>> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS LATONYA REEVES AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO OFFER A FIRM REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS, STAFF AND THE PUBLIC THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE A GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATIO
THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR PROCEEDINGS. TO THE COMMUNITY THEREFORE, ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR SPEECH SO THE CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTION AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS
TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND THE CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CALL TO ORDER THE SPECIAL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 19TH AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
(ROLL CALL.)
>> THERE ARE 10 MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER ZILAND TO THE COMMISSION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE WORDS, YOU'RE WELCOME . >> WELL, I'M BRAND SPANK GUESS NEW I'M A ELECTRICIANY TRADE AND I THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE THIS A TRY. I'M VERY EXCITED TO WORK
WITH ALL OF U. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. OUR FIRST ITEM IS THE ORDER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX FROM THE PUBLIC GIVING EACH SPEAKER 2 MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE. WE'LL
ORDER THAT THEY REGISTERED IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND HAVEN'T ALREADY DO YOU CAN GO TO THE CLERK AT THE SIDE O THE DAVIS. IF YOU HAVE PRINTED MATERIALS PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE CITY CLERK. WE ASK THE FOLKS TO GIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AS AN ALTERNATIVE
TO SPEAKING IN TONIGHT'S COMMENT SEION. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN 2 MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. WE HAVE A MONITORING THEIR USE OF TIME. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT COENTS MUST BE RELATED TO THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINE MATRIX. ALSO, A REMINDERHAT MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC ARE ALWAYS WELCOME AND ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK ON THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX. POLICY MATIALS AND FEEDBACK, SUBMISSION AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE MINNEAPOL'S CITY WEBSITE. WITH THAT I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT OUR FIRST SPEAKER >> HELLO FOR THE FOR THE MPD TO WIN AN EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION. IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR IT
TO HAVE A FAIR AND CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE MATRIX APPLIED YOU'V
LO AT OTHER CITIES. I'M CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE LICKED AT OTHER PAST DISCIPLINE MATRIXES FROM. I WAS ON THE REVIEW AUTHORITY WHEN THE FIRST DISCIPLINE MATRIX WAS PASSED IN 2009. IT WAS QUITE GOOD, NOT
PERFECT. THE PROBLEM WITH IT WAS THAT IT WAS NER APPLIED. THEY CHANGED IT. THEY, YOU KNOW, GAVE THEIR RESET STATEMENT AND THEN THERE WAS NO DISCIINE SO WE WENT RIGHT BACK WHERE WE HAD BEEN.
ON 2011 THERE WAS ANOTHER VERSION THAT IMPROVED ALSO. BUT I'VE LOOKED AT THIS CURRE VERSION AND, FRANKLY, I THINK
THERE IS NO HOPE OF SAVING IT. IT NDS TO BE DISCARDED AND STARTED OVER. IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE PREVIOUS ONES, THEY WERE CLEAR. THEY HAD THE DIFFERENT POLICY NUMBERS OUTLINED. THEY WERE
SOMETHING EASY TO WORK WITH. THEY WEREN'T 24 PAGES LONG AT ALL. THEY WEREN'T SOMETHING THAT OFFICERS WROTE HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING SENSE OF SO I APPEAL TO THROW THAT OUT AND
START OVER AGAIN WITH SOMETHING A LOT BETTER. ONE OF TWO POINTS JUST TO ILLUSTRATE HOW -- WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE IN THIS. AND UNDERSTAND THIS SECTION ON THE
CHIEF'S DECISION, IT SAYS THE MPD CHIEF MAKES DISCIPLINED DECISIONS BASED SOLELY ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
INVESTIGATIVES CASE FILE AND INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PRESENCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND THE APPLICATION OF ANY PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE POLICY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE NOTICED BUT THIS EXPLICITLY AVOIDS DECISIONS BASED ON THE C KRS
CCPL REVIEWS. >> THANK YOU. HOW >> HOW CAN YOU LET THAT HAPPEN AND II CAN JUST SO THERE'S SO FEW SPEAKERS JUST ALSO IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, IT
TALKS ABOUT THE CHIEF OF BASING THE CIRCUMSTANCES -- BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND DOCUMENTED IN WRITING BY THE MPD CHIEF. WHO SAYS THAT WRITTEN DOCUMENT -- WHO SEE THAT WRITTEN DOCUMENT. IT DOESN'T SAY. >> I WOULD ASK YOU TO PUT ANY
MORE COMMES IN WRITING. >> DO YOU SEE WHO THAT DOCUMENT GOES TO IN THE CRA THE CHIEF HAD A REPORT BACK TO US IN A CLOSED MEETING -- >> MR. -
>> YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SHE'S YIELDED HER TIME. SHE IS THE NEXT SPEAKER IF YOU WANT TO DO AN ADDITIONAL 2 MINUTES. >> YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BIT HERE. >> OKAY. >> SO I HOPE YOU TAKE A GOOD
LOOK AT THIS, THE DETAILS. BUT I THINK THE DETAILS WILL SW THAT THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH MISS NOT FAIR TO THE PUBLIC AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE OFFICERS,
FRANKLY. TO HAVE A DISCIPLINE MATRIX WHICH IS SO HARD FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH AND TRULY UNDERSTAND SO BASIS ON THAT REALLY HOPE YOU'LL START OVER AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF
THE OLDER MINNEAPOLIS DISCIPLINE MATRIXES, WE'D BE HAP TO PROVIDE THEM FOR YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY THAT ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS? NO MORE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO IT FURTHER
SPEAKERS WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THEEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS REPORTS. THE POLICE POLICY RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE WILL BE COMPARING THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
SCIPLINE MATRIX WITH OTHER CITIES. I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR, COMMISSIER SCHANFIELD TO START US OFF. ZB >> YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DO A
FLIP. (PAUSE.) >> CHAIR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VICE-CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR BEING
HERE. WE'RE REALLY DELIGHTED. MR. CKING THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS I LOOK FORWARD ENGAGING HERE WITH THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX. I JUST WANTED TO INVITE PEOPLE TO USE THE NORMS WE USE AT THE POLICE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU -- REVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE. WE TALK ABOUT SHOWING UP, WHICH I'M REALLY GLAD THERE'S SO MANY OF US HERE. AS WELL AS IN THE PUBLIC. SHARING THERE SO I'M HOPING TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE TONIGHT AND ALSO ASSUMING
POSITIVE INTENT AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND TO TAKE YOUR IMPACT AND HAVE A CHANCE TORE DIALOG TONIGHT REALLY LOOKINGORWARD TO THAT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NEW DISCIPLINE MATRIX WHICH IS OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND PUBC COMMENT. THIS REALLY MATTERS ESPECIALLY FOR THE CCPO BECAUSE
THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SAT ON PANELS ON DISCIPLINE REVIEW PANELS USE THIS MATRIX EACH TIME WE SIT ON A REVIEW PANEL. NOT ALL OF US ON THE COMMISSN YET HAVE SAT ON THE PANELS AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE TONIGHT. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MANDATES CHANGES TO THE
DISCIPLINE MATRIX SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A NEW DRAFT. OUR GOAL TONIGHT IS FOR THE BODY TO DISCUSS WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THEATRIX SO ANY CONCERNS SUCH AS WE'VE HEARD IN PUBLIC COMMENT WE'LL BE TAKING NOTE OF ANDLSO OUR DISCUSSION AMONGst OURSELVES. ANY COMMENTS
THAT ARE MADE WE'LL TAKE THE NOTES HERE TONIGHT AND WE'LL REVIEW THEM ON PPR ON MONDAY AND FINALIZE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. O I WANT TO ALSO THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC AND THANK YOU TO FOLKS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS VIA THE POLICE POLICY
FEEDBACK AT MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV EMAIL ADDRESS AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THAT IS OPEN UNTIL AUGUST TH SO PLEASE CONTINUE TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS DOING IT MASS HELPS A LOT. TONIGHT BEFORE WE DIVE IN, EVERYBODY HAS HERE UP HERE ON
THE DAIS, WE HAVE THE MATRIX STARTI ON YOUR AGENDA PACKET IT'S BLUE. I'D INVITE EVERYON TO GO AHEAD AND NUMBER THE PAGES SO THE FRONT COVER PAGE WE WON'T COUNT BUT STARTING ON THE INSIDE LET'S NUMBER THAT AND THEN SO
ON SO THAT IN CASE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PAGE PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND IT WILL BE EASY TO DO SO. THAT'S RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 FOR THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX TO IS TO NUMBER THE PAS.
MR. BECKING, I THINK, SAID THERE WERE 24. 14. (PAUSE
>> 23 AND THE COVER IS 24. SO THAT LAST PAGE SHOULD BE 23. TERRIFIC. THANK YOU, MR. PALMER. SO WE'RE GOING TO ENGAGE TONIGHT THE COMPARISON WE'RE USING IS THE MOST RECENT DISCIPLINE MATRIX FROM OUR 2023, WHICH IS SOMETIMES THE ONE THAT
WE USE ON THE PANELS IF THE CASE IS TAKG PLACE SINCE SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023. THIS IS THE PROCESS I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE'LL GIVE EACH MEMBER FROM PPR IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO OFFER ANY INITIAL THOUGHTS BECAUSE WE'VE
DONE SOME HOMEWORK AND LOOKED AT MATREES AND DISPOLICES FROM OTHER AND OPEN IT UP FOR
DISCUSSIONS AND POLICE FOCUS ON CONCERNS SO WE CAN PULL THOSE NOTES TOGETHER AND SHARE THEM. AS WELL AS ANY SUGGESTIONS IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN AND YOU THINK THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT BETTER, FEEL FREEO OFFER THAT AS WELL. -- AND THEN AT THE VERY END I
WOULD LUKE TO OFFER TO DO A FINAL COMMENT FRO EVERYONE JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S VOICES ARE HEARD AND HAVE THOUGHTS AROUND DISCUSSIONS AND ONCE YOU'VE SPOKEN YOU MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER THOUGHT AFTERWARDS. DOES THAT SOUND ACCEPTABLE CHAIR. >> YES. >> WONDERFUL. SO IT'S GOING TO
GO IN THIS AREA, BARTZ, BAKER, CANDY, WILSON SCHANFIELD YOU'RE WELCOME TO PASS BUT THAT'S THE PROJECTED ORDER. DOES THAT SOUND ALL RIGHT GREAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO OPEN IT UP WITH YOU.
>> I ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO LOOK AT SEATTLE BUT IT APPEARS SEATTLE DOES NOT HAVE A DISCIPLINE MATRIX. I PULLED UP RIVAL CITY, PORTLAND AND FOUND -- WHAT I THOUGHT IS A
VERY CONCISE AND GOOD MATRIX. THEY ORIGINATED IN A SIMILAR MATRIX, OR A SIMILAR TEMPLATE AND I THINK THE MAIN DIFRENCE IS THAT THE MPD DRAFT IS -- IT'S
KIND OF, LIKE A BLOWN-UP VERSION OF PORTLAND'S. IT'S VERY EXPANSIVE AS YOU ALL KNOW NOW. AND WHILE I FOUND CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT MPD'S DRAFT GOOD AS A CIVILI, I HAVE GOOD DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND
DIRECTIONS, IT'S -- I THI -- I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER IT'S A BIT LONG AT ALL AND UNWIELDY. I DID ALSO NOTICE, THOUGH, THAT IN GENERALLY THE DISCIPLINE -- LIKE THE LENGTHS
OF SUSPENSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MPD DRAFT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL TO OR LONGETHAN THE PORTLAND'S SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. THEY'RE SIMILAR
BUT PORTLAND -- I'LL PASS THIS DOWN BUT PLANO'S CONSOLIDATED INTO TWO PAGES THEIR ACTUAL TABLEUT I FOUND THE WAY THEY DID IT WAS ACTUALLY VERY UNDERSTANDABLE AGAIN AS A CIVILIAN I FIGURED THIS OUT IN ABOUT 5 MINUTES. SO THAT'S --
THAT'S THE STRENGTH OF PORTLAND'S. AT THE SAME TIME, OTHER THAN THEIR ABILITY YOU TO FIT IN EXAMPLES IN EACH CATEGORY, -- EXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONS, WHICH IS
REALLY HIGH TEMPERATURE - REALLY HELPFUL BUT THEY'RE NOT LINKING IT TOHEIR POLICIES SO THEY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE POLICIES IN A FOOTNOTE BUT ALSO AS THE SPEAKER POINTED OUT, IT SEEMS A BIT WEAK ON LINKING THESE DISCIPLINED CATEGORIES TO
ACTUAL POLICIES. AND I THINK THAT THE MPD 'S DRAFT HAS A GO START BUT I THINK THE FORMAT IS A BIT UNWIELDY. SO I THINK THOSE ARE MY
MAIN POINTS. I'LL STOP THERE. YOU WANT TO PASS THAT DOWN. THANKS. ZBL >> NEXT? >> SO I REVIEWED NEW WORK, SIMILARLY NEW WORK IS MUCH SHORTER FOR THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINE MATRIX. THEY DON'T
HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME CATEGORIZATIONS SO SOME AREAS ARE A LITTLE BIT HARD TO COMPARE. OF THE BIGGEST ONE TH NEWARK AND MPD, NEWARK HAD A MANDATORY -- HOLD ON LET ME PULL
UP THAT FOT. IT JUST CLOSED. NEWARK TREATED FAILURE THAN WITH HER, AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT I IMAGINE IT TALKS TO GET A TOOTH COURT DATE WE SHOULD PROBABLY TREAT NOT SHOWING UP AS A FAIRLY HIGH -- OBVIOUSLY IF THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD MEAN
THEY DIDN'T VIOLATE THE POLICY BU, YOU KNOW, IF THEY JUST BLOW IT OFF, WE SHOULD PROBABLY TREAT THAT FAIRLY SERIOUSLY. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AS OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED OF THE MPLEXITY OF THIS AND THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT NUMBERED AND
CROSS-RERENCED TO ACTUAL POLICY VIOLATIONS, MANY OF TITLES SEEM MORE LIKE MORE LIKE DESCRIPTIONS AND MANY ARE TITLES -- I THINK THE POLICY SHOULD BE DESCRIBED IN THE POLICY AND THEN IT SHOULD JUST BE LISTED AND THIS SHOULD JUST
BE THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX NOT A POLICY SUMMARY BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO VERSIONS OVER TIM SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE COMPARISON I HAVE TO NEWARK. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. >> HELLO, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT NEW ORLEANS AND I'VE GOT THREE QUICK SLIDES TO SHOW WHILE WE'RE TALKING BECAUSE I DID WANT EVERYBODY TO SEE STRUGGLING WHAT I SEE HERE SO WHILE WE'RE BRINGING THOSE UP I
ULD JUST SAY THE NEW ORLEANS DISCIPLINE MATRIX THAT I REVIEWED WAS FROM JUNE OF 2024. I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD POLICY FOR MINNEAPOLIS TO CONSIDER AS WE'RE HOPULLY, TRYING TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. ONE IMPORTANT POINT THAT I WOULD NOTE -- I LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF THE NEW ORLEANS
CONSENT DECREE AND KIND OF THE PROCESS THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS DISCIPLINE MATRIX FALLS IN THAT PROCESS AND ACTUALLY THE NEW ORLEANS INVESTIGATION BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GOES BACK TO 2010. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE IN IN EVERYTHING I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SAY WHAT ARE LARGELY COMPLIMENTS OF NEW ORLEANS'S DISCLINE MATRIX THEY'RE MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN THEIR EVOLUTION BUT MAYBE THAT MEANS WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM. THE OTHER THING THAT STRUCK ME AS I WAS REVIEWING THE SI LOOKED AT THE RULES THAT --
IS I LOOKED AT THE RULES THAT THE DISCIPLINE MATR -- EXCUSE ME, APPLIES TO SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE NEW ORLEANS VERSION OF THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL THAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING IN REVIEW PELS WHEN THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THAT THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION. THE NEW ORLEA POLICE
RULES ARE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE STREAMLINED THA THE MINNEAPOLIS VERSION. AND THAT'S MAYBE A COROLLARY POINT I WANT THAT TO MAKE WITH OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE TKING ABOUT TONIGHT BUT THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY 7 RULES. NOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF
SUARTS AND IT'S, YOU KNOW -- IT'S NOT 7 PAGES BUT MUCH SHORTER THAN THE POLICY MANUAL THAT WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING AND I THINK THAT HELPS THEM MAKE ALL OF THIS MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AND MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD. OKAY. SO WE COULD GO TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS DISCIPLINE MATRIX ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THIS IS THE WHOLE DISCIPLINE MATRIX FOR NEW ORLEANS. THAT'SHY I WANTED YOU TO SEE IT; RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVE A HUGE MULTIPAGE VERSION THAT GROWS IN EVERY REVISION. SO IT'S -- IT TAKES A
WHILE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE ABBREVIATIONS A SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO QUICKLY DESCRIBE THEM. SO FIRST NOTICE ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU'VE GOT LEVELS A THROUGH G SO THEY HAVE 7 LEVELS OF VIOLATIONS AS OPPOSED TO OUR 5. AND THEN YOU ALSO SEE THE FIRST THROUGH FIFTH OFFENSE
MATRIX ACROSS THE TOP SO JUST OFF THE BAT MY IMPRESSION THEY DO A MUCH BETR JOB OF JUST VERY CLEARLY PUTTING YOU IN A SPECIFIC BOX BASEDN THE LEVEL OF THE OFFENSE AND -- WHICH OFFENSE NUMBER THIS IS. SO THEN IN TERMS OF THE ABBREVIATIONS THAT ARE IN THERE,
THERE IS A CODE -- OR A KEY OVER TO THE LEFT SIDE HERE BUT, LIKE, IN THE FIRST BOX UP THERE FOR LEV LEVEL A FIRST OFFENSE THE O IS AN OL REPRIMAND, THE R IS A
LETTER OF REPRIMAND AND ANY PLACE YOU SEE A NUMBER, THAT IS THAT THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF SUSPENSION THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION. IN MINNEAPOLIS, WE'RE USED TO SEEING HOURS OF SUSPENSION BUT NEW ORLEANS USES DAYS. THE REASON THAT MOST OF THESE BOXES
HAVE THREE CHOICES WITH DASHES BETWEEN THEM IS BECAUSE IT'S THE MIDDLE ONE IT'S THE PRESUMPTION, THE FIRST ONE LISTED IS THE LOWER END AND THE THIRD ONE LISTED IS THE HIGHER END SO ONCE YOU KNOW TH, RIGHT, THIS IS ALL VERY EASY TO DECODE. THEY'VE GOT THEIR SEVEN
LEVELS OF OFFENSES AND YOU CAN SEE THE MINIMUM/MAXIMUM AND PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL FOR EACH LEVEL AND THE ONLY THING HAVEN'T COVERED IS FOR THOSE WHERE YOU SEE A D -- THAT'S EITHER A
DISCHARGE OR DEMOTION. IT COULD BE EITHER ONE A WHERE YOU SEE A SLASH D THAT IS A SPECIAL CATEGORY WHICH I KIND OF, LIKE THIS OPTION AVAILABLE. THE SLASH D IS WHAT THEY DESIGN AS
AN EGREGIOUS COMMENT WHICH ALLOWS THEM THE POSSIBILITY FEELS DEMOTION OR DISMISSAL EVEN WHERE IT, OTHERWISE, WOULDN'T BE AN OPTION. OKAY. SO I KNOW WE WEN'T NECESSARILY SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU THAT MUCH DETAIL ABOUT EACH CITY BUT I REALLY LIKE THE CLARITY, THE CONCISENESS OF THIS AND SO I
WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT. AND FOR MY LAST SLIDE -- THE OTHER THING THAT I REALLY LIKE AND IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO GO ALONG WITH ALL OF THIS IS -- LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT'S ON THE SLIDE AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU THE IMPORTANCE OF IT. ON E RIGHT SIDE THAT'S A SAMPLE PAGE OF WHAT --WHAT THEY'RE CALLING
THE PENALTY SCHEDULE SO ATTACHED TO THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX YOU GOT THE PENALTY SCHEDULE. ON THE LEFT SIDE I JUST BLEW UP SO THAT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO READ THE TOP SECTION OF ONE PAGE BUT THEY'VE GOT ABOUT 15 PAGES OF THIS -- THAT COVERS ANY
VIOLATION WITHIN THEIR RULES, SO THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT WE DO HAVE I MINNEAPOLIS AND THIS VIRGS IS EVERY SINGLE POTENTIAL VIOLATION THAT THAT TH CAN COME UP WITH IS LISTED KIND OF IN THE ORDER THAT THE RULES PROCEED AND THEN
IT GIVES A SINGLE SPECIFIC LEVEL FOR EACH OFFENSE. IN OUR PROPOSED MACRTRIX, CONTINUE TO HAVE A RAGNGE OF LEVELS FOR WHAT ARE JUST EXAMPLES SO WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS AND WE HAVE
A RANGE FOR EVERY ONE WHICH IS WHY WE GET TO REVIEW PANELS AND WE OFTEN -- YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S SUGGESTING IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A MERIT PER VIOLATION BUT THEY THINK IT COULD BE A B LEVEL SOMEBODY ELSE THINKS IT'S A C
LEVEL BUT IT'S AN A. HIS PUTS IT IN A SPECIFIC LEVEL FOR EVERY VIOLATION AND TT IN MY MIND IS THE POINT OF THE MATRIX AND THIS IDEA TO KIND OF DIRECT US AND SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE I KNOW I WENT INTO A LOT OF DETAIL
BUT I LIKED ALL OF THESE FEATURES IN NEW ORLEANS. ZB >> >> THANK YOU. I WAS IN IN CHARGE OF DOING CLEVELAND. -- CLEVELAND MATRIX AND WHAT I
FOUND -- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND CLEVELAND IS CLEVELAND'S PROPOSED DISCIPLINE MATRIX IS 10 PAGES AND IT WAS VERY VAGUE AND WHAT I MEAN BY
VAGUE IT TRIED TO SW VARIOUS SCENARIOS BUT IT GAVE THE POLICE CHIEF DISCRETIONARY -- MORE DISCRETIONARY THAN WHAT THE NEW COPY WAS MEANT FOR US.
IT ALSO FOR CLEVELAND WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE, LIKE I SAID, IS IT FAIR TO SAY VERY VAGUE IT WENT INTO SEVERAL VIOLATIONS EXCEPT FOR A IT WENT ON AND ON -- SO IT WAS VERY HARD TO READ AND T COMPREHEND HOW A
PERSON WOULD BE DISCIPLINED. AS OPPOSED TO OURS, THE DRAFT ONE -- IT IS SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT CLEAR BUT I DO AGREE TH THE OTHERS IS THAT IT'S JUST TOO -- TOO MUCH FOR -- YOU
KNOW, FOR AS DISCIPLINE AND I FOUND IN IT OURS THAT THERE WAS, LIKE, WITHOUT FAILURE TO MAKE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISOR FOR A LEVEL 2 USE OF FORCE AND IT WAS JUST LIKE WHOA, WHOA, WA -- WHAT? BUT THAT'S,
YOU KNOW, ON ONE PAGE IT S A B AND ON ANOTHER IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A C. IT WAS JUST -- I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A BIT TOO MUCH. THAT'S WHAT I'VE TAKEN AWAY FROM COMPARING THE TWO WOU AND I THINK WE WOULD TO STREAMLINE A
BIT THAN, WHAT, IT HAS BEEN DRAFTED. THANK YOU. >> SURE, BEFORE I TALK ABOUT BALTIMORE, I JUST WANT TO -- SO I DON'T -- I DON'T CARE I WANT
TO THANK MR. BECKING FOR HIS COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN AT A LOT OF HE MEETINGS OVER THE LAST 2 YEARS AND I FOUND HIM TO BE VERY WISE AND THOUGHTFUL AND HE BRINGS A WELCOME HISTORY THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I AGREE WITH HIM 100% WHAT HE SAID SO I JUST
WANT TO THANK HIM FOR THAT. (LAUGH.) >> I DID LOOK AT BALTIMORE AND AS -- AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, THE THEME IS SIMILAR. IT'S -- IT'S
BASED ON PRETTY MUCH THE SAME TEMPLATE AS MINNEAPOLIS. BALTIMORE'S AGAIN, AS IS A COMMON THEME IS NOT AS BALTIMORE AS MINNEAPOLIS. THERE'S MORE BROAD CATEGORIES. THERE'S PROBABLY A TOTAL OF HALF AS MANY
PAGES IN BALTIMORE'S BUT IT OPERATES PRETTY MUCH THE SAME WAY AND IT HAS 6 LEVELS OF DISCIPLINE RATHER TH 5. AND IN SOME CASES -- I MEAN, WE
COULD GO POINT BY POINT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO THAT IN SOME CASES THEY TREAT OFFENSES MORE SAILORS THAN MINNEAPOLIS, FOR EXAMPLE, PURSUIT VIOLATIONS AND INSUBORDINATION ARE TREATED MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY BUT FOR THE MOST
PA THEY'RE FAIRLY SIMILAR. THAT'S IT. >> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. FOR THE BACKGROUND AND I'LL JUST ADD A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THE ALBUQUERQUE APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE. SO SIMILAR TO NEWARK, THEY
HAD A CONSENT DECREE FOR MANY YEARS -- OR NEW ORLEANS, RATHER, THEY BECAME UNDER CONSENT DECREE IN 2014 AND ACTUALLY IN MAY OF THIS YEAR THEY FILED A MOTION WITH THE COURT TO GET FM UNDERNEATH THE THE -- THE REVIEW OF THE DOJ SI THOUGHT THAT --
ASSUMING THAT IS -- HEADS IN THAT SAME DIRECTION THAT WE SHOULD BE TING DIRECTION FROM CITIES LIKE THAT WHO HAVE CCESSFULLY -- SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE ALL OF THE REQREMENTS OF THEIR SETTLEMENT OR CONSENT DECREE OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. O IN ALBUQUERQUE I'LL
SHARE FOUR THINGS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE CIVILIAN POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY IS SIMILAR TO US. I THINK PERHAPS IT'S A BIT MORE ROBUS BUT THEY, LIKE US, REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
AND THEY FORWARD THE FINDINGS TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, WHICH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN OUR SETUP AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR FURTHER ACTION INCLUDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION IF THE COMPLAINT IS SUSTAINED. S THEY'RE INVOLVED A BIT EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. AND THE FINAL DISION
REGARDING DISCIPLINE -- (BEEPING SOUND) >> STILLESTS WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS IT DOES HERE BUT THEIR RECOMMDATIONS AND FINDINGS PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN FORMING THAT DECISIO AS PUBLIC COMMENT MR. BECKING NOTED THAT'S
NOT LISD HERE IN THE MATRIX AT ALL IN THE MPD MATRIX IT DOESN'T MENTION THE REVIEW PANELS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS AS WELL SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENCES. A THEN I ALSO FOUND IT INTERESTING, SIMILAR AGAIN TO NEW ORLEANS, WHERE THERE'S A
VERY CLEAR MATRIX. EACH CLASS OF VIOLATION CARRIES A MINIMUM, PRESUMPTIVE AND A MAXIMUM PENALTY SO VERY SIMILAR TO THE SLIDE WE JUST SAW WHERE THERE ARE FIRST OFFENSE, SECOND OFFENSE, THIRD OFFENSE ACROSS THE TOP AND CLASS OF VIOLATION
ALONG THE LEFT HAND -- ON THE ROWS AND IT'S VERY CAR AND EASY TO USE. THE OTHER PI WAS QUITE INTERESTING THEIR NONDISCIPLINARY CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION OTHER THAN DISCIPLINE TO ENABLE AND
ENCOURAGE ANFFICER TO IMPROVE HIS OR HER PERFORMANCE. THEY MAKE REALLY CLEARLY IN THERE DISCIPLINE LANGUAGE THAT THAT CANNOT BE USED IN LIEU OF DISCI SANCTIONS CALLS FOR DISCIPLINE IF THERE'S A CALL FOR MERIT IN A
POLICY VIOLATION. I THINK THAT'S INTERESTING FOR US AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO DRAW PEOPLE'S ATTENTION TO A COMPUPLE INSTANCES OF THE MPD -- >> LET'S OPEN UP ON THE NEXT DISCUSSION AND COMMISSIONER
SCHANFIELD CAN START. >> THANK YOU, WONDERFUL. THERE ARE SIMILARITIES OF THE OLD VERSION AND NEW VERSION AS MANY PEOPLE NOTED IT'S A LOT LONGER. THERE'S A FAMOUS QUOTE I MIGHT GET IT WRONG BUT -- IT WAS ONE OF THE FOREFATHERS WHO
SAID I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO WRITE A SHORT DOCUMENT. I ONLY HAD TIMEO WRITE THE LONG AT ALL ONE. I THINK IT'S TOUGH TO WRITE A SHORTER ONE AND OUR 24 PAGES IS A FIRST DRAFT
AND WE COULD DO A LOT MORE TO MAKING IT MORE STREAMLINED TO MAKE EGG IT SHORTER, AND EASIER TO READ. THE 2025 -- THIS NEW DRAFT IS BROADER YET MORE DETAILED AND A BIT MORE PROSCRIPTIVE. THE DISCIPLINED STRUCTURE HE BOTH THE OLD VERSION AND THE NEW
VERSION HAVE THIS 5-CATEGORY A THROUGH E SYSTEM. THERE'S A CONSIDERATION IN BOTH OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS. THE ROLE THE CHIEF WITH FINAL DISCIPLINE NARY DISCTION IS CLEAR IN BOTH WITH
AN EXPECTATION THAT DEVIATIONS FROM PRESUTIVE OUTCOMES ARE JUSTIFIED AND DOCUMENTED. IN THIS NEW MATRIX, IT DOES
NOTE THATHERE ARE A REQUIREMENT FOR FURTHER DOCUMENTATION OF DEPARTURE FROM -- FROM ORIGINAL DISCIPLINE. LET ME SEE IF I CAN
FIND THAT FOR YOU REAL QUICK. (PAUSE.) >> SO IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION -- OR IN THE 2023 VERSION, EACH
LEVEL LUSTS TYPICAL VIOLATIONS AND A SINGLE DISCIPLINARY RANGE. IN THE NEW VERSION, B, C AND D FOR UNDER PRESUMPTIVE DID YOU SAY PLIN, IT ALSO HAS MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGES AND EXPLICIT
STRUCTURE FOR OFFENSE SECOND AND THIRD PATH AND THIRD IS -- WHAT THIS NEW VERSION DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT ON PANELS WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD OFFENSES CORRECT? AND SO WE DON'T -- THERE'S NOT A USE FOR
US IN THE PANELS WITH THIS NEW VERSION TO BE ABLE TO SAY HOW TO USE IT. WE, I GUESS, COULD LOOK AT THE UPPER LEFT HAND BOX WHERE IT SAYS FIRST VIOLATION AND THEN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND BOX THAT SAYS GO TO CATEGORY C FOR B THAT WOULD MAYBE GIVE US A SENSE OF
WRITTEN REPRIMAND ALL THE WAY TO 30 HOURS BUT IT WOULD REALLY BE BETTER IF IT WAS CLEARLY SPELLED OUT: HERE'S WHAT CATEGORY B ENTAILS THE LOWEST OR THE HIGHEST -- OR THE MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND THEN THE MIDDLE.
BOTH FRAMEWORKS EMPHASIZE PROCEDURE JUSTICE WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT ANDHERE'S MORE CLARITY IN THE LONGER VERSION HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MUCH MORE USEFUL SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ARE AND ANY THOUGHTS THAT
LOOK -- YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT YOU NOTICE THAT ARE USEFUL AND THEN ALSO CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE BOTH ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE MATRIX AND TH ITS UTILITY AS WELL. >> COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
>> I'M CURIOUS IF WE WANT TO START A DOCUMENT OR SOMETHING WHERE LIST CONCERNS AND COMMENTS AND THEN, LIKE, WE CAN SAY: HEY, I'D LIKE TO ADD MY NAME -- YOU KNOW, NOT NAME BUT EMPHASIZE THE ONES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT OR SOMETHING. I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT BEING A DIALOG AND WHAT IS THE CLEAR RESOLUTION WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE? >> I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE TAKING -- OUR CITY CLERK -- >> YEAH, CITY STAFF ARE TAKING NOTES AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT
OUT KE TO PROJECT A SPECIFIC CAN PAGE LET ME KNOW I'M SITTING HERE SO THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE CAN ALSO SEE WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING. >> OKAY. >> I APOLOGIZEAY I INTERJECT ONE POINT OF INFORMATION. JUST
A REMINDER BECAUSE THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETI IN THE FULL BODY WITH HER RECORDING AND BROADCASTING SO YOU ALSO WILL HAVE THAT OPTION THAT THE VIDEO-RECORDING COULD BE REVIEWED FOR SPEAKS FESSITY AT
TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER CANNADY? >> JUST TO EMPHASIZE THE POINT -- ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE KIND OF HAVE CLEAR PRESUMPTIVE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGES ON TH PAGE THAT'S BEING DISPLAYED RIGHT NOW AS AN EXAMPLE FOR
CATEGORY B, THAT'S NOT INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE -- AS FAR AS I KNOW THAT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT WEOULD HAVE IT IN A PANEL. ANOTHER WAY THAT I NOTICED THIS WHEN REVIEWING THE DRAFT IS ON PAGE 1 IN THE
INTRODUCTION -- THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE INTRODUCTION SPEAKS TO KIND OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT -- IT SAYS THIS BEW MATRIX IS MEANT TO BE A TRANSPARENT GUID FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN A FAIR AND CONSISTENT MATTER. THAT'S NOT
WRONG BUT IT DOES LEAVE OUT THE ROLE THAT CCPO HAS AND THE REVIEW PANELS. WHERE WE HAVE BOTH CIVILIAN AND SWORN OFFICERS LOOKING AT THIS AND DETERMINING IF THERE ARE MERIT TO CHAES AND IT WAS LIKE IN REVIEWING
THIS WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR ANSWER AS TO HOW THAT WOULD BE USED DURING THE TIME OF OUR ROLE IN REVIEW PANELS SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE AREA WHERE THIS COULD BE IMPROVED. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. ZB>> VICE-CHAIR?
>> I AGREE WITH BOTH COMMISSIONERS SCHANFIELD AND CANNADY. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS NOT WRITTEN AT ALL FORUS. IT IS WRITTEN SOLELY FOR THE CHIEF OF BH MARIA POLICE AND ONE OF THE WAYS YOU CAN TELL OF ALL THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING
FACTORS THAT SAYS POLICED ON PAGES 4 AND 5, VERY FEW OF THEM WE HAVE ACCESS TO OR IS IT APPR EVALUATE THE WHOLE OF THE CONDUCT.
THEN IT'S ALSO REALLY WITH -- I FIND IT REALLY -- GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, I FIND IT MUCH LESS USEFUL THAN THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE MATRIX WE'VE HAD. HE MOST -- THE VERSIONS THAT THAT HAVE WORKED
BEST IN -- IN OUR PANELS AND -- WE'VE -- WE'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF SEEG A LOT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONSES IN THE PANELS BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE CASES ARE SO D BUT THE ONES THAT SPECIFICALLY REVIEW TO POLICIES AND GAVE YOU A BASELINE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE USEFUL FOR US.
AND HE WE HAVE SO MANY OF THESE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED THATE HAVE NO IDEA, REALLY, WHERE THEY FALL. IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 10, USE OF
DISCRETION WHICH WE SEE A LOT IN OUR REVIEW PANELS IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM A B TO AN E AND SO, WHAT, IS A PANEL LIST SUPPOSED TO DO WITH AT, NOT KNOWING ANY MITIGATING FACTORS NOT KNOWING ANY AGGRAVATING FACTS. WE JUST HAVE TO GUESS
OR JUST, YOU KNOWSAY WHAT WE THINK. THIS DOESN'T PROVIDE US ANY GUIDANCE. A THIRD MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE WITH THIS -- AND THIS IS --
COULD BE MORE -- BITG OFF MORE THAN WE CAN CHEW BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT A DISCIPLINE MATRIX FOR US SHOULD HAVE A CATEGORY A, A NONDISCIPLINARY OUTCOME BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET A NONDISCIPLINARY OUTCOME, NOBODY
WILL EVER SEE IT. IT IS PROTECTED BY THE DATA PRACTICES ACT AND WHETHER IT'S A PANELIST -- PANELIST THAT AT THAT DECIDE IT'S GOING TO BE A MERIT A OR IF THE CHIEF DECIDES LONGER LATER ON WHICH IS WROTE THESE
THE CHIEF COULD SAY NO I THINK IT'S A MERIT A BECAUSE OF MITIGATING FACTORS AND NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW. SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE TRANSPARENCYND ACCOUNTABILITY TO HAVE A CATEGORY THAT IS SECRET. SO THOSE ARE MY FIRST
OVERALL COMNTS AND I DON'T WANT TO DOMINATE THE DISCUSSION NOW SO -- >> OKAY. >> LET OTHERS -- >> ANYONE ELSE? MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING HANDS. COMMISSIONER PALMER? >> YEAH, I WAS LOOKING OVER THIS
MYSELF AND I HAVE TO AGREE WITH A LOT OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THIS REALLY JUST ISN'T VERGOOD. LIKE THIS IS JUST LACKING A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED. IT REALLY ISN'T VERY CLEAR AT ALL. ONE THING I DID NOTICE --
SOME OF THESE EXAMPLES THEY GIVE DON'T REFER TO POLICY WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE YET TO SERVE AS A REVIEW PANEL SINCE I'M STILL A NEW MEMBER MYSELF, SO I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL NOW THAT W DON'T EVEN HAVE ACCESS
TO SOME OF THIS INFORMATION, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD HELP US AT ALL IF WE CAN'T EVEN DETERMINE WHAT THIS IS. BUT ANOTHER THING THAT REALLY, REALLY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS ON PAGE 16 THE RENDING MEDICAL AID VIOLATIONS.
THE THIRD EXAMPLE THAT'S LIST THERE FAILURE TO HELP EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE IF A PERSON INJURY OR ILLNESS CONSISTENT WITH TRAINING WHERE THE OFFICE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THERE WAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. IT CONTINUES
FROM PAGE 16 TO PAGE 17. IT HAS TWO OPTIONS ON THERE. ONE IS CLASS E WHICH IS RMINATION OF THE OFFICER. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. JUDGMENT FOR LETTING SOMEONE DIE BUT IT ALSO HAS CLASS D AS AN OPTIO WHIC
WHICH -- WITH MITIGATING FACTORS A MINIMUM FOR THAT IS A 30-HOUR SUSPENSION. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS FAIR ASSESSMENT OF AN OFFICER WHO JUST LETS SOMEONE DIE FROM NOT RENDERING MEDICAL AID AND I BRING THIS ONE UP BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS AOST
EXACTLY TO WHAT THIS EXAMPLE SAID RECENTLY IN THE NATIVELY COMMUNITY INOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. WHERE A MAN NAME RANDY RUSET WAS OVERDOSING, BYSTANDERS REQUESTED POLICE PROVIDE NARCAN TO THEM. THEY REFUSED OF TO DO SO AND
RANDY RUSET DIED. FURTHERMORE THEY'RE RELATED TO THE LOSIER FAMILY WHO ALSO PREVIOUS SPOKE TO THE CCPO, OTHER MEETINGS BEFORE ABOUT POLICE MISCONDUCT AND THEIR FAILURES TO PROTECT AND PROPERLY
INVESTIGATE THE DEATH OF HALCYON LOSIER. AND I WANT TO BRING THIS UP THAT I WANT TO BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP NOT ONLY DOES THIS MATRIX NOT HELP US IN A REVIEW PANEL BUT SOME OF THESE EXACT EXAMPLES THAT THEY ARE GIVING CURRENTLYAPPENED AND THERE'S NOT GOING FOR IT. NOT
MUCH ANYTHING TO PROVIDE JUSTICE OR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY OF THE FAMILIES OR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY OF THE OICERS OR ANY YOU OF IT. AND I THINK IT'S JUST SHAME HEFUL THAT SOME OF THESE EXAMPLES OF WHAT NOT TO DO ARE CURRENTLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
SO I DO SEE THINK THAT KIND OF AGREEING WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS' THOUGHTS AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE REDRAFTED. THIS IS NOT A GOOD MATRIX. DOENOT COMPARE WELL TO HARDLY TO ANY OF THE CITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN THE POLICYOMMITTEE PRESENT TO US
IN REGARDS TO THEIR DISCIPLINE MATRIXES. IT'S JUST KIND OF PATHETIC, REALLY, I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH ELSE TO SAY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I'LL PUT MYSELF IN QUEUE. APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH MR. BECKING AND VARIOUS OTHERS.
IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION. SOMEONE'S WHO HAS LOOKED AT OTHER POLICY MANUALS OVE WITH HUNDREDS OF PAGES I FIND THIS QUITE SHORT. BUT I WANT THE OTHER OFFICERS ARE ABLE TO INTERPRET IT THEY'RE ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND IT AND THEY CAN REMEMBER IT. THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION GOING ON HERE. IN THE PANELS WE'RE ABLE TO DO MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS BUT THAT'S BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE PANEL. THE FACT THAT THERE'S DISCIPNE MATRIX ALLOWS EIGHT CAN AND MITIGATING FACTORS BASED ON THE NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL
VIOLATIONS ITHE PAST OF INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE SO IT MAKES IT HARD FOR THE RECOMMDATIONS OF THE PANELS TO STAND AND WE'LL PROBABLY WAYS SEE IF THIS DISCIPLINE MATRIX STANDS DEVIATIONS FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PANEL'S AND THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF
CCPO. I DON'T KNOWF THAT IS DOING A SEPARATE MATRIX TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO DISCERN IN . I DO LIKE COMMISSIONER CANNADY'S SHEET HERE. DID YOU MAKE THIS SHEET. VERY NICE. I LIKE THIS. THIS FIRST PAGE OF DISCIPLINE MATRIX WHEN IT HAS
THE OFFENSES LISTED I THINK IT'S VERY EASYO READ AND I'M SOMEONE WHO'S VISUAL AND LE TO SEE EXAMPLES AND I THE OFFICERS IF THAT HAPPENS WHAT WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE SO MAYBE THEY ULD BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER; RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT TH OFFICERS DISCERN INFORMATION DITCH SO IF
I LOOK AT HANDLING OF EVIDENCE AND IF I DO THIS, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE EXAMPLE IS SO MAYBE HAVI TWO VERSIONS ONE FOR SOME PEOPLE TO LOOK AT IT ONE WAY AND WANT TO SEE MORE EXAMPLES I THINK THERE'S BENEFIT IN BOTH
BUT I DO RECOGNIZE IT'S LONG AT ALL AND I DO RECOGNIZE PEOPLE LIKE THINGS SPELLED OUT SUCCINCTLY WHEN IT COMES TO A POLICY VIOLATION. I'VE BEEN A UNION PRESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME AND I KNOW IT SEEMS TO BE EASIER WHEN YOU'RE VIOLATING A POLICY TO GO STRAIGHT TO IT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE'S A
VIOLATION HERE AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO GUESS SO I DO LIKE POTENTIALLY BOTH VERSIONS HAVING SOMETHIN THAT IS SHORTER, SOMETHING EASIER FOR OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO DISCERN. I THINK IT WAS PORTLAND ONE THAT HAD TWO PAGES. I REMEMBER THAT LIKED THAT. THEY CAN HE CARRY IN
THEIR CAR BUT ALSO HAVING ONE MORE DETAILED FOR THOSE THAT LEARN AND VISUALIZE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> YEAHTHANKS. YEAH, WHAT I WOULD ADD TO TALKING ABOUT PORTLAND IS -- AT THE END OF THEIR TABLE, THEY DO
HAVE -- THERE'S SOME EXPLANATIONS, SOME DIRECTIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, MINNEAPOLIS WOULD BENEFIT BY FIRST OF ALL -- IF THEY KEEP THIS TABLE, CONSOLIDATE IT A LOT. BASICALLY LOOK AT PORTLAND'S IT'S PRETTY GOOD.
AND THEN -- AND TAKE SOME OF THE GOOD EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT LENGTHY AND ANNEX IT ALL AND REFERENCE IT -- KEEP AN INTRODUCTION PAGE AND REFERENCE THE ANNEXES IN THE INTRODUCTION. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY NEEDS A FRESHER OR A CIVILIAN WANTS TO
SEE WHAT SOMETHING MEANS THEY CAN LOOK IT UP. THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE? OH, I'M SORRY DID I MISS SEONE? YES. >> YEAH, JT KIND OF ADDING ON TO SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, LIKE, LOOKING AT THE CATEGOR A,
MY CONCERN THERE IS THAT THOSE CATEGORIES DON'T MATTER THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY RULES. IF THE WORST YOU CAN DO IS AFTER THREE VIOLATIONS YOU CAN GET A NOTE ABOUT IT. SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS, LIKE -- WE'RE -- AND
ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETION THAT WE HAVE IN IT, WE'RE REALLY CREATING SOME PROBLEMATIC SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE BIAS AND OTHER CONCERNS THAT ARE OBLEMATIC HE WITH THE UNION THERE. WITH THAT, I DO LIKE HAVING
THE LONG AT ALL COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS IN SOME OF THIS BUT IT DOES ADD COMPLEXITY TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF AND THE MATRIX ITSELF MY CONCERN IS SOMETHING -- IN DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS WE CALL
IT RULE LORING AND IT'S UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY IN HERE WHERE PEOPLE CAN CRAFT THEIR SPECIAL FRAVING OF SITUATIONS TO GET AROUND IT AND THEY CAN SAY I'M 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCIPLINARY MATRIX BASED ON MAGICAL WORDING AND KIND OF WHEN
WE HAVE TOO MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT IN THERE,E'RE NOT EVEN REQUIRING A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE. WE'RE JUST SANG: OH, NOT CCPO IS WRONG SO THAT IS A COERN. THERE. THAT SAID, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE NEEDS HE DOES TO BE SOME
SORT OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACTUAL POLICY NUMBERS AND THE POLICY AND THIS MATRIX IELF SO WHETHER THE POLICY SAYS THIS OR THERE'S A SUBDOCUMENT SAYIN THIS IS THE POLICY NUMBER, THIS IS THE MATRIX IDENTIFICATION, AND THEN THERE CAN BE LIKE A
HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW OR SOMETHING BASED ON SOME OF THE WORDING TO KIND OF CONVEY OUR CONCERNS THERE AND YEAH, I THINK -- THOSE ARE MY PRIMARY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIOR SCHANFIELD. >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TOTS. ANOTHER QUESTION I WOULD LIKE US TO WRESTLE WITH HERE IS WHAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE USEFUL FOR US SO WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT POLICY NUMBERS, WE TALKED ABOUT LENGTHS. WHAT WOULD MAKE THIS
USEFUL DURING A PANEL? >> ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? I GUESS FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SAT ON PANELS, IT MIGHT BE AN EASIER QUESTION. >> YEAH.
I THINK COMMISSIONER CANNADY TOUCHED ON IT IN TERMS OF THE AGGRAVATING, THE MITIGATING AND THE FACT THERE'S THREE OR FOUR CHOICES OF DISCIPLINE. IT WOULD BE EASIER -- SOMEONE JUST THE LETTER -- NEW ORLEANS? HAS LETTERS. ONE LETTER THAT WOULD
BE EASIER. WHAT WOULD WOULD LOOK LIKE I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THE CHIEF TO HAVE A MOST OF THEM TO SAY IF THE PANEL SAYS B AND I SAY C OR A, WE'LL SAY C, HE GOES UP AND HE CAN CLEARLY DISCERN AND HOW HE
MITIGATED FROM THE PANEL JUST B WITH THREE CIVILIAN, TWO SWORN WE MAY BE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND SO I THINK THAT'S EASIER FOR THE CHIEF TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT THE PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IF WE HAVE A LETTER IT MAKES IT
MORE CHALLENGING. SO JUST MY THOUGHTS. ANYONE ELSE? >> I THINK IDENTIFYING A PRESUMIVE PENALTY AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, A RANGE B -- B TO E IS -- WOULD BE MUCH MORE HELPFUL FOR US.
>> UH-HUH. YEP. >> IT BEGS THE QUESTION TOO IF THERE'S VERY CLEAR LIKE THE FEW AGENCIES WE'VE SEEN HERE IS VERY CLEAR THIS THEN THIS THEN THE ROLE OF THE PANEL IS DIFFERENT. THE RE OF THE PANEL IS NOT TO
DETERMINE A, B OR C BUT THE ROLM OR THE MEDIUM OR THE MAXIMUM? THAT THAT RELY THE DISCIPLINE IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AS OPPOSED TO THE CATEGORY. AM I UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE THOUGHTS. I'D LOVE TO HEAR IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON THAT. >> YES, 'CAUSE THEN WHEN WE'RE
MAKING THE DECISION WE CAN ARGUE TIME AS OPPOSED TO LETTER AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE --E MORE HELPFUL WHEN WE'RE DOING THE PANELS. I DO LIK THE ASKED OF A RANGE IT REMINDS ME OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WHERE YOU HAVE ANGRY A LOW, MEDIUM, TO
HIGH. YOU GO TO THE BOX AND THE LINE AND THERE ARE. IT'S AN EASIER WAY. IF YOU HAVE A MITIGATING AND USE THAT TO MAK A DETERMINATION TO THE CHIEF I THINK IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER IN MY HUM BELIEVING OPINION. COMMISSIONER BAKER?
>> TO HAVE BOTH THE CATEGORY AND A RANGE -- JUST -- YOU EXPAND THE RANGE SO FAR BEYOND ANY CONSISTENCY AND SO, YEAH, I AGREE THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMEISCRETION IN RANGE BUT LET'S DO IT IN ONE
VARIABLE RATHER THAN TWO VARIABLES THAT JUST SPREAD IT OUT MUCH WIDER. >> YEAH. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT, COMMISSION BAKER. THAT WOULD ALSO HELP WITH THE CONSISTENCY; RIGHT? IS BECAUSE AS MR. BECKI
GOAL OF THE MATRIX WOULD BE SO THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY IF ANYTHING IS GRIEVED AND SO THERE'S STEPS AND IT MAKES IT EASIER WHEN THERE'S CLARITY. MY NEXT WONDERING FOR THE
GROUP HERE IS -- YOU MIGHT HAVE IMPROVE THE CONSIST IS YOU IN IN HERE? IS THERE OTHER WAYS WE COULD THINK OF THAT WOULD TIGHTEN THE LANGUAGE OR IMPROVE THE USE -- SO THAT THIS IS EMPLOYED THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE WE DO WANT EQUITABLE --
OR EQUAL, THER, TREATMENT OF OFFICERS. ONE CHALLENGE THAT I'VE NOTICED AS SERVINGN THE PANELS IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE BACKGROUND INFORMATION MUCH LIKE A JURY, RIGHT, BUT THE SWORN MEMBERS TO THEIR CREDIT DO THEIR BEST TO SORT OF NAVIGATE BETWEEN WHAT THEY KNOW IN THE FIELD AND THEIR
EXPERIENCE AND ALSO WHO THEY KNOW AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SORT OF TAKE THOSE HATS ON AND OFF AND I'VE NOTICED TT'S A CHALLENGE. THAT'S SOMETHING THEY DO BRING THE BACKGROUND KNOWDGE. THEY DO SORT OF KNOW IF THIS IS THE PERSON'S FIRST OFFENSE OR NOT EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT A OFFERING THAT OUT LOUD IS
THEY SHOULDN'T BUT I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD MAKE IT MUCH CLOSERER SO WE AREN'T THEN DETERMINING WHETHER IT'S FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD. I'M CURIOUS WHAT OTHERS THINK. >> ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER PALMER.
>> YEAH, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE A LOT MOREELPFUL TO US, 1, IF WE CAN KNOW WHAT WITH A -- YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TIMES THIS VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED WITH AN OFFICER AND I CERTAINLY THINK IF OTHER OFFICE KNOW THAT, THEY SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT WITH THAT AND REVIEW PANEL TO ALLOW FOR A APPROPRIATE DECISION TO BE MADE.
I THINK THE BIGGEST THING OF CORRECTING THE LANGUAGE OF THIS POLICY. POLICY NEEDS TO BE CITED FOR EACH ONE OF THESE EXAMPLES, I THINK, BECAUSE IF WERE'S JUST LEFT TO GUESS ABOUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A GOOD REVIEW PANEL THAT'S NOT
GOING TO RESULT IN A FAIR DECISION FOR CIVILIANS, OFFICERS HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO SEE IT. WE NEED SOMETHING THAT IS CLEAR AND CONCISE, EACH ONE OF THESE HAS TO REFER BACK TO A SPECIFIC POLICY. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY GUESSING. THERE SHOULD JUST BE A REVIEW.
I THINK ANOTHER THING THAT SOME OF THESE -- THEY REALLY NEED TO CONSIDERI THINK, SOME OF THE MORE HUMAN IMPACT THAT THESE VIOLATIONS WOULD HAVE ON THE VICTIMS OF ANGRY POLICE VIOLENCE OR MISCONDUCT SUCH AS THE RENDERING MEDICAL VIOLATION
I SAID HE EARLIER. LIKE A 30-HOUR SUSPENSION FOR LETTING SOMEONE DIE WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT THAT VIOLATION IS, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THAT IS FAIR. I THINK THAS NOT FAIR TO THE PERSON THAT THEY LET DIE FROM THAT FAILING TO REND MEDICAL
AID. I THINK SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS, DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF ACTIONS ON THE VICTIM OF THIS VIOLATION, WHOEVER IT MAY BE, I THINK SOME OF THE PUNISHMENTS F THEM SHOULD BE MUCH MORE REFLECTIVE OF THAT AND MUCH MORE RECIPROCAL
BASED ON THE VIOLENCE THAT WOULD BE ENACTED OUT OR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND PROPERLY AS ACTED OUT. >> COMMISSIONER PALMER, WERE YOU DONE SPEAKING? >> YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL NOTE
OF THE POLICY ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSIONER PALMER IS SPEAKING OF THE WILL FULL FAILURE TO OBTAIN NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE, I SEE THIS MULTIPLEHINGS IN ONE POLICY SO THE RANGE FROM D TO E -- COMPLAINTS OF ILLNESS OR JURY IS SEPARATE FROM THE MOST eGROANINGUS WHICH IS THE DEATH
OF SOMEONE BECAUSE OF INACTION. SO I DO KNOW THERE IS A RYANING HERE BUT MISP MISPOLINI, WHEN W TALKING ABOUT THE REVIEW PANELS AND WHAT INFORMATION IS SHARED IN TERMS OF PREVIOUS OFFERS, IF YOU COULD JUST PUT ON THE RECORD
FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT ON PANELS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKEF PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS. >> YOU ARE -- IS THIS ON? YES, SORRY. YOU ARE GIVEN A CASE FILE THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE INSTANCE IN FRONT OF YOU BUT THE IDEA IS TO APPLY CONSISTENT
OR -- EXCUSE ME,ECOMMEND CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE BASED ON THE VIOLATION BEFORE YOU WHICH FOR LAC OF A BETTER TERM CAN FEEL LIKE A VACUUM BUT THE IDEA IS TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS IT CONSISTENTLY ACROSS SO PRIOR OFFENSES ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT THEY ARE TAKEN IN INTO
ACCOUNT BUT THE CHIEF AND SUBSEQUENT, YOU KNOW, ARBITRATION GRIEVANCE, ET CETERA. BUT AT THE PANEL LEVEL, THAT IS NOT IN THE CASE FILE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD? >> I'M TRUST, MISS PELINI IF YOU
SEE THAT WOULD EVER CHANGE BECAUSE IT SORT OF RENDERS OUR VIEW AND OUR RECOMMENDIONS MOOT. >> I -- I HAVE NO IDEA. (LAUGH.) >> THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS CAN, YOU KNOW, USE YOUR DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS TO
RECOMMEND OR TO DISSS OR CONSIDER. I AM NOT AWARE OF THE CURRENT SECOND OF THAT BEING THE CASE. MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU CONTINUEO BE LOOKING AT THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY COME BEFORE YOU, APPLYING THE DISCIPLINE ACCORDING TO THAT SPECIFIC OF VIOLATION AT THAT
TIME AND THEN MITIGATING ADDITIONAL, I SHOULD SAY, MITIGATI AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AFTER THE FACTS, YOU KNOW, BLUE CARDS AND WHATNOT. >> OKAY, WHAT WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ON FOLLOW-UP AT A LATER DATE SO WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT IT EVEN WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE ACCESS
TO THAT INFORMATION 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PERSONNEL DATA THERE TO BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION WE COULD MAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL DOES THE ORDER. >> CERTAINLY WE CAN FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. >> COMMISSIONER BAKER? >> IT SEEMS TO ME ON TH SAME
VEIN THAT IN AN IDEAL WORLD THE CHIEF'S DECISION WOULD MATCH THE REVIEW PANELS AS OFTEN AS FEASIBLE AND -- TO HAVE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THE
DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDATION NOT EVEN BE AVAILABLE BUT TO BE MAKING A DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDATION -- LIKE INHERENTLY IS GOING TO CREATE MORE OF A RUPTURE THERE THAT UNDERMINES SOME OF, LIKE, OUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH AND MAKING IT LOOKS LIKE WITH HER PROVIDING
EFFECTIVE -- SO HAVING A PROCEDURE WHERE I MEAN, I'M THINKING OF, LIKE, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WHERE THERE'S A FINDING OF GUILTY OR NOT AND THEN THERE'S A SENTENCING AND MAYBE THOSE TWO THINGS NEED TO BE TEASED OUT A LTLE BIT
SEPARATELY SO THAT THE CCPO -- THE REVIEW PANELS ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FACTS THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE BUT NOT GUESSING AT WHAT THE OTHER FACTS MIGHT B THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU SAID THERE'S HE IS A FINDING OF
MERIT OF A VIOLATION OF D, MAYBE WE DON'T RECOMMEND WHAT THE PUNISHMENT IS BECAUSE THAT NEEDS THAT ADDITIONAL PIECE OF INFORMATION OR SOMETHING BUT TO HA US RECOMMENDING WHAT THAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE WHEN WE DON'T HAVE MUCH INFORMATION JUST
FEELS LUKE A RECIPE FOR THERE TO BE A RUPTURE THERE THAT UNDERMINES THE WHOLE ASPECT OF IT. >> COMMISSIONER CANNADY? >> I HAVE A DIFFERENT TOPIC SO IF -- I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT
THE CONVERSATION. >> COMMISSIONER? >> I AGREE AND I'LL NOTE THIS SEPARATION SEPARATION OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES OR THE -- THE FACT THAT WE DON'T GET THE FULL INFORMATION IS NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE. IT JUST SAYS WE SHOULD MAKE A DISCIPLINE
RECOMMENDATION. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT UNLIMITED INFORMATION. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER BAKER? >> I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT AS A COMMITTEE WE WANT TO MAKE A -- YOU KNOW REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OR MAKE A MOTION AT
SOME INT? NOT THAT I HAVE THE EXACT SOLUTION FOR THAT BUT, LIKE -- IF IT'S AN EXISTING PROBLEM, LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE THINK THE SOLUTION MIGHT BE AND -- AND PUT THAT FORWARD. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR TY STAFF TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT IS A THING TO MOVE FORWARD
AND ASK QUESTIONS ON. AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE WANT THE CCPOANELS TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. WE KNOW THE COMMUNITY HAS AN EXPECTATION TO DO WHATEVER THEY ASKED US TO DO 2. WHAT I WILL SAY ABOUT THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX AS IT CURRENTLY SITS LISTING THE
VIOLATIONS FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD --T IS VERY CHALLENGING TO HAVE IT LISTED IN THAT MANNER BECAUSE AGAIN WE'RE GOING TO FIND THE CHIEF WILL DEVIATE ALMOST EVERY TIME WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND SO -- MY QUESTION THEN BECOMES: WHAT IS
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MATRIX? JUST FOR THE CHIEF TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A GUIDE -- IF HE SAYS FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD VIOLATION, THIS IS WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO -- SHOULD THIS BE FOR HIM? SHOULD WE HAVE SOMETHINGOR THE PUBLIC THAT THEY CAN DIGESTS IN
TERMS OF CATEGORIES A, B, C, D AND E WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF THE CCPO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE BUT FOR US IF HE CAN HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS IF THERE'S A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD VIOLATION THAT HE CA CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION BUT I DON'T KNOW
IF WE NEED TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. MAYBE THAT'S THE PART WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT BECAUSE AGAIN IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I SIT ON SEVERAL PACGES I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DOES MY RECOMMENDATION F AND I I'M RECOMMENDING A B AND IT SHOULD
PROBABLY BE D AND I JUST WASTED MANY, MANY HOURS IN MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S A LOT OF PANELS TO MAKE A PROPOSAL AND THOSE THAT WILL DO PANELS THAT IT'S A LOT OF TIME TOPEND TO DO PANELS 5, 6, 10, 12 HOURS ON ONE CASE. IT IS A LOT OF TIME
TO DO ALL OF THAT WORK AND KNOW YOU'RE ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE OVERTURNED BY THE CHIEF BASED ON THIS DISCIPLINE MATRIX IS NOT FUN. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT SIMPLE MAYBE HE USES SOMETHING THAT HE USES N
USE FOR THE PANEL. MAYBE IT CAN BE TWO DIFFERENTE THINGS MAYBE AS A REFERENCE FOR HIM. BASICALLY THE SAMEHING BUT THEY LOOK DIFFERENT FOR THE OUTPUT FOR US TO REVIEW. ANYONE ELS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? >> YEAH I AGREE BECAUSE WHEN I
WAS READING THE DRAFT BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED ON VIOLATION 1, 2 AND 3 AND I WAS THINKING WELL,F HE'S GETTING A VIOLATION 2, WHAT, YOU KNOW -- I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH YOU COMMISSIONER THAT THIS IS -- I THINK THIS IS REALLY WRITTEN FOR
THE POLICE CHIEF NOT FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR -- AND FOR US. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFF T DIFFERENT -- IT SHOULD BE THE SAME BUT LOOKING AT DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE IT IS A BIT CONFUSING.
>> ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER CANNADY? >> THANK YOU, SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO QUICKLY MAKE TWO POINTS THAT HAVE COME UP WITH VARIOUS THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID THIS EVENING. SO FIRST I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY I THINK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED THIS AS A PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THREE WEEKS' AGO IN OUR EMAIL. WE
RECEIVED SOME THAT COMMENTS FROM CUAPB WITH SOME ANALYSIS OF -- IF I REMEMBER RIGHT THE VANCOUVER DISCIPLINE MATRIX THAT WERE PREPARED A COUPLE YEA AGO. I'M REMINDING US ALL BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER CITY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THIS
DISCUSSION AND I D LOOK BACK AT THAT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE NEW ORLEANS EXAMPLE I DON'T WAS IN THERE BUT IT DID ON THE COMMEN BUT I THINK THE COMMITTEE SHOULD LOOK AT IT AGAIN THE NECESSITY OF IT BEING CLEAR, BEING COISE, THE
BENEFIT OF HAVING A CLEAR CONCISE FOR ARBITRATION. THE SECOND POI I'M GOING BACK TO NEW ORLEANS AGAIN. YOU CAN TELL I LIKE THE POLICY. SO SOMETHING I DIDN'T BNG UP BUT I ACTUALLY THINK HAVE BEEN RAISED UP TONIGHT. THE CONCERN ABOUT CATEGORY A A COACHING AND THE WAY THAT THAT WORKS IN
MINNEAPOLIS. E THING THAT'S IN THE NEW ORLEANS POLICY THAT I THINK WE COULD CONSIDER AS FEEDBACK FOR -- FOR THIS VERSION WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NEW ORLEANS HAS SOMETHING CALLED "EDUCATION-BASED DISCIPLINE" SO
THIS IS NOT A SEPARATE OR LESSER CATEGO OF VIOLATION BUT THIS IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE FOR THE CHIEF TO ESSENTIALLY -- AND I'M GREAT SUMMARIZING IN HERE, RIGHT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T PREPARE TO TALK ABOUT THIS TONIGHT BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT TAKES AWAY SOME OF THE DISCIPLINE THAT
WOULD, OTHERWISE, BE IMPOSED AND SWAPS IT OUT FOR SPECIFIC EDUCATION. THAT WOULD SOLVE SOME OF THE PROBLEM THAT CAME UP HERE TONIGHT WHERE WHENEVER AREF IN ITS OWN CATEGORY AND IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PUBLIC SO THERE'S NO TRANSPARENCY ABOUT IT.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICY IS THE I DISCIPLINE COULD STILL BE IMPOSED ACCORDING TO THE SEVEN IS LEVELS OF THAT THEY HAVE OF DISCIPLINE BUT SOME IS WHAT, OTHERWISE, MIGHT BE A SUSPENSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IS REPLACED BY CERTAIN NUMBER OF
HOURS OF TRAINING. AND THEOLICY DOES MAKE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ABOUT WHAT THE PANEL SHOULD CONSIDER IN MAKING THAT DECISION SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE 5 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF THINGS TO CONSIDER INCLUDING WHAT EDUCATION IS AVAIBLE, HAVE THERE BEEN
PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS, ET CETERA SO THIS WHOLE FRAMEWORK, I THINK, WOULDE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CONCERNS WE HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT OUR CATEGORY A AND JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT TO THE DISCUSSION. >> JUST A NOTE, APB DID SUBMITTED SOMETHING IN WRITING
AND IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT SO I WOULD SUBMIT THE LETTER THEY SUBMITTED ON THIS TOPIC TO PUT IT IN IT PUBLIC COMMENTS. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE IT. COMMISSIONER? >> I WANTED TO LIMIT A COUPLE THINGS THAT I HEARD AS WELL
COMMISSIONER CANNADY YOU MAKE A GREAT POINT IN THE COLE PANELS A LETTER OF RECOMMEND AND/OR SUSPENSION THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND WHY CAN'T WE RECOMMEND MORE TRAINING OR MORE SUPPORT IS NOT JUST IN EXISTING TRAININGS BUT OTHER KIND OF TRAINING OR DE-ESCALATION TRAINING LUKE THEY
USE IN EDUCATION OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER TYPES OF TRAINING THAT COULD RECOMMEND BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE -- WE DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR SECOND OR THIRD VIO AN OFFICER COME BEFORE US MORE THAN ONCE AND THOSE ARE TIMES WE
MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY: HEY, THIS PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED NOT JUST DISCIPLINED THERE'S MORE VALUE TO THAT . AND I WOULD TO WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS JOHNSON SAYS WE DON'T WANT OFFICERS WHO HAVE A SECOND OR THIRD VIOLATION. WE DON'T WANT THAT
TO BE A THE CASE SO THIS MATRIX SORT OF SUGGESTS THAT'S NORMAL AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. WE REALLY WANT THISO BE A VERY UNCOMMON PROCESS THAT THAT PEOPLE DON'T COME BEFORE THE -- OFFICERS DON'T COME BEFORE THE PANEL VERY FREQUENTLY ESPECIALLY NOT A SECOND,HIRD OR MORE TIMES.
THE LAST THING I'D LIKE HE TO BRING FORWARD ON PAGE 2 AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND THEN ON PAGE 3 IN THE NEW DRAFT, THE VERY LAST LINE ON PAG2 SAID THE CHIEF MAY NOT IMPOSE ONLY NONDISCIPLINARY CORRECTE ACTION WHERE BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE, THE DISCIPLINE MATRIX HE CALLS FOR DISCIPLINE. I THINK THAT'S REALLY POWERFUL AND IT'S IMPORTANT BUT OUR MATRIX RIGHT NOW DOESN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR ENOUGH THERE ARE NO CASES THAT I COULD UNDERSTAND. I WELCOME FEEDBACK OR PUSH-BACK ON THAT BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING YET THAT ONLY CALLS FOR DISCIPLINE. IT'S
ALWAYS -- THERE'S ALWAYS A CATEGORY A OPTION TO YOUR POINT. SO I THINK THAT COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION. AND THEN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT PRACH SAYS: ANY DEPARTURES FROM THE PRESUMPTIVETION OR ANY DEPARTURES SHALL BE JUSTIFIED
BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SITUATION AND DOCUMENTED IN WRITING BY THE MPD CHIEF. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST AND I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE DETAIL IN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT THAT SAYS WHERE THAT GOES IN WRITING, IF IT IS ABLE TO BE ACCESSED BY CCPO IF THAT INFORMATION WOULD
BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO US BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW -- TO DATE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANY DEPART URES BY THE CHIEF. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE HAVE RECOMMENDED HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND/OR ANY DEPARTURES SO THIS NEW MATRIX MAKES I IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLICIT THAT
ESPECIALLY DOWNWARD DEPARTURES NEED TO BE DOCUMENTED BUT WHERE AND WHOM WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT DOCUMENTATION. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? I NOT SEEING ANY HANDS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER CANNADY DO YOHAVE
ANYTHING ELSE ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC? OKAY. COMMISSIONER MECKELHANEY? >> YEAH, JUST SO IS ONE COMMENT THAT I HAV ON THIS IS A LOT OF THIS IS WITH HER LOOKING AT THE BEHAVIORS THATHAT -- THAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WE'RE NOT
DISCIPLINING IS ESSENTIALLY WHO THEY HAPPEN TO. SO TO TH, IF I HAVE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF FORCE AGAINST ME, OR INAPPROPRIATE USE OF FORCE AGAINST MY 2.5-YEAR-OLD TODDLER, THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT AND THE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITIES AND SOME OF THESE
CHALLENGED GROUPS IS PARTICULARLY MORE IMPACTFUL, SOMETIMES THAN OTHERS AND WHAT THIS DOESN'T REALLY ACCOUNT FOR IS THE CREATION OF GENERATIONAL TRAUMA THE CREION OF MORE LONG-TERM IMPACTS AND THAT IS
SOMETHING WHERE I DON'T KW THE ANSWER TO THIS BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT WHETHER I THINK OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND HOW -- IF I HURT SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, I GET PUNISHMENT A BUT
IF I HURT SOMEBODY WHILE ALSO COMMITTING A CRIME AND CARRYING A WEAPON, I GET PUNISHMENT C AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SORT OF WAY, MORE PROBLEMS WITHOUT ANSWERS: . HOW CAN WE LOOK MORE
ON FOCUSING MORE ON THE RESULTS THAN THE BEHAVIOR SOMETIMES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I'LL JUST ADD TO COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS INSUBOREDTION IS ONE THAT
DOESN'T HAVE AN A CATEGORY. THERE'S NO COACHING FOR THAT. POTENTIAL BELY YES, TRUE. COMMISSIONERS, VICE-CHAIR OLSEN? >> JUST -- JUST A COUPLE REALLY
GRANULAR THOUGHTS. I THINK -- I THINK THE PENALTIES FOR PURSUIT VIOLATIONS ARE WAY TOO LOW. THT AGAINST POLICY AND FAILURE TO TERMINE A PURSUIT AFTER LOSS OF VISUAL CONTACT FOR SIGNIFICANT HE AMOUNTE OF TIME
ARE BOTH A AND B LEVEL OFFENSES I THINK PURSUITS ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE THIS -- THIS MATRIX SHOULD TREAT THEM MORE SERIOUSLY.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU AS WE TALK ABOUT IN THE PPR MEETGS TRY TO BE MORE POINTED SO IT'S HELPFUL IF YOUR COMMENT -- PURSUITS SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN A OR B WHAT SHOULD
THEY BE. HELP WALK IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. LIKE WHAT DO YOU THINK IT SHOULDE BECAUSE THAT IS THE -- THAT IS THE HELPFUL STUFF THAT MPD CAN USE. >> SURE. THEY SHOULDN'T BE AN A, A B OR A C. >> SO SHE --
>> YEAH. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> YEAH, USUAL MAKING ME THINK, COMMISSIONER OLSEN, ONE NEXT STEP FOR PPR IS TO GO THROUGH THIS AND REMOVE ANYTHING THAT WE DON'T THINK WILL EVER WARRANT AN A AND THAT MHT BE A USEFUL
THING FOR US TO MAKE CONCRETE AND RECOMMEND. I'M SAYING THAT OUT LOUD SO I REMEMBER TO DO IT. >> OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? SO WITH ALL THE RECOMMDATIONS, IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE ANYONE CAN THINK OF AS WE PRESENT THIS GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY REGARDING WHAT WE THINK THE MATRIX SHOULD BE? WE'VE SAID A LOT TODAY. WE'VE SAID IT'S TOO LONG. IT DOESN'T HAVE POLICY MEMBERS. IT NEEDS TO BE EASIER TO READ AND DIGEST. MAYBE THIS
VERSION IS NOT FOR THE PUBLIC, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO DIGEST? ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN THINK OF THAT WE WANT TO SUBMIT AS A POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION? COMMISSIONER CANNADY? ZB >> I HAVE ONE MORE THOUGHT.
THIS SOUNDS LIKE- THIS SOUNDS VERY NONSUBSTANTIVE BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTA SUGGESTION. A GRAPHIC DESIGNER IMPROVING THE DOCUMENT ONCE THE SUBSTANCE IS IMPROVED IT WOULD IMPROVE THE READABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC, THE OFFICERS AND FOR US
FOR READABILITY. I WAS CONSIDERING IT AT THE E AND NOT SAYING BUT IT'S THE LEAST IMPORTANT BUT NONETHELESS I THINK IT WOULD HELP WITH THE COMPREHENSION BUT IT'S NOT CREATE RIGHT NOW. IT'S REALLY, REALLY BAD BECAUSE I MEAN, THE CATEGORIES DON'T EVEN REPEAT FROM ONE PAGE TO THE OTH ABOUT
WHAT THE COLUMNS ARE ET CETERA. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW. I HAVE TO SAY AS SOMEONE WHO LOVES COLOR, I COMPLETELY NCUR. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE IN COLOR. COMMISSIONER SCNFIELD. >> ONE OTHER SUGGESTION -- THANKS FOR SAYING THAT, COMMISSIONER CANNADY BE.
IS ON -- LET'S ANY OF THE PAGES WITH THE CATEGORY -- SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON PAGE 6 OR 7, AN ADDITIONAL ROW HERE -- IF THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT TO YOUR POINT, CHAIR, EARLIER IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR A SEPARATE DOCUMENT FOR PANELS IF THIS IS
THE OY DOCUMENT THEN WE DO NEED ANOTHER ROW HERE OR SOMETHING WHERE IT SAYS FIRST VIOLATION, WRITTEN REPRIMAND, WRITTEN REPRIMAND 10 HOURS ABOVE THAT IF YOU N'T KNOW HOW MANY VIOLATIONS HERE IS THE MINIMUM -- THE MIDDLE AND THE MAXIM. MUCH LIKE THE OTHER
MATRIXES BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S USEFUL TO THE PANEL DIRECTLY. >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOTION THAT WE TAKE THE NOTES FROM TONIGHT AND THE VIDEO AS WELL AND BRI THEM TO PPRR ON
MONDAY, 8:25 AND THEN SUBMIT -- SYNTHESIZE THOSE AND SUBMIT THEM IN A COHERENT MATTER TO THE BODY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT. >> IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECONDED. >> I HEARD A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, DO WE NEED THE MOTION REPEATED OR IS EVERYONE >> CAN I ASK A -- I WILL SAY THIS IS NOT IN LIEU OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE OR -- ON THE DAIS HERE ALSO SUBMITTING YOUR COMMENTS, ANYTHING THAT STOOD OUT TO YOU IS REALLY IMPORTANT VIA EMAIL
DIRECTLY TO POLICE POLICY FEEDBACK AT MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV >> OKAY. THANK YOU. CLERK IF YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL? . (ROLL CALL.) THE CLERK THIS IS TO REFER ALL OF THE -- THE
COLLECTIVE THOUGHTS TO THE PPRR TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT IT AS PER THE GROUP. >> AYE.
(ROLL CALL.) THE CLERK THERERE 10 AYES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD ALSO ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE
AND FILE THE THE PREVIOUS REPORT AS WELL AND SO SEEING THAT WE HAVE THAT DONE, THIS HA BEEN A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. PPRR MEMBERS THROUGH CHAIR SCHANFIELD WILL COMPILE OUR FEEDBACK TO DOCUMENT ON OUR BEHALF WITH. THAT DOCUMENT WILL BE TO THE MINUTES
OF THE MEETING AND I IS LATED TO THE BODY VIA EMAIL BY STAFF OF LIAISON MISS YOUNG. THE DOCUMENT WILL BE CIRCULATED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY NOT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK WITH THAT BEING SAID I INVITE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBMISSION OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH
WE'VE ALREADY DONE AND I WILL PASS THATND I THINK THAT WITH HER ADJOURNED. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE WE STAND ADJOURNED THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ON OH, MISPOLINI -- >> I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY, SORRY AUGUST 29TH THE FEEDBACK IS DUE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE FEEDBACK IT'S
AVAILABLE ON THE FORM ONLINE OR YOU CA SEND AN EMAIL WITH THE PPR WHICH EVERYBODY HAS BEEN REFERRING TO TODAY IS AT 6:00 PM THIS COMING MONDAY IN THE PUBLI BUILDING NOT THIS ONE SO -- >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, EVERYONE. I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK.