecard and and there's definitions of what those categories are and that's
something we might have to work on and adjust those categories um but basically we get the sense of the average where does everybody stand what's kind of the middle line and then then that opens up for dialogue and discussion amongst the board about where is everyone feeling
and everyone can kind provide their thoughts and arguments to push one way or another on that that middle ground that we've established. So, could be that everybody's in general agreement. We're all on, you know, you know, one side of the camp with the board. Um, but it it'll be up to the board to kind of
reach that final conclusion of where it wants to take the case. So, >> um, that's definitely another thing that was has been part of this. Do we have tool or mechanism for helping align
where we focus with where the community wants us to focus? >> And that I mean that ties back into our >> to outreach. I mean that's part of what we're going to be inquiring of of the community is our outreach ramps up is you know where do you want us to be
looking? you know, traffic stops, you know, racially motivated bias based policing, you know, whatever the community tells us matters to them. That's that's a great point in terms of where I think we ought to be putting the
emphasis. Other thoughts, questions for Mr. Walker about the the review process? I should mention just so everyone knows that um Lieutenant Vaya who's been our VIA person is rotating out this month.
There'll be a new lieutenant stepping into that position. Um so, you know, there'll be a change there and there'll be I'm guessing some learning curve for that. >> I'm not sure, but we we have a good relationship with that lieutenant already and >> yeah, not an issue. So, I just don't
know about his background. He could have been in internal affairs before. >> I don't know. Um but yeah, so that we, you know, as we've said before, our relationship with the police department, it needs to be very collaborative for us
to have the access that this board ultimately wants to get things done. Um yes, you can have an ordinance that specifies it, but that collaboration opens the door more and more. Um and that is not for the community's perspective. That is not to say that um
that collaboration creates bias necessarily towards the police, but it's it's meant to allow access. Uh and I think that you know, everyone can kind of speak and see how much access the chief does provide and inviting to anything he does pretty much, especially
things that aren't open to the public. >> Yeah. Um, so it I didn't I didn't print it out because it was just getting to be too much paper, but I did create like a draft case review manual that was in the the digital email packet that I sent out. It was really a just truly rough
draft. Um, definitely needs a lot of cleanup, but you know, I'm just curious, is that a good direction for us to go as far as case review for the board? >> Thoughts? So, next steps with that then would be
um just working on cleaning up that draft a little more. And if you think of anything or you're wondering anything about how we review cases, you know, we can tie that in and make changes as we go. I think this is one of those examples where we'll learn from
experience from doing it. Um, and if the if the law changes where we don't have to do it in the office and you can do it in close session together, that'll change aspects of it as well. So, um, and look in reviewing the change, did anyone feel that there was information
lacking or we would have wanted more emphasis on this or that? I mean, did it seem complete enough? I mean, what was your takeaway in terms of looking sitting down that case? Well, like you saying having the overview that we had when we had central body cam couple of
energy north was a good way to try and cover all the bases multiple officers involved. So there's multiple amount of viewing to be done and that's that's going to be the exception and not the rule for most of
the cases. Most of them are going to be a one-on-one interaction between the officer and the citizens. Not say they want to come up with question. Anyone else have thoughts about the the packet in the process? George, you have any thoughts about it from >> Just thinking about how I presented it. That's that's
>> Yeah. Well, I u it's gonna be hard for me to say because when we discussed, you know, it was done properly. I mean I I couldn't you couldn't ask for a better >> right >> uh
deduction to us from with interview from the off from the IE officer to the officers and for what we what I seen on the the body cam you know it was I I left out the office saying what hey
I'm gay I'm proud because because I've seen something that >> weren't so pretty >> weren't so I mean it's but yeah I let's put it this way I I I feel that uh the uh the officers carried theirself in
a very respectable way handling what they need what they need to do >> uh compared to uh some of the ones I have seen. >> So yeah >> and some of like what just so the whole board knows you know like the reason of Mr. Dillard's seat is specifically about
the law enforcement background. Um, and being able to provide and that's where in those those close session and discussion type things, he can provide another perspective that is different than a civilians. Um, and that is that role on this board and which is also why
that role does not have a vote. Um, which you know it it brings it back to the fact that the law enforcement experience provides that perspective that city council wanted to have on this board. So, you know, we appreciate that role, George, and especially as we do more uh more case review.
>> So, well, we can move on from that if unless anybody else. >> All right. >> Oh, yeah. So, the the next um the big thing next is that the ordinance revision summary. So, I just want to it's it's also in the presentation. It's the start of the
presentation. And I apologize. I know it printed messed up. I'm sorry. you know, there's no more time and no more trees to to redo it. Um, as it kind of printed upside down, I think back to front. So, please.
>> Um, so just to to give a quick a little bit of background on on this whole process is that back in September of 2025, um, some of you were here at the time, some not, but city council sat down with us as a board and was
interested and show an interest or showed interest in us making some revisions to this ordinance to get it working. Um, it's not that anything any everything that we've been doing as a board in the past few months already was contained in the ordinance, but part of this is aligning the ordinance to that
work and cutting out a lot of the things and replacing them in some cases with things that this board can actually do and do robustly. Um, and removing some of those barriers that have existed for a long time now. Some of those barriers
are things that the initial founders of this board and this as an entity um were very important to them and and very important to many of you I think and and to me as well but there is a large set of complexity related to many of those um and so so we're going to go through
some of those tonight. This is meant to give you a just highle overview of the issues um and some of the big changes which is the same sort of approach that we're going to take with city council. So, as you as many of you know, we have a I have a baby on the way >> due the day before uh the meeting with
city council. So, it could be could be all of you that have to take over. You know, >> James, that is no excuse. >> Um, >> you need to train an understudy. >> Just bring the baby. >> I was the understudy.
>> Yeah, just bring the baby up. So, if I'm sitting in the meeting that night because it hasn't happened yet and I gotta get a phone call and I got to leave, uh, that's fine. >> You can zoom. Um, but so really the purpose of this is to to just hit those key big changes,
discuss them, ask questions. Um, and so you so you understand kind of the thought that I was having when I went into this was, okay, let's create a highle presentation that just hits the key points, asks the core questions. The next level down is the piece I haven't developed yet, but it's almost done,
which is a table. It's an outline of just here's the section, here's the change, here's what the a quick sentence about what the change is. Here's the reason why. And it just goes down a big list. And then the deepest level, the most complex level is this big thing sitting in front of you, which is just a
first round go at the actual language that needs to be taken out, added in or moved. And so if you think about it as like simple, more detailed, and then the final actual language, um the goal is to say somewhere near the top of all that
and not have to get into the the detailed language. But as a board, I encourage you to to read it, um and actually make notes and start to build up that sense of commentary on it. >> Question for you. >> Sure. >> On this this is this part of what we
going to submit to uh city counc. >> It won't be in that format, but yes. it. Okay. All right. I think you really need to look over this real good. >> Yeah. >> Before we before we take it off. >> Yep. We only get one bite of the >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Will there be a specific um format for commentary or making changes um for notations for as we review it? >> So, that can be done in a couple ways. Um I know because it's a heavier item, it's going to take time, right? And so
um those changes or or comments or feedback can be submitted through email. That's not a problem by each individual board member that can be compiled and collected um as a as a whole and brought to that May meeting before our meeting with city council so that all the feedback commentary from everybody can
be brought to that meeting seen and discussed because this doesn't need to be finalized for May 18th. This it's really the same discussion we're having now as the discussion with city council is >> here are the core changes. What do you feel about that? that that type of and then then we'll get the final drafting
done especially with our legal representatives. So, um and city attorney's office reviews need y' >> it's a complex one. I mean, Mr. Walk and I were talking this morning that, you know, just a a thorough legal eyes on
this thing because some of the language that we've generated may not pass must statutory legal standards. And so that's going to be a critical piece because we don't want to send them a document that city attorney is going to say bleed all over and say this is this is way out. So
>> and that's um >> why this is so invaluable to the second. That's kind of what was created to begin with was some some a document that though looked at by lawyers didn't really address some of the core
complexities of this issue. So, um I you know the the draft that's here truly is a uh layman's draft from all my understanding and and knowledge and experience gained in this seat, but it is in no means uh legally sound. Um, and
I, you know, so that's why we but just if you flip to the the slide in the presentation packet that has the number one definition sections added. I just want to go through the big changes for you. Um, so this document has a variety of
definitions. Our ordinance has definitions kind of spread throughout. They're in random places throughout different sections. It's it would say section one definitions. Sorry, I know it's it's all facts. I apologize. >> Sorry, George.
>> So, this is not controversial in any way. It's just take saying, "Hey, let's take all the definitions that are all scattered around and from other places and other terms we need to find. Bring them all to the top, put them all there. We can work on if if any of these need to change, but that just puts them in one place, makes it clear before anybody
starts reading the rest of the ordinance." So is it you know any any thoughts on definitions as just a general concept like let's put that in one place that's a that's an easy one >> strongly proof. >> So if you go to two purpose statement
this is where I really do think the board can and should have some discussion. So, purpose statement. >> I won't give you my copy because I have it on the computer. >> I I I'm sorry. I should have sent out >> the
don't think I have another one. I'm so sorry. So the purpose statement I always felt was kind of generic but that's this is where I want to stop and you see in there what was struck and what was added as the purpose statement.
So any thoughts on that purpose statement where where in the the line >> I'm sorry it's so that goes in order. Um it's uh second >> the second page. Yeah. >> Two, four, five. The three's tossed out
and changed to four. Okay. >> All right. >> There's no easy way to show this. >> There's no easy way to show. >> Yes. >> I was just reading powers and duties and wanted to skip past it, but see
>> because in that document I'm not only cutting and but I'm also moving things around, you know, so it's it gets complicated quickly. Um, let me bring it up on my computer here. So I can refer to it a little easier. >> You're talking about section 245.
>> Uh it is section. >> Yeah. Powers and duties of the police civilian oversight board. It's it used to be uh 453 but now it's becoming 454. Yep. >> So you can see what the purpose statement was >> and then a suggested or recommended change. And this is just to give you as
a board some language to work with. Um any thoughts or or questions, concerns, opinions on that? >> Seems a little wordy. >> I mean, I we can say what you need to what we need to say in a more concise
way, but that's just my initial thought. That's the What does enhancing transparency mean? >> Good question. I think breaking down this statement in the green, we have a purpose.
Then we have a method and then we go back to a mission. So purpose being enhanced transparency etc. Then the method being through monitoring, audit, audit, etc. And then it goes back to with the mission of providing success.
Um I just feel like that is perhaps the wrong order. >> I'm taking notes of what whatever you're saying. I'm I'm jotting it down. So >> I'm just I'm really um >> because this really is the core of of the board. I don't know if the word
enhance is um communicates the same thing that what what we want to communicate. How do you enhance transparency? How do you enhance accountability? How do you enhance legitimacy?
We can spotlight it. We can view it. We can >> analyze it. But enhancing it kind of makes the definition a little squishy for me. I sit on the liken hands u
because what we are what we're ultimately doing like is is kind of for for the policing in Charlottesville like we are without without the police we we would have no purpose and so uh but we
but we don't have authority over the police we don't make decisions about the place. Um, so I think like enhance is kind of the most we can do. We cannot ensure things. >> Well, what does that mean to enhance? They are
>> already defined. You can say, okay, enhance is a soft word. It's a very soft word. >> Um, I think we need to be a little bit more direct and use fewer soft words and and always fewer words, more meaning. But how do you enhance something that's
already well- definfined? Accountability is accountability. >> Legitimacy is is really subjective. Um, unless it's something that has to do directly with the law. And when it comes to transparency,
transparency to one person is obscure to another. So I think it enhances those are concrete definitions for those specific words. I think enhance we should probably look at it different. Does a shore work that? >> Ashure. >> I like ashore.
>> Sure. Yeah. Insure. Yeah. >> Sure. I like ensure it's assumes we have more power than we do. >> Yeah. >> Aure is good. >> Say to what you're saying though, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, they're all defined. I say they all
exist on a spectrum. Um, and we want to we you could think of enhance as moving all these things in one direction on a spectrum, a positive direction rather than becoming rather than policing becoming less transparent,
less accountable. We want it to be more transparent, more accountable, um, more legitimate. >> Um, what about increase? Sure. I was thinking monitor and facilitate. >> Facilitate. Yeah, I like that.
>> Facilitate is I think excellent. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because we're not the only ones doing facilitate >> getting to know this. >> Well, it's all on recording. So, >> I mean, this is this keep. >> No, no, this is great.
>> Traditional cartoon war girl. So, everything comes to work for me. >> Yeah. Well, to this is totally very minor but um so it says enhance transparency in policing. Uh to me I
like I I like enhance the transparency etc of policing. Um but I don't know is saying saying like these things in policing seems as Kong was saying too sort of nebulous to not
well defined but to say the transparency like the transparency we are looking to find in our police department um to me seems like more solidified. I know it's very nitpicky but that's just something
that jumped out to me. >> You supposed to be nitpicky. I I'm curious just what >> big fish and little fish. >> What was your thought on the original purpose? I'm curious about that >> because this has been a topic of conversation for a long time about that
purpose. Not, you know, that didn't originate with me. That has originated through board members over the years. Um I know it's cut out a little bit, but >> doesn't really say anything. >> Says establish and maintain trust between and among the department. >> I think it's more city manager and the
public. It's too it's too much of a lift and too much of an assumption um to say that our group is the one that is establishing trust between the department, the city council, the public, city manager. this like there
are officers who are doing excellent work who are working to establish it like establish means like at the beginning start >> and I think it's presumptuous of us to say we're the ones who are starting you know like trust between the community
and the police department whereas there are officers who've been doing that for years uh maintain that' be fine by me but um I I think it's just like it's sending the wrong message to say that we're we're we're going to come in now and we're going to
we're going to make everything better and police departments just like sit back and watch how we do it. I don't I think that's the right message we want to sending. And to that point like why facilitating is is an excellent word for the uh definition of green here. Um
because we are hopefully coming alongside the police department >> um the officers who are doing a great job there already um to and we want to facilitate their work um rather than you know establish something kind of over and above them.
>> How does that work for folks? >> And then in the absence of the great Dr. Dobson, what is trust? I was I was getting ready to get to that cuz that that put us back in the beginning of what we was talking about before
>> on that one. Um >> I agree with you though worry and in that perspective that's um you know >> wording and uh actually uh getting out there and doing it is two different things. Mhm. >> So, um
I I I had to chew that around in my brain for a minute just to uh figure how um really want to word that because I was listening to what you were saying on one behalf about um
earning we out there we don't want how you put this thing that as police review board that we don't want people to thinking that uh we are over taking over the police doing or whatever. The thing is that we want people to understand
that we are here to help them, >> right? and and and and stood I mean far as it goes back what we talked about the last time we had this discussion about when it says police oversight review board the first thing if they look at is
they look at police >> and all so if they hear the word police what they thinking we are the police right >> okay that' be the first thing come in my mind so that only only thing that I the problem that I have with that one the
thing is is again, and I'm not going to dwell on this tonight, um, is learning that how we can get these folks trust >> back. That's the thing. You know, >> I'm on the same page with you on that
one. I think the uh in almost every sentence where the public is mentioned or or citizens are mentioned, they come last in the sentence versus being more forward language toward them. Um, our job as I believe it is to not just is to
facilitate the relationship between the police and the citizens of the city. And also, I was really curious earlier today, and this could be a sidebar for later, but I know we've been talking about community
outreach, but how much outreach do we have with the actual members of the department outside of leadership? How much access to do we have with them? Of course, we're in the discussion. >> One of the things, >> yeah, the ride along. So, because you're going to be with rank and file on the
ride along, not with >> the command staff. >> But are there other opportunities to engage with rank and file? >> Yeah. Um there are quite a few. The community is one. Yep. So, you do have a lot of command staff during those, but
you'll also get get others as well. um any of the CPD events that they do like they do the boys and girls club or yeah um like other other type of events that they do you're going to get more you know rank and file officers >> national by now in the fall we've always
participated in that and there's always huge turnout of ranking files we'll we'll we'll take we'll get all that >> okay >> I want to say one thing real quick I'm uh since we had this discussion I was kind of keeping it to myself for a while till
I can really figure some things out uh with this board. I mean, not with this board particularly, but with the situation we got going on that coming up with something here this summer that uh enhanced dealing out with the public and
the public eye talking to people, letting people really understand where we coming from because I they really don't have the idea where we coming from. Um I I actually uh brought this up with some
with with another colleagues that I deal with also and they they are in all and forward are doing it because they don't understand what they are doing. >> So if you put everything together it's like a making a cake. You put it together to see what's going to come out
of it once it rise. So, we as a board um don't have to be with the police department, just us alone out outreach in the communities and getting these
folks to understand what's going on. But we don't have to be with the police department. But the thing is, we all have to get together and make sure we work at the same time. It's not one or two people, everybody. And that's what made me so proud. We got
a full board now so that we can do this. And we don't want to put it all on that on that director uh for us things to do. Um, again, I I I I see what you're saying in this.
I think this things need to be just worded just a little bit more different for the public far as um the outreach of things. Uh, and like I said, this will come up in a later date, but what what what I've been thinking about and I think you and
James and us would all get together and and and see exactly what I'm saying. I got a plan. I have a plan. I really do. I have a plan uh about being a um when I first started out as a beat cop and I work worked the
neighborhoods, I worked these low income areas where I learned the trust of all these citizens and especially right here in the city of Charlottesville. One of the biggest uh beats I walked was one of the dangerous beats and I did it by
myself for several years and I really earned the trust of a lot of people and I'm trying to get it back now and and just to give you a little tip actually this meeting tonight I'm going to be hitting one of those areas tonight that well I'm going to be out in in a in an
area that's right rough that I'm going to be out with the beat with some people. So, just letting you know what I'm working on. So, when when I come to you say, "Look, this is what we need to do. Let's do it." >> And you know, George, when I talked
earlier about scheduling another work session, we should get into the weeds on that. If that works for you, >> it works for me. I'm I'm I'm changing things around so I can have a little bit more time to >> Great. Welcome. Welcome. >> to uh to welcome all the all the stuff a
little bit. So, uh, but yeah, just keep that in mind. And please, I think, uh, with this with these words and this stuff that was in here that we trying to do, we really need to look over this real good before May. >> Yeah. >> Before we take, uh, enter in it into
city council with this. This is going to be real crucial for this board, I'm telling you. >> And, uh, it's uh, it's I can't put it no other way. that just we just got to button down and and do this and I think we can do it. I got faith in this. I think we
can do it. >> Move on. >> Yeah, that that was a I think the purpose statement really was where yeah, a lot of good conversation come out of um >> and and we will discuss it further down the road. >> So, >> yes, >> just moving through uh just to make sure
we're hitting the big issues so you know you just know what they are and you can then focus on reading and thinking about it. number three on the presentation there. >> Now, this this affects lots of sections. So, it's no specific section, but if you go right below that purpose statement
where we were just reading, there's a powers and duties section. So, that's like the first list where it lists the powers and duties of the board. But the core thing that has been talked about for many many years is the challenge of this entity PCOB whether it's the board, the office
to conduct independent investigations. There are a variety of limitations to that ability. They are complex. They involve things related to um state and federal law. They involve things related to the collective bargaining unit that
the police is part of. They have a collective bargaining unit here. Um they involve things like the resources available to this board and the fact that it's a volunteer board. Um and to this date in however many years it's >> seven >> seven at this point
>> that has never happened. So there's reasons why and the question is can those reasons be changed or should this ordinance shift to align with what this board can move forward with? And that's that's a core issue that's expands
throughout this entire document. >> Couple points there just to elaborate a little bit. James. Um, one is, um, the city council is not going to authorize funds to pay an investigator for this board, and I'm not going to ask any of
you to spend hours chasing down statements, witnesses, and all. It's just not workable. So, that's one. The other has to do with um the near decision and that we have no authority to compel officers to give testimony. um
only the chief or someone under that is a city employee can do that and um it just it stops right there >> and and not just that but it to the best of my understanding and this is where we get into legal things but um it is
someone with the authority to terminate or discipline that officer which I do not have right so >> nor is anyone that grants us that authority >> you'll never get that So with that in mind, the officer cannot
be given a protection that is core to them being part of an internal investigation, which is that when they give their statement truthfully under the under penalty of the fact that they can be terminated or disciplined, um they're protected, that statement is
protected from being used criminally against them. Um, and that's a core protection that's that's defined in many places. But that creates a situation where for us to do an independent investigation that doesn't involve a
statement from the main defendant in the case, which is the officer, right? That's not a true independent investigation. That's not a complete independent investigation. So, that's where that issue stems from. And this is a hot button issue because the original >> crafters of the ordinance and the and
the ones that really were the energy behind it, >> this was a priority and and it was it was it was made with the best of intentions but without full awareness of all the obstacles that stand in the way of doing it. And the practical, procedural, legal, union, I mean
constitutional, I mean it goes on and on. It's just it's just a non-starter. And so part of selling it to the community and part of selling it to city council is making the case. And we will be calling on our council that to help us help us make that case in terms of
these are all the reasons there can't do it. >> Well, legally legally we can't do that investigation. >> He can't do it. I'm right. Uh legally we >> not here to provide legal advice to you.
You're you're here to listen to to the status of the the ship and water out there for the law and doing an investigation like that. Uh a defense attorney will eat you up, eat you alive. So I'm telling you, >> we need to get out of
>> Y thinking kind of as a global statement, we should try to focus on what is functionally viable. >> Yes. rather than focusing on I mean it would be great if we could do some of these things that was the original intention of the board but the reality is we can't
>> but let's look at the world we're actually in figure out how we can >> and I agree with you on that >> the reality is that in some sense we're going we're offering more which is to review you know to have the core message and review every case rather than just
one in a hundred you know so that you know if we were doing investigations you know that might be one one a month if we're lucky We're going to look at every single case and decide which ones of those merit deeper love. So, you know, I want to emphasize that to the community that
we're doing more not. >> Yeah, that's that's really the core message I think and Jeff and I have talked about that a lot. It's like part of the whole goal of making these revisions even though we cut stuff is to take the stuff that's left and make it robust. Yeah. >> Make it meaningful and make it something
that's this board can actually do. >> Yeah. And that's something that hasn't been done either, you know, in those seven years. >> So, there's a lot this board can still do without that one power there. >> Yeah. >> So, I just wanted to touch on that, but it does affect a lot of other things
throughout the document, which I I'll mention as we get to really quick, but that's just a core topic. Um, so the next one, if you flip number four, this is these are these are related. So these are all kind of related to this
independent investigation concept. This one says removal of case specific disciplinary recommendations. Don't even worry about trying to find it because it's it's that would be a lost cause. Um so as it stands right now the state law
allows for boards entities like this localities to create entities that have binding disciplinary action against officers. This locality does not have binding action. So, it's just a recommendation as our ordinance is currently written that this this entity could conduct an
independent investigation and then recommend a disciplinary action. There are problems to that. One of them is the timeline. When an investigation occurs by a variety of policies and collective bargaining, from the moment that complaint's received to the moment
the chief has to make his decision, it's 45 days. So, if you think about it, if an investigation from internal affairs takes 40 days, which it might, and typically the chief is making a decision within 24 hours of when he gets that case report from internal affairs, this
board would have to meet on a six-hour notice >> and review a case. And like, so that's a that's a problem. The the opportunity to do that is difficult. Um, the other piece of this is the
collective bargaining agreement talks about the concept that anything this board recommends cannot be used if the officer appeals the decision or there's a grievance process. So, if you think about the that doesn't explicitly say anything about what we can or can't
recommend, but what it says is that if this board does recommend something and it is appealed, it gets taken away. you know, there there's a reality there that begs the question, well, then if it's a serious case, it's probably going to go to an appeal
and then the board's opinion goes away anyways. So, one of the big thoughts here is that there's two other realms where the board can be involved in discipline, which is assessing the chief as an who who is applying the discipline. Did the chief choose the right discipline according to the
policy? there's a there's a matrix with boxes that has different levels and scales. So, did he choose the right one? And that's something the board could give an opinion on. The other one is, is the actual boxes the scale itself, is that correct? Or does that thing need to be changed and fixed and moved around?
Those are two things related to discipline that this board could do after reviewing cases and say, "Hey, we don't think the chief applied discipline accurately according to the their own policy or B, we think >> we think the policy is wrong and the policy needs to change. Chief picked the
right one, but the policy is not good enough. So those are the two camps that kind of remain in terms of discipline. >> But also, you're right, D. was just saying never was the chief would have would the chief have been bound by our recommendation for discipline. So we
could say chief we thinks termination and he could say well I disagree and move on. We have no binding authority to make disciplinary recommendations. So it's kind of a paper tiger. I mean it's just there's no teeth to it. >> Well it all depends on the policy too. Whatever that policy is written
>> and he if he um that's what his policy says. >> Yeah. then then that's when >> then he's covered, right, George? >> Ain't nothing you can do about it. >> And collective bargaining adds a whole another level on top of that. >> You uh once once the policy been written
and and uh whoever that that approved it, that's the policy that that department need to go by, >> you know. So, uh, >> and this is another one of the items that came out of the original impetus to create a PCOB and you know
there's people in the community that still want us to do this even though we really can't or would have no teeth if we if we were to do it really. Well, I know that um that you know this it's been a long time since we had a full
board and um our own counsel, but my questions then goes, where are our opinions published? Even if even if the chief disagrees, if we comment on a case and we have a strong position, where is it published?
Where can the public find it? because I think part of establishing or um facilitating that um public trust is if there's an issue and there there's civilians involved is there's a case and
we have a strong opinion on that favors the civilian but it's disagreed on by the chief. Where is it published where they can say, "Well, at least we have somebody that had our back. It's never been done before. So the the
places that it would go currently would be the website or our website. >> It would be part of these live video streams which are on YouTube and other other locations. >> The meeting could pick it up. >> It'd be in our meeting minutes. >> Yeah. >> Um so our minutes those resolutions all
public information. >> It's not it's not >> very simp but that doesn't mean that we can't think of other ways to to get it out there. That's and and part of that comes up in here is there's this whole section about the board's public
reporting and outcomes and how it makes decisions. And part of that is about the requirement to get a response to those types of opinions. So, um I view it as there's four audiences. There's the chief of police, there's the city manager at times, not always, depends on
the topic, there's the city council, and there's the public. And those are the four audiences we need to think about when this board makes a decision recommendations. What needs to go out to those individuals? You know, everything in that is public, but it might be a
different focus point for different different audiences. >> So, this goes back to transparency too. I mean, facilitating it, assuring it, enhancing it. We got to do it. Go ahead, John. >> Yeah. Um, so that flip over to number
five on the presentation. It says hearings reduced in scope. Jeff, do you want to talk a little bit about the hearings concept? Because I'm you've tal we've talked about it a lot. So, >> yeah. Well, again, I mean that the original,
you know, if you talk to folks that were part of the original movement, you know, they want star chambers. They want a public hanging. what the officer brought in and, you know, put under this the the spotlight and and cross-examined and and and have the whole thing and it's it's
just not for any number of reasons not a possibility and and they wouldn't probably even and and and part of it is, you know, do we even I mean, the ordinance says yes, we have subpoena power, but when we spoke to the local circuit court judge, he said he wasn't
really uh anxious to grant grant, you know, issue subpoenas on our behalf. I mean there's just a number of procedural, legal, constitutional union uh privacy concerns. Uh James, what would you add? >> So my thought when it came to hearings
is that if you've reduced them in scope, there could still be a purpose and a value to a hearing. You know, if you think about a general concept of a hearing, a hearing is a place to hear witness testimony, hear expert testimony, bring in other evidence, data, research, experts. There could be
a lot of cases in which that would also be valuable. The one thing that would not be possible to the best of my understanding is forcing, compelling, subpoenaing an officer who is the the subject of some case or investigation to
show up and provide testimony to to this entity. And that is that touches the things like the subpoena power where I do still see a value in subpoena power remaining um for third party things like uh >> records >> there's records or there's a camera that
was not obtained and you know that really is critical trying to see what is on that camera or um but the police could always voluntarily be a part of that and I I under the current uh chief I I would assume they would be they would probably love to come to a hearing and provide their statements and and but
it wouldn't be a specific to a case. It wouldn't be specific to an investigation. It would be >> it would be broader topics, right? Like the license plate readers is an example. That would be a great thing for hearing where you can have public comment. You can have all these things come into that. >> Um and really kind of dig through it.
But the trial of an officer, that's that won't be happening in this format. Um yeah, so that that is kind of what hits there. And if if you keep flipping We've already talked about number six and seven which is these are all related
compelling department employees to provide testimony and the subpoena authority itself which spoke to and that that was that was kind of that conversation with the judge not really provide he didn't provide any sort of specific uh
decisions or like none of that it was just questions of us it was just asking us questions that's all it was um did you think about this? Have you thought about that? Have you, you know, um and so and I appreciated that conversation because it provided clarity, but that
was almost two years ago. Uh if you flip to number eight, this is a completely different topic and a very important and interesting one. >> Can I move on? >> Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Are we envisioning subpoenaing?
Who who would those be? It's not the complainant or the officer. Would we be able to subpoena walking down the street? >> Well, that's a good question. Exactly. Exactly. It's an open question because
you know the judge was very um resistant to the notion that on our behalf he would be if his subpoenas is about and so we'd have to get through that hurdle because he's he's the judge for the city and it's it's his it is it is
at his discretion. >> So I'm reading >> talking about judge. >> Yes. I'm reading 7 then as we're removing the part that is pointless but retaining the part that is improper.
>> That's a decent way to say it. >> That's well said though. >> All right. >> With with future feedback from attorneys who might have a better sense of that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But that that's what was in there originally, right? And that's in the state law. The state law allows for this
entity to file for subpoenas. So, um, >> we could certainly ask the judge say, "We really like to submit it." He could say, "No, you're not getting it." >> And, and if you think about it, it would be potentially rarely if never used, but it's hard to predict the future and know
when it might be necessary. And if you've taken out that ability or that power, you know, that's so that's that's where that conversation comes from. And we'll be welcoming input from our council and off from the city attorney both on that question when it gets
>> when we get to that point. Yep. >> So they're they're just watching us uh keep our head above water right now. Um >> can I flip over to number eight which is about board membership? This is this is a hot topic. >> So
>> qualifications. Qual Yeah, qualifications. So there what aspect of the of the membership I've already been told by the city attorney's office that we need to eliminate some things that delineate types of people or there's a very uh
unconstitutional aspect of that. Um so that needs to be just generalized in terms of the backgrounds and demographics of people to be on the board. Um but beyond that that's kind of a that the city attorney is going to do that anyways, right? So that's just me
following uh but >> he's already told us he's taking that. Yeah. So >> I just took it out. Um >> we don't pick our own numbers. >> Correct. How much time do we have to spend addressing the membership? >> Well, the the key comes back to there is a lot of commentary around
>> who should be eligible to be on this board, whether it's city residents, city and county residents, residents of any county or any area who have a tie to the city or work in the city. Um that's been a debate and there's people on both sides of that debate. Um now this ch
this was originally it was more confined to the city but it was changed by city council independent from the board to broaden the spectrum of of applicants um because they they viewed it as there were not enough applicants. But in doing so I felt that the language is
technically the way it's written right now. It could be someone that lives in uh West Virginia but you know works at a downtown here or maybe has like a organization that they work with and they they could be on the board and
there are many residents who don't agree with that. So I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are. >> I should add that that was done without our really consulting with us and it was done um because at the time we were having trouble fulfilling the board. I
mean the council was getting increasingly unhappy with the fact that we couldn't make a qu and so they wanted to throw a a wider net. Well I mean it's kind of as things stand now it's it's it's it's a non-issue but it's still
it's still a concern. I mean um I don't know James what else would you say? >> I don't have an opinion on it. >> Not an opinion in terms of that process. Um, well, you'll see there's a couple other things in there about like making sure there's a 30-day application window because it's happened before where it's
been like seven days, and that's always been an issue. Um, and just for us to be able to actually do some marketing when we need to refill board slots, have some time to do that, uh, and board members to reach out there to their connections to get people to apply, things like
that. So, but it really it just really comes down to who where does someone live and can they then be on the board by some other means if they do not live in the city andor county. Um, >> so what constitutes a sufficient level of interest in the city to be >> Yes,
>> that's for the city council and it's fine. Thankfully, not us. >> But I will say and and there is language in here and it potentially needs to go other places is that these changes would not impact any current board membership, right? Because board membership appointments occurred underneath the
form or >> so that's that's a key point to this too. And um again, part of the providing some language here is not for agreement or dis. It's just to really have a baseline of like how does that feel when you read it? You know,
if you say it's terrible, that's great. I mean, it I we want opinions. If you say it's great, that's great, too. But that's where the board has to kind of reach a sense of consensus on this. Um so, that's a that's a topic, and we're getting we're getting close to the end here. Uh some of these are kind of ones
we've already hit. But number nine, I think this this one was a no-brainer and this was definitely in service to the office um more than anything is there there exists right now beyond the ordinance there's a standard operating
procedure that is agree an agreement between the PCOB and the chief on how this board accesses records and how this office accesses records. um that then was missing a component which then led to another creation of a
memorandum of understanding about how the board and this office monitor interviews of officers. So you've got this document expansion and they start to become misaligned. So it has always made sense
and and always had this opinion as well to consolidate all that information back into the ordinance. There's redundancies that can be cut out, but really taking all the core information from those documents about how this board has access to records and to what extent and how this board has access to monitoring
of internal affairs, bring it all into the ordinance, put it all in one place. Um, that just makes sense, right? And that's that's a topic that we've wanted to do for a while. >> Yeah. The the other piece piece of that, excuse me, is that um we we are the only
board in the state which has the loan that we have. I mean most there's a much more um halfopen door for most boards and my concern was you know that that exists under the current chief and I wanted to make sure we were moralized that so that
any subsequent chief would be bound by the same requirements for access and because otherwise the language was vague enough that the a new chief could come and say no sorry I'm I'm cutting you guys off and you this very limited access would have to enter a new agreement >> a new agreement. Yeah. So, you know, we
wanted to get it codified so that you know that doesn't happen. >> Was that was that your concern? Maybe >> they keep drawing over that's >> the more we can put it in one place for confusion >> and really it's moving it to the top
seat which is the actual city code not sprawing you know sprawling documents that that come out of it. So >> in the weed we wanted it to be a priority. So that's that's blended all kind of throughout where it fit best, but that language was almost brought over verbatim because that's language that's already been vetted by the city
attorney's office. So it's it wasn't too difficult to bring it in. Um this is kind of number 10 is a is what replaces that independent investigation piece. There's a lot new a lot of new language further down in the document
that really tries to enhance there's the word again facilitate I don't know um >> the concepts of what does it mean to monitor the department and how do we go about doing that as a as an office and as a board what does it mean to audit the department as an office and a board
what does it mean to review the board which the office does not have a part of that what does it mean for the board to review things and so there's new sections created they they all they they likely do need a lot more work, but it's trying to make that more robust and
clear of here's the authority under that process. Here's what can and can't be done and here's what we do with it um as a whole. Here's how the office takes part in that, provides it to the board. Here's how the board makes determinations to direct the office on what to do. So there's it talks about the relationship back and forth between
the board and the office and then us to the police department. So that's just a a broad thing. There's a lot of language in that area, but um number 11, which I think is something that already came up, which is enhance. There it is again. I clearly I like that
word. I guess that's I that that taught me something that I use that word too much. Um enhanced public reporting and outcome. So >> now I do like your ear. >> Yeah. Okay. >> It's not a bad word, is it?
Um, one of the core things that I thought I've always felt because when I was originally hired, I was hired as the the management analyst, which means all the data and reported. And I felt that the ordinance did not define what that was very well.
What is meant to be reported? Yes, everything's everything's public information, but what does this board actually want to put out there, right? And so this section is meant to provide some of the framework for that in terms of what does it mean for this for the board to have a finding about a case or a situation. What does it mean for the
board to determine something or to have a recommendation? Where do those things go? Um what do they what are they made up of? And so that's what this whole section is about. And what do our audiences who are our audiences and what do they have to do in response to us if
anything like does the chief need to provide a written response to a board's recommendation publicly? So those are the kind of things that exist in this section. Um I think >> also include your annual report. >> The annual report is separate although I I did think about blending it in but
it's in a separate spot because that that's a conversation. We can move it. later. >> It's in there. It's in a different section, but I I thought about moving it back because the reason I I left it where it was is it talks about it's my responsibility to produce that versus all the other reporting is all the stuff
that the board determines. >> Okay. >> Versus like the annual report is saying, "Hey, here's the board. Here's what the board has done over the course of the full year." >> Yeah. >> Um but I could see it going into section two. >> I just have one more thought on that. Sure. um enhance as far as the context
of how we use it because it's not a bad word, >> but using the word enhance or enhance when it comes to process is one thing. >> Yeah. >> But applying it to people >> is another. >> Yeah. >> So you can't enhance somebody's accountability, but you can enhance
somebody's process for being held accountable. Does that make sense? >> So process, not people. as far as how we use it in the context of of this I think would be clearer. >> I think that's a simple way to think
about it too. That's that's beneficial. Process not people. >> See this the short motto are all very helpful. Um, I want to make another. Uh, okay. And then number we're almost at the end. >> Well, one of these we talked about
already actually at our work session. Um, mediation and alternative resolutions. So originally it was conceived that this board could establish a mediation session like a formal mediation session with a mediator between an officer and a
civilian for like low-level things. Again it gets back to the fact that we we as an entity or an office have no ability to compel an officer to be in that situation. The police department could absolutely do that and I know the chief has explored that option. So
that's where we could be it could be a recommending effort, right? But for this board or this office or these funds that exist in this office to hire a mediator and try to compel that to happen, you're getting back to compelling the officer and you're putting that officer in a
situation where their statement could be used against them in a non-protective format that they're entitled to. So it it it changes this section a little bit to just make it a little easier and just it talks about um I g I gave an example
and I know different people have different opinions on this but when someone calls the office or sends an email and it's more of a question about the police department's process, not necessarily a complaint. We call that an inquiry. um
or it is a complaint about another city department or it's a complaint about another police force. You know, I respond to all those but I classify them differently. But if it is about the police department but not really a complaint against an officer or a specific thing, you know, that that
technically is an alternative type of resolution where that can be resolved without a case investigation going forward. Um, and that that happens quite a bit is that there's a misunderstanding or just a lack of knowledge. And so sometimes it's just a conversation. And you know, one of the things that is
critical and one of the things I put in that language is that I never try to or or say anything that would dissuade someone from filing a complaint. Um, it's just about providing them the details and information, letting them make the decision. Um, and so that's that's really where it comes back to is
just sometimes people are happy with they get the right information and they're good to go and you ask them, do you would you like to file a complaint? No. So that just helps fix that section a little bit. And then lastly, the commendations. Um, this was something in our work
session we talked about as whether it should or shouldn't be in the ordinance and if so to make it more robust and more clear on what when does this board commend an officer um and under what circumstances or what what type of information we have to receive
to do that. And so there's some attempt to prod put some language in that section and you just see how it sits with you when you read it. But that's the very last in the red line version. Um, as far as I know, everybody generally wants that in there, the ability for the board to commend an
officer or or the department as a whole. >> Thank you. >> Great questions. >> That wraps that up. So those are clearly the sort of high points of what we're looking at in terms of the changes that we're going to be
asking for and of course subject to input from city attorney, from our attorney, from the chief, from the city manager, you know, the whole the whole achievement. But but this is this is a jumping off point forward. So if you have additional input, please let us
know. Let James know you need to take another advisor. And my next step for you is to provide you with that that table outline that is a much simpler like >> yes >> this is what the section used to be here's the number like the actual number used to be this now it's this is the
title of the section here's a quick sentence about what changed here's the reason at least the reasoning that existed in my mind that doesn't mean that it can't change again for other reason right so that's kind of what um my approach was and that way you have the high level the midle and then the
actual next and and this this is roughly the kind of thing we want to present to council in our work session on the 18th of May. You know, we don't want to get too far in the weeds. They're not going to read this whole document. I doubt it, but there'll be way too much other stuff to worry about. But, you know, what I
said to James was I I want to go into that when we ask for changes. I want to make sure that we've checked all the boxes. city attorney, R20 attorney, chief, city manager, the board and so there's a united front that's asking for this and then community input and
that'll be part of what their process be. So, so like one of the goals of that evening is not necessarily to again to say this is the decision. It's about to say here's what the board is thinking about this topic. What do you think about this topic? so that we can take
that back to through legal review and and process all those thoughts, all that feedback into a final draft, a final version, which this board would pass before it went back to the city council as a final document. >> One quick question, not to be
dumbfounded, but what date is that on in May? >> May 18th. >> It's a Monday. >> Monday, it's four o'clock. >> 4 o'clock. >> It's part of their work session. >> Is it is it a Is it an open public meeting? >> It's 4:15. >> 4 o'clock. 4 >> the 4 PM call. Is that Are those open to
the public? Do you do council at all? >> I can confirm that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We will confirm it. >> I think it is. I think that is open to the public because then they go into close session after that. >> Yeah. So that'll be over in the in the city council um chambers and >> as far as we know all all members of
council be present. So Microsoft will be there pretty possible. >> Yeah, definitely. >> So and that's a that's a great time if we want to change how this is presented between now and then and how we bring up the topics. That's that's a good thing too. We have one more meeting in May
before but if we get a work session >> that could spend a little time with that. So this is this is our >> flagship effort. So I want to make sure we get it right. >> That's that's really everything. >> The last item was just about like any
other updates that anybody wants to talk about or share related to things that we've worked on or or things you've done or gone to. I don't you know not a lot has changed since then. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Send you. Yes, we'll be in touch. >> Thank we'll be in touch. And if you have questions today >> for sure. Have a safe. >> Um so I I didn't really have any specific things to bring up in this area
in this realm. Um I did want to just the one area is that we talked to uh Dr. Dobson and I met with Lieutenant Baya and talked a little bit about the internal just understanding among the department
about the the immigration related procedures and policies that were set out by the city attorney's office. And so just to start that conversation um and get a sense of where the department's thinking at the at the officer level. This isn't about the high level of policy. It's about just trying
to understand what what's an officer's minds because this is a important topic for the community. So part of that is also understanding how the police department is thinking about it. Um, and so if you want to be part of those types of conversations, we do intend to talk to some more of the kind of mid-level command staff um, and just get a sense
of where things stand in the department. Uh, as the chief said when he was here, he's open to the board's thoughts and opinions as as it relates to that. So, it's not a hidden issue. Um, and it continues to have a lot of anxiety about communities, shoot kind of thing. They backed off a
little bit after Minneapolis, but don't think that's the only aspect. >> And the other um thing is the school the schools. Um I'll just uh Dr. Dobson and I met with one of the uh district administrators that is in charge of
implementing aspects of the school resource officers. >> Right. So that conversation, they are having a work session I think on April 16th um over I think it's at the high school is where they do that meeting >> to talk about this issue further. it is a contentious issue in the community.
Um, in my and certainly me, but the board can have their own opinions, but I don't have an opinion and it's not my role to have an opinion on this. I would also advise that the board necessarily not have an opinion of
whether it happens or doesn't. That's a that's for the community and the schools to make that determination. But the one thing we can say and do is say that if school resource officers are in those schools, we can be a part of overseeing and holding accountability to the goals
and intent of that. Um, and that is a very valuable role of these of this board because if those officers complaints against them, they're going to come to internal affairs and this entity can can tell and share the community that, hey, we have a we have an eye on that
>> and I think it's our responsibility to do that. I mean, it's, you know, I have some concerns about how that's going to play out in the schools. And so, I want us to be receptive to looking at those cases. >> So, I don't, you know, we're not trying to stick our foot in their decision
making process. That's not the goal, but just make them aware of our purpose and that we're here. >> We exist and this is what we do. And, you know, we'll be on top of it. >> We'll be on top of it. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> And and uh Mr. Dillard, you you were a school resource officer at one point,
right? So, time. Yes. >> You know, you can >> and I was a school teacher with a resource officer in the in the school. So, I know too a little >> I have a daughter with a lot of opinions about school resources. >> And there are a lot of opinions in the community. A lot of strong opinions on
school board. So, this is not a finished. There's a petition as you may know a number of of local organizations have come out uh strongly against implementing it even though the decision is supposed to be made. Stay tuned.
>> Well, I I think on a topic just to make a short thing on that that uh when I was a resource officer, they called you a DARE officer. >> So, it was a DARE program and you had a a lesson plan that you you taught and all because you had a dare.
>> So, now yeah, they walk around just well make sure no problems. I think they if they going to open the resource office back into school, they ought to put it back underneath a damn program that where they teaching something instructive >> and and they'll keep a lot of people out
of a mystery. >> Good luck. >> Yeah, I say good luck with that, right? >> Well, I I do not have anything else. So unless anyone wants to >> anyone has comment about other things >> of the items under eight community
outreach police policy updates process for us these are all things >> we're already yeah we can also do the work session all right any public comment anybody online >> look in the crowds to see if anybody
>> Nope don't no hands I love it. >> All right. Even if there's no comment, I any further business comment I will. If not, I will ask a motion to journ.
>> I'll second. All >> in favor?