Hello. >> Good evening. My name is Lata Ree and I'm the chair of the Community Commission on Police Oversight. Before we begin, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. 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 that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their
comments. At this time, I'm going to call to order this regular meeting for Monday, July 6th, and ask the clerk to call the role. >> Commissioner Mahhoney, >> present. >> Shanfield, >> present. >> Newman, >> present.
>> Clement, >> present. Baker is absent. Stewart is absent. Kennedy >> present. >> BS >> present. >> Andy is absent. Williams Johnson is
absent. Smith >> present. >> Vice Chair Olsen >> present. >> And Chair Reeves >> present. >> There are nine members present. >> Thank you. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. Commissioners, the agenda for this evening's meeting is before us. I'm not aware of any proposed
amendments to the agenda. Uh so let me ask if there are any amendments to the agenda this evening. All right. Seeing none, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? >> Smith so moves. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. The motion and second. Uh clerk, please call the role.
>> Commissioner Mahoney. >> Yay. >> Shanco. >> Hi. >> Newman. >> I. >> Clement. >> Hi. candidate. >> Hi, >> Barts. >> Hi, >> Smith.
>> I >> Vice Chair Olsen >> I >> and Cher Reeves. >> Hi. >> There are nine eyes. >> Thank you. The eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Next, we have a set of me minutes to accept from our June 15, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion
and second to accept these minutes? >> Smith so moves. >> Motion and seconded. Thank you. Uh why the clerk call the role? Commissioner Melhaney >> I >> Shanfield >> I >> Newman >> abstain I had had opportunity to review
>> Clement >> I >> uh Kennedy >> I >> Barts >> I >> Smith >> I >> vice chair Olsen >> I
>> and chair Reeves >> I >> there are eight eyes and one Sunjon. >> Thank you. The eyes have it and the minutes have been adopted. Next, in the order of public comments, we'll open the floor to any comments from the public, giving each speaker two minutes to address the commission. We'll be taking
speakers in the order they register. If you wish to address the commission tonight and haven't already done so, you may register with the clerks at the side of the deis. If any speaker has printed materials, please give those to the city clerk. We also invite folks to submit written comments using the forms available from the city clerk to be
included in the public record as an alternative to speaking at tonight's comment session. Each speaker will be given two minutes to address the commission tonight. We have a timer to assist speakers. And with that, I'll open the public comment period. >> Can I put forth a motion?
>> Yes. >> Okay. To We had gotten an email about increasing public comment to three minutes for tonight. So, I'd like to put that into a motion to increase public comment to three minutes just for this evening. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion >> for the sake of time? All those in favor
of increasing public comment to three minutes say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Motion passes. First up, we have. Is it Matteline? Apologies. Yep.
>> Thank you. Is it right here? >> Okay. Is it okay if I read from my phone? Okay. Thank you all for being here. Um, I'm just going to say something really quick. >> Speak into the microphone. >> Oh, sure. Um, hey, good evening. My name
is Maline Esh. I'm a Minneapolis resident and director of Tea Time, a nonprofit that serves transgender women and trans feminine people in Minneapolis. I've been learning, this is kind of related, I've been learning about Minneapolis's behavioral crisis
response program and comparing it to Denver's STAR program. I was impressed by how Denver sends behavioral health professionals and EMTs to appropriate low-risk behavioral health calls and uh allowing police officers to focus on
situations where they're most needed, especially if they have a strained situation. As someone who works closely with the transgender community, I know many people are more comfortable seeking help when the response is centered on healthcare and crisis intervention. And so my question is, if you're okay with
this, uh would it what would it take for Minneapolis's behavioral crisis response program to become the nation's leading civil civilian crisis response program? And are there plans to continue expanding it? And that's for anybody.
We'll give it to the city staff and they can come back at the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up, I'm sorry. Is it Anon? >> Who are you? >> Is that short for anonymous? Chuck, >> that's not short for QAnon.
Thank you to the OPCR for their three recent reports. They were very different kinds of reports. One was a survey, one was statistical, and one was a narrative, but they were all extremely well done, interesting, and useful. I
have a couple of comments about the review panel process report. First, as I've said before, you ought to ask the participants, the complaintants and the officers against whom complaints are brought, what they think of the entire
process. And you also ought to ask the federation president as a representative of rank and file officers what she believes those rank and file officers think of the entire oversight system. Second, a few of the comments in this
report, the ones about whether the chief takes the review panel's recommendations seriously, the one about sworn officers sometimes being tougher on officer conduct than civilian panelists, and the ones about whether civilians can see the
same things officers can see need to be read in conjunction with the statistical report on the chief's disciplinary decisions. And third, I would say to the officer who pointed out that it's not fair that officer representation on
review panels has gone from 50% to 40% to 33%. That that that history did not begin at 50%. The percent has actually gone from 100%
officer representation to 0% to 50% and so on. What should be asked is why the 100% officer representation wasn't accomplishing what was intended or needed and what percent, if any, is
needed to accomplish the purposes of oversight. And besides the change from 40% officer representation to 33% was for bureaucratic reasons, the problem of finding a time when all panelists could get together, not to
diminish officer representation, as this officer's comment seemed to suggest. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up is Andrew. >> Hello. I would like to say thank you for considering extending to three minutes. I hope something that's something that
you consider to do permanently. And I don't actually think I have three minutes of comments today. Um we have learned from Alisa Alifa's report on coaching that in the past a lot of complaints that should have never gone to coaching did.
Now I realize this was not a scientifically based sample. This was looking just at the backlog. However, it does indicate that there was a problem. Now, I'm going to try and hold this up for the camera, but looking at the process IIA presented during the last
meeting, only one workflow leads to review panels. To me, this is disturbing. Note that this is not a slight against the anyone currently in IIA or OPCR, but it's based on past performance. There is a reason
to desire oversight on non-disciplinary corrections. Non-disciplinary corrections are not public information. So not so we cannot rely on data access to make sure only proper items are being coached and
that's where the CCPO and review panels come in. The CCPO represents the community. Looking at the ordinance 172.40.50.60 6 to me reads that the review panels should be seeing a lot more than just
this single workflow. That would to a degree help make sure that cases that need more corrective action than just coaching get the appropriate outcome. As the oversight board, I would encourage you to look at the ordinance, maybe ask
some questions and help us understand why so many workflows don't end in review panels. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up is Michelle Gross. Okay. Sorry, don't start me yet.
Good evening, um, Chair Reeves and, um, commissioners. My name is Michelle Gross. I'm the president of Communities United Against Police Brutality. I just have a few uh short comments on a couple of different subjects. One is that um as you may have seen um Mayor Fry has
released his um process for selecting a new police chief. And um we talked last time we were here about the need for the community to play a major role in the selection of the next police chief. And unfortunately, this plan that he issued does not have any role for the community
to speak of. you know, it's it's really disturbing um given his history, given uh you know, the fact that we really need a new kind of police chief. It's deeply disturbing to me that in fact, you know, we don't see a place for the community in this process at all. So, we're going to be pushing for that and
we would hope you would join us in that. Um the second thing I want to mention is I left some flyers over on the table for the Truth Council. I don't know if you all know about the Minnesota Truth Council, but it's a council that is going to be documenting all of the conduct that people experienced during the Operation Metro Surge, you know, and
the um and the Operation Paris and the rest of the siege. Um which by the way is still going on, of course. So, um I'd encourage you all to both know about it and encourage other people to tell their stories as well. Um third thing I want to mention is um this recent situation
that came out with Officer Joseph Clem. Um it in I I don't know if you've seen the media coverage, but um Officer Clem was fired after he engaged in um some really disgusting um social media cond uh you know, behaviors and so forth. And I think that that was the right decision
for him to be terminated. What was interesting to me was that in the report about the termination, it showed that the OPCR recommended a level C terminate uh level C discipline and then the chief said, "No, we're going to do level E and we're going to terminate this guy." Part
of it is that this guy had engaged in that exact same conduct in 2014. Um, and we knew that because it's on our website. We actually had that information on our website. But you folks don't get to know these cops histories when you're considering these things. I think that you should push for
an ordinance that says when you're looking at the conduct itself, when you're actually adjudicating the panel, um, that you don't get to know those things, but when you try to make your recommendations for discipline, you do. And I think that that would be a very important uh change to consider for your
ordinance to make your your work stronger and more u reflective of the necessities. And finally, I want to say one more thing, and I'm going to um respectfully disagree with Mr. Turchic. I don't think that any cops should be on a civilian review panel. Civilian uh
police officers are completely in control of internal affairs. They run that operation and no civilians are on it. I don't think that, you know, we used to have a true civilian review. um organization back in the day and we don't have it anymore and I think that
it's time for you know we were able to get police off the PCR which is the St. Paul equivalent and I think we need to go back to having no cops on these panels. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up Keith McCarron. >> Hi. Good evening. Keith McCarron from W
three. Uh the it just two things I wanted to bring up. Um I looked at a report that was done in 2014 regarding uh Minneapolis police response to domestic violence. And I would like to
see this committee recommission another updated study of that. It was the previous iteration of this committee that commissioned that report and in particular in light of the handling of
Allison Lucier and uh Mariah Samuels I think that it'd be critical to look at the Minneapolis police response to domestic violence. So that's my request. The other thing that I wanted to say in regard to Joseph Clem, what's really
disturbing to me is that it took two years for them to make a decision on this guy's behavior. And I think anybody else in private business, if you had represented your business, your enterprise in that manner, you wouldn't
be there two weeks before you were gone. and two years to investigate this is just outrageous that he was still walking this or driving the streets as an officer for this after demonstrations of this behavior. So that's my comment.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, Janet Nye. Hello all. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Uh some thoughts on how the CCPO is not a democratic body. One, board members chosen by the
city government. This body is supposed to represent the people of Minneapolis. Two, some board members were and some still are openly hostile to the public. Uh some expressed that they did not want to hear from the public at the very first meeting. They've remained on the
board and with a poor attitude, one was finally dismissed from the board. Rudeness of one commissioner toward another because of a request to repeat something she was unable to hear because of documented hearing problem. the city
clerk as Casey Carl did not intervene on behalf of the person uh with the hearing problem. It's a requirement of the city clerk or designated person to run the meeting. Okay. And the hiring of staff with an exorbitant
compensation and a golden parachute uh who quit before he got fired is scandalous. Um and only two minutes to speak is inadequate. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Seeing no other public comment, we complete our
public comment and we'll close the public comment period. Uh the next order of business is the election of a chair and vice chair for the next year as provided in our enabling ordinance. I'm going to turn this portion of the meeting over to the clerk to administer the election for the officers. Clerk carried.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um in terms of our of our procedure in the election of both the chair and vice chair we will follow the same procedure for both offices and that will be at first I'll open the floor to any nominations after all the nominations have been made uh we will the nominating period will then be
closed once that nominating period is closed we will not be able to accept any other nominations after um after it's closed as well we will proceed to take the vote and there will be a separate vote on each nominee and we will consider and act on each nominee
nomination in order it was received. Voting will be done by roll call and the nominee who receives the majority of the vote will be declared the winner of the election for the for that office. Um are there any questions at all before I proceed?
Anyone? Nope. Okay. Um so first we will start with the election of the chair. Um without objection the floor is now open to any nominations for the office of chair. Are there any nominations? >> Smith. I nominate Commissioner Reeves.
>> Okay. Anyone else? >> Nope. Okay. Uh, hearing none, the nominating period is now closed. Uh, before we proceed to vote, I will open the floor to just a general discussion. Is there any comments from any of the commissioners that on on any of these
nominate on any of this nominations? Nope. Okay. Um, all right. So, we will first start off with the nomination for Chair Reeves as chair. Um, let's see. So, I'll do the roll call.
Uh, Commissioner Melhenny. >> Oh, sorry. You're right. Okay. Commissioner Mahoney. >> Yes. I >> Yeah. >> I >> I >> uh Shanfield >> I >> Newman >> I
>> Clement >> I >> Canada >> I >> Barts >> I >> Smith >> I >> vice chair Olsen >> I >> and Cherries >> I guess.
>> All right. >> All right. Um that carries. Um, now I will open the floor to nominations for the vice chair. Does anyone have any nominations? >> Uh, Commissioner Bars, I'd like to
nominate uh, Commissioner Olson. >> Okay. Anyone else? Nope. All right. So, I will close the nominating period. Um, does anyone have any comments at all about about that? No. Okay. Okay. Um and then
for that one we will start with uh Commissioner Malhenny. >> I >> Okay. Shanfield. >> Hi. >> And Newman. >> I >> Clement >> I. >> Kennedy >> I.
>> Barts. >> I. >> Smith. >> I. >> Do you vote for yourself? Commissioner Olson. >> I. >> And then Chair Reeves. >> I. All right, weed. Congratulations to both of you. Uh, would either of you
like to say any words? >> I'll just say thank you. Um, I appreciate all that I've learned over the past year, two years, and we'll continue to do the work. Thank you. >> Likewise. >> All right. Thank you very much. The next
order of business is reports. We will start with the office of police conduct review. I will ask associate director Russell Fujisawa to give the bimonthly report. Good evening. Um, my name is Russell Pisawa. I'm the associate director of the Office of Police Conduct Review. Um,
before we get started, I would like to just correct or make sure that it's noted. Um, I I know Miss Gross from CUAPB noted that OPCR provided a recommendation of merit C uh on the uh the the clinic case. That was actually
an internal affairs case. So, OPCR had no involvement in um the investigation or any um any recommendations on it. So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Um tonight our agenda is um looks pretty
similar to what we've done in the past. Just a brief background um some intake unit updates, look at our administrative investigation progress, uh discuss our review panel progress year to date. And then we want to take a deep dive and I
know it says intake but that should be administrative investigations um with our administration administrative investigation supervisor Nick Paladian here. So I will try to run through some of this um to save him as much time as possible. We know the OPCR and its
jurisdiction and its work. Um so I will move along from there. We know that intake is that preliminary 30 days after receipt of complaint and here are the numbers that we're seeing. So in the month of June we had an interesting flip between number of
complaints and inquiries uh that our office received. Um this is I think one of the first time one of the more recent times that we've had more uh complaints and inquiries and I will attribute this to some of the um I I don't want to say filtering but some of the conditional
questions that are asked upon receipt of a complaint or filing that complaint just to ensure that it's going to the appropriate jurisdiction that people understand what our jurisdiction is limited to. Um so I I just want to call attention to that. um numbers continue
to be um fairly manageable um and fairly consistent moving throughout 2026. Thus far after obviously the first couple months of the year things quieted down quite a bit. Um so hopefully that trend continues for a number of reasons.
Um just a snapshot snapshot of our intake unit. Right now we have 70 complaints in Q. Um 35 of which are in compliance under 30 days. um 35 of which are out of compliance at over that 30-day mark. Um as you can see uh just
over half of those complaints and this was as of um I believe the end of June. So um about a week ago we had more than half of those complaints assigned to investigators. Um I I would like to call that uh call out that as of right now um
our investigations and our complaints uh in intake sit in a roughly 60-day window. And that is a a huge improvement from you know a year ago this time when we were talking about 180 um to 200 days old uh just talking about complaints and
triaging those. So we're tightening down the window um but obviously still have some work to do to get fully caught up. Um again the the duration of that intake review continues to hover around 17 days which I'm really uh grateful for and
impressed by our team that they continue after assignment getting through investigations on the intake phase in less than the 30 days that's required. So once a case is assigned they are doing a thorough job and they're doing it quickly. This uh this slide gives you a sense of
some of the routing decisions that are made in intake over the past six months. Um so you can see numbers from January through June. Um and you're seeing the disposition options um that come as a result of that intake review. So whether things are referred
for coaching, whether they're dismissed for a number of reasons, whether they're referred to an external agency or other city agency, um or whether they are referred for an administrative investigation. Um I know a lot of attention is likely paid to the coaching in light of the
recent report and from Alifa from our office um in response to the request from the CCPO, but I think we've discussed that previously. Um Alifa's report dives into it a little bit. Um, Valinda's report dives into it quite a
bit. So, I I I think maybe we'll hold on going deeper there, but this just gives you a sense of some of the routing decisions that are made um over the last 6 months in or administrative investigations, which is what Nick will dive into. We know that is the um deeper analysis,
deeper investigation, interviews, um and just the culmination of that investigative summary report. presenting this a little differently this month. Um just to give you a sense of what the overall administrative investigations numbers look like. Uh
happy to say that that remaining that one remaining backlog case that was delayed due to an officer personnel leave um has been submitted for supervisory review. That interview was conducted. It is uh through supervis it is going through supervisory review and we hope to get that to review panel as
soon as possible so that we can say that everything has left our office from the backlog. I do want to call attention to the pending assignment numbers. Um so this gives this should give a sense of what the overall um pending number of
administrative investigations looks like for our unit. Um hovering right around that 50 54 uh mark. And so we're hoping that um with a a series of uh turns of investigations and new assignments that
you know I I'm I'm cautiously optimistic if the current trend holds from intake referrals to administrative investigations that we can hopefully have all assigned out and be caught up maybe not investigations completed but have them assigned um by the end of the year. So that's currently what I'm
hoping that we can what we can execute on. Um still though you'll see that a number of cases are currently assigned or at different phases, different review phases within the investigative process um all the way up to the chief's office.
So um we continue to move, we continue to work um even as complaints come in and as we manage the challenges of u you know intake complaints and administrative complexity um that Nick will dive into. Just a quick review on review panel
numbers. Um you can see our trend has been a little slower to get going this year. Part of that was due to the slow start at the beginning of the year beginning of the year with operation metro surge and just not having the officer capacity and even commissioner capacity just given everything that was
going on and the priorities there. So we have um we have tried our best to catch up. We have investigations in the pipeline from OPCR. I'm ready for review panel. I know internal affairs is working as hard as they can to get cases through. I know there have been a
handful of cases from internal affairs that have gone to review panel. So encouraged by that and just the general number of cases that are coming through to to review panel from the CCPO um and sworn officers alike. And with that, I will turn it over to Nick Padian who is our administrative
investigation supervisor. All right. Good evening everyone. Thank you for having me. Can folks hear me? Okay. Okay. Uh my name is Nick Pott. It's P O U L A D I A N. Uh it's an uncommon last name, so I will not be offended if
anybody struggles with it. Don't worry about that. Uh my goal here today is to sort of go over and lay out the administrative investigation aspects of the OPCR work. Members of the commission typ typically get the investigative report at the end and going through the review panel process. I know my
counterpart Corey Harland was here previously to talk about the intake process. So I'll jump in from where Corey ended is where admin sort of begins. Intake will send over completed 3401 from the intake process. We either get
that through the initial routing. So that was a decision made at intake to say this goes straight to an administrative investigation or it's when an officer has been offered or extended an offer of expedited disposition. They have either affirmatively declined the expedited
disposition offer or they have let the time to respond lapse which is also viewed as them declining it. Either of those routes it gets sent over formally from Corey over to me. The next phase is a case assignment and investigation. So
we go through cases looking at investigators case loads, looking at complexity of cases and we try to do it throughout a rolling basis. So staggered every 2, three, four, five weeks depending on everybody's case load. We don't want to overwhelm people because that results in either delayed work and
or bad work. But we want to make sure we're moving these cases through as quickly as we can and as thoroughly and professionally as we can. I will assign a case out to an investigator. The investigator will jump in and review the case file. As Russell talked about, one
of the big differences from admin is we do the deeper dive. So, we conduct interviews. We're looking for other evidence in addition to BWC, body warn camera, police reports, cell phone video, anything else that intake may not have gathered or not have had the opportunity to gather. The culmination
of the investigator's work is their investigative summary report. That's talking about all of the evidence. That's talking about all of the interviews. That's analyzing what the facts we've been able to obtain are in relation to what the policies are. That's what gets sent off to panel ultimately prior to it going to panel.
That gets sent over to me as the supervisor for supervisory review. I am reading the investigative summary report. I am doing my best to make sure that it is thorough, it is complete, it is accurate. Have relevant witnesses been spoken with? Have we gathered any additional data that we might need? Have
we followed up with complaintants as we need? If in my opinion and in consultation with Russell and our embedded attorney, if we think it needs more work, it can be sent back to the investigator for follow-up. If we think it looks good to proceed, I ship it over to the next phase for the director and
embedded attorney review. Some of this may be repetitive. What happens when an investigator gets assigned a case? They really jump in and see what intake did. At that point, they're going into the file. They're saying, "What's here?" They're watching all of the body warn camera if any is available. They're reading any police
reports, CAD notes, incident detail reports. If we were able to do an intake interview with the complainant, which is helpful because that person is there and willing to speak with us early on when their memory may be fresher, they can review the transcript and the notes from
those along the way. If someone says, hey, you know, hey, this happened at a store. If intake either didn't or didn't have the capacity to go to a store and try to get surveillance footage, our investigators can do those things. They will also reach out to and schedule interviews
with anybody who is not a sworn officer. Those are voluntary interviews. Then they will reach out to the focus officers. Those are compelled interviews. As long as they are currently employed with MPD, they have to come in and speak with us when we schedule an interview. Again, it
culminates in their investigative summary report. That's what goes over to panel and ultimately to the chief's office that goes through a review process, including myself, Russell, and the embedded attorney. We have implemented standardized tasks and timelines that investigators should
be completing. We have 5day, 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, 120day, so on and so forth benchmarks where at those days they need to meet certain tasks. And on the next slides, um I will show you what some of those
tasks are. In addition to them having the checklist guiding their investigation to make sure certain things are not missed, they're also meeting with me at these benchmarks as well. So, at that meeting, I'm able to check in on the case and say, "What's the case status? How are things going?
Do you have anything we need to brainstorm? Are you having any barriers that we need to work through? Is there anything we need to run by illegal? Is there anything we need to run through by the director?" So, we're having these constant case check-ins to make sure they're not left sort of floundering alone if there's an issue. And we're
also able to make sure that things are progressing as they should. At the end of those meetings, I will sign off on the checklist. That checklist gets uploaded to the case file. I believe on display right now is the five-day checklist and the 30-day checklist. The first 5 days is very
intense for investigators. They are supposed to be reviewing. The expectation is that they are reviewing the entirety of what intake has already done. This could be very quick depending on the amount of evidence or the type of evidence. It could be very long depending on if it's a situation where there's hours and hours of body worn
camera. if there's 200 pages reports, but the expectation is that whether whatever the circumstances, they need to go through all of it within those first five days. At the 30-day mark, that's when they're supposed to be reaching out and obtaining training records for the focus
officers, setting up interviews with the complainant. Again, the complainant may already have been interviewed. If they feel that they need to speak with the complainant again to get additional information, they are certainly welcome to do that. And I'm just going over a few of these,
but you can see there are more listed on there. On the 60-day checklist, again, what I'll note, too, is that throughout the investigation, they're they should always be looking to obtain new information. So, if they speak with somebody and they say, "Hey, nobody asked me about this," or, "Hey,
that person might have video," the expectation is that they're following up with that person. Something they can also do and should be doing is potentially re-evaluating what's listed on the 3401. So if the initial allegation was just body camera, but during the course of the investigation,
there's additional conduct they may see, they should be speaking with me about that and flagging those for review to say, is this an allegation we need to be adding. Ultimately, that would go to a conversation with director Fujisawa, but we are flagging those things along the way. The 341 is sort of a living,
breathing document during the pendency of the investigation. Same thing where if they notice, you know, X was alleged, but X is definitively shown not to have happened. That's another conversation we need to have to say, do we need to amend the 3401? Is there something we need to adjust here to accurately reflect what
we're working with? At the 90-day mark, they should be scheduling interviews with focus officers and getting those officers in to communicate with us and have an interview. You can see as the list goes on or as the days go on, the list whittleles
down. And so as they're getting closer and closer, as time goes on, the focus really should be on writing the report. At the 180day mark, really the only thing should be that the report is finished or there's a conversation we're having about why it's not been finished.
During the supervisory review phase, again, I am looking at the ISR. I am making sure that relevant evidence was obtained and reviewed, that relevant witnesses were interviewed, making sure the report accurately summarizes that evidence, making sure that the report
accurately and thoroughly analyzes the evidence in context with the allegations listed on the 3401. In addition to looking at the substantive report, I am also looking at the case file to make sure everything that should be in the case file is in the case file. If somebody's going to go
through and make sure we did what we were supposed to, it needs to be documented there. Again, if I think additional work is needed or if director Fujisawa thinks additional work is needed, we send it back to the investigator. We meet with the investigator. We discuss what we're asking of them. Uh if we think that the
product is an appropriate and acceptable product, then it proceeds through to being delivered to panel. Our investigators do an incredible job. They have hard jobs and they work very hard to do good jobs. Some of the things we run into that we really don't have
control over and you'll see this as sort of a common theme here is we do not have subpoena power. A large amount of what we do is dependent upon people cooperating with us. That can be witnesses showing up. Sometimes we're able to speak with people and they
decide for whatever reason uh from circumstances of their own choosing or beyond that they won't make the interview. we're not then we're not able to get a statement from that person. Same thing if someone says hey I have this video of this if they don't provide that to us we can't force them to provide it to us. So we are really left
at the goodwill of people participating uh to the extent that they are able to. We also don't have the ability to compel separated MPD officers to speak to us if they have transferred out. If they have resigned for whatever reason if they're no longer with MPD we can no longer
compel them to speak with us. We can still reach out. We can ask them to speak with us, but we can't make them speak with us. Common things like changes in witnesses address, phone numbers, housing statuses, that can sometimes prevent barriers, present barriers for us. If we
can't find people and communicate with them, we can't bring them in to speak with them. Protected leaves of absence. Uh this is particularly I think we're seeing a lot of this with MPD witnesses. When officers go on leave, the investigation is put on pause until the officer returns and we can
interview them as we need to for the investigation. Records and other evidence. Again, no subpoena power. We are entitled to what MPD has, but it it's not always everything, especially if there's something we need from a non-MPD entity. There are certain records that we have
to individually reach out to MPD and request. That is the time in which we get those results is sometimes beyond our control. We might email a person and say, "Hey, can you please provide X record?" Sometimes we get them back very quickly. Sometimes we don't. All we can really do
is continue to follow up with those folks and hope that we get them. There are also other certain non-MPD databases restricted by state law for which we just simply do not have access. Delayed reporting. Folks can report at any time. Folks should report at any
time, but it does present some difficulties. The longer it takes, memories can fade, people might move on, addresses might change. We do what we can and we do the best we can with the tools that we have, but delayed reporting does sometimes present difficulties uh that over which we do
not have control. That's what I've got. I'll turn it over for any questions to folks. >> Thank you. Any questions, Vice Chair Olsson? Yes, my I don't I'm not 100% confident in my understanding of the processes, so
I'll state a premise and you can correct me if it's wrong, but um as I as we've been looking at um policies related to coaching, as I understand it, at some point there's an analysis um of the complaint um to determine
whether all of the allegations are subject to merit a level, which in my mind means basically minor misconduct that that hasn't been repeated, doesn't reflect badly on the police department.
Um, so my question is at what point is that decision made and who makes it and what are the criteria you follow to decide whether this complaint is just a merit a complaint? And you can see him
standing up, but I will defer to director Fujisawa. >> And um as I'm sure you've seen with the discipline matrix that is in effect and has been in effect for some time, that that is a challenge, right? It is more so a narrative than a prescriptive document that says for this policy um
absent any previous disciplinary history or disciplinary action on this policy that doesn't exist. Right? So it is um it is a it is a challenge to identify exactly what fits that narrative but you
know we are relying solely on on that narrative and that description that it has a minimal impact on MPD operations and image. It is a low-level um violation and there is no history of that violation. So during their intake
of that complaint, so those first 30 days of complaint receipt and having an investigator look at all of the materials that are available and assessing the conduct and all that evidence um using that matrix, using that narrative, um referencing their
disciplinary history, taking all of that into consideration to make that determination out of intake if it's eligible for coaching. And that's a decision that I can make if it is something that goes through an administrative investigation like if I have deemed after the first 30
days or after that intake period that that complaint that case needs to be investigated further by Nick's team and then that decision is no longer a decision that I am making or that OPCR is making. Instead, we are digging in in
all of the ways that Nick just described, collecting the evidence, conducting interviews, and then sending that case, the report, all of the evidence along to a review panel to make for them to make a decision or a recommendation. Then that, as you know, goes to the chief. So the
packet of the review panel recommendations, OPCR's investigative work and report and then that is up for the chief to make a decision whether the case is sustained and then what level of discipline or corrective action non-disciplinary corrective action is
issued and is is there a point where cases are ever bifurcated? In other words, you have one really minor complaint along with something that is major and you send the minor one to coaching and and move it on or once you decide anything
goes forward, does it all go forward including the minor complaints? >> They can be separated uh depending on um depending on a number of factors, right? If if it is if we're talking about um you know two two actions or two
potential policy violations by a given officer, we're likely going to investigate send it to a full administrative investigation and then instead of separating out what could potentially be coached for that one officer, but what is also potentially investigated for that officer. If we have multiple officers and there's a
lesser violation that's observed, there is the option for OPCR to refer that one lesser violation. you know, assuming it meets all of the appropriate criteria in terms of the level of violation, the disciplinary history, the impact that it
has on the public and MPD operations, there is a scenario in which that one officer can be routed for coaching and the others routed for a full investigation or you know any other type of disposition. So, it does not have to everything does not have to go um for a
singular disposition. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. I'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report. >> Thank you. >> Our final two reports are from our community engagement and police policy research and recommendations committee.
I'll start with the update from the community engagement committee and ask Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner Smith to speak out of five minutes. >> Thank you. uh commissioners, uh the uh committee met and we uh discussed uh
rescheduling an additional public hearing and would like this body to uh consider either September 16th or the 17th, a Wednesday or Thursday um as the possible dates. So, we'd like to discuss that and act on that.
We also spent time uh digesting comments from the May public hearing and outlined uh some of the main topics and questions to be followed up uh on that. Uh we spent the bulk of our meeting on the uh
study about review panels uh that Miss Jeang has prepared and will be presented later this evening on our agenda. So I won't go too far into that discussion except to highlight that it was our committee's sense that it would be beneficial to have a joint training
workshop with the sworn panel members to process this report and reflections on it. Generally there was uh support for increasing panels from having three members back to five when uh uh we get
through the backlog and can can accommodate that. And finally, we want to pay careful attention to the alignment of the chief's disciplinary decisions with the panel recommendations. And this report highlights that there is strong
alignment. But we want to suggest that the commission explore some kind of threshold for a trigger for further inquiry if the alignment goes below some figure such as 75% something like that. So we can discuss more of that later. I think the main item of business is to
get our public hearing uh scheduled in September. >> September 16th or 17th. >> Yes. >> And those dates were both confirmed. Is a room available? >> Yes. I believe the city staff has confirmed that both would work.
>> Yes, both of those days will work, but it it would have to be in this location. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to the you want to pick a date, Commissioner Smith, or just have discussion? >> For the sake of discussion, I will move that we meet on Thursday, September
17th. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion on September 17th for the next public hearing? Does that work for folks? I will be out of town, but Commissioner
Vice Olsen will take care of that. Um, does that everyone else good with that? Okay. >> With with respect, would you be here the day before? >> No, I leave the 16th. >> Yeah. Okay. Seeing no other discussion. The
motion is the next public hearing to be September 17th, 2026. I'm assuming it's 6 o'clock p.m. in this space. All right. Seeing no further discussion, I'll ask the clerk to call the role on that date and time. Do you want to do a roll call or a voice vote or
>> voice vote works? Keep it moving. All those in favor of September 17th, 2026, 6 p.m. for the next public hearing, say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Not here. >> Abstension. Okay. Motion passes for next public
hearing is September 17th. And I'll ask the the city staff to make sure they do far, wide, near, everywhere you can to make sure we publicize the next public hearing. Commissioner Smith, >> is that it? >> That's it. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh the
next up we'll have a report from the PPR group with Commissioner Shamp. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh I also will make this brief as we've got a lot of uh material on the agenda that's related to our conversation. But in brief uh the PPRR police policy uh
research and recommendations committee met on June 29th and we looked at the chief disciplinary decision report which uh we'll hear more about tonight. We uh talked about coaching practices um in depth. Uh and that was sort of a combination of um the chief disciplinary
decision report uh as an input, the Alifa fourth progress report and the coaching report they did or coaching audit they did. And then uh we also looked uh briefly at the internal audit and afteraction report on the Lucier and Mtori cases and all of those things
together informed our robust conversation on coaching. Uh we also looked at the 2014 study that was done by our forebears the PCOC and um uh led us to work on a request for a re a new course of or an updated course of
research and study which I'll present later this afternoon or this evening. Um so when we get to that part of the agenda, the only one other thing I'll say is um regarding transparency with MPD, we know this is important to the city and to MPD. um that has always been
at the forefront of the conversation. And so I believe it would go a long way for transparency if the approved policies that have gone through ALIFA and been signed off um but haven't been uh enacted because they haven't been trained on yet. if those could be
posted. Um, if there are if there's is capacity is an issue at the city, um, I would recommend asking Alifa to post them in the meantime on their website so that the public has access to, uh, what is the current or the the the coming policy, not just the current practices
and policies. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Is there any questions from commissioners? All right. Seeing now, ask the clerk to receive and file those reports. Thank you very much. Our next order of business is discussion. Uh first up we have the chief disciplinary decisions
report presented by Melinda Jeang, the policy and research coordinator for the office of public police conduct. And we have 15 minutes set aside for this report. Hello. Welcome. Um, before I get started, I wanted to just take a moment to take to give a
quick shout out to the policy and research team in OPCR, Tom and Chenise, and OPCR's management analyst, Joseph. Um, I may be the one presenting to you all today, but I did not create this report on my own. I have a team of colleagues who help, you know, gather the data, who help with quality control
and assist with the analysis. Um, and so, thank you to the amazing team at OPCR. I will try to be brief because I am sure you guys all have questions. So, uh the body requested an area of research around the review panel process and
outcomes. Uh this this report includes an analysis of the chief decisions from January 2024 through May of 2026. The data is reported by allegation, not by case count, just um because a case can have multiple officers and multiple
allegations. And then the report includes OPCR and IIA investigated allegations. And the data set only includes allegations routed for administrative investigation and reviewed by a review panel. And so that means this does not include the cases
that are routed directly to coaching through in through intake. Nor do they include the expedited cases. that um I think we all know this but want to reiterate that the police chief retains final authority over disciplinary decisions. So in making um their
decision the chief considers the full investigative case file which the review panel also receives um the review panel's recommendation the officer's employment record and then the discipline matrix in effect at the time of the incident. And there are a handful
of potential outcomes for the cases. Not sustained meaning that there was not a prepoundonderance of evidence to support the allegations of misconduct. Sustained A meaning that is a low-level one-time offense. So misconduct did occur but discipline was not imposed. And then we
have sustained B through E, which means that the misconduct did occur and discipline was imposed. Um and the discipline can range from a letter of reprimand through termination. And then we have two other potential outcomes as well. So exonerated. So that show that
means that evidence shows that the alleged conduct definitively did not occur nor or it did not involve the um named officer. And then exceptionally cleared is when an officer is separated from the department. So no longer an MP,
no longer a city employee. This chart displays the disciplinary outcomes of the 204 allegations in this data set. Um about 50% of the allegations were not sustained and then about 18% were sustained at a level A
again that means that it is a lowlevel offense. Um while so it's against policy it's isolated in nature and risk negligible negative impact on public safety and the image of MPD another about 18% was sustained at a
level B 3% sustained at a level C less we have one allegation here sustained at a level D and then about 4% of allegations were exonerated and then about another 4% were exceptionally cleared. So the officers are no longer
with MPD. This chart um goes a little bit further. So including the level of discipline, it also details the discipline that was imposed. And I do just want to make it clear that coaching is not considered discipline, but I wanted it I want it included in this analysis for you all to
see. So there were 38 allegations um remedied by coaching and then of those that were sustained at a level B about all of them were issued a letter of reprimand and only in a few cases was suspension issued and then there were um
a handful of suspensions at the level C and D violations. The allegations in this data data set spans 23 policy chapters. However, the bulk of the allegations about 75% of
them fell into five chapters. They're the ones listed here. So, highlighted here, I have code of conduct. So, these were the most um these allegations were the most common. However, they were also the least likely
to result in a sustained finding. So we have 61 allegations in this chapter and 40 of them were not sustained. That's about 66% of them. Next I've highlighted equipment and supplies 4200. So in contrast um
allegations involving equipment and supplies were more likely to result in a sustained finding. So with 17 of the 28 allegations resulting in either non-disciplinary corrective action or discipline. Here I have highlighted vehicle
operations. These allegations exhibited one of the highest rates of discipline among the major policy categories. Unlike equipment and supply allegations um which frequently resulted in coaching, sustained vehicle operations
allegations were more likely resulted in written reprimands or suspensions. And I know this section is of particular interest to the CCPO and the sworn panelists um who serve on the review panels. So, do the review panel recommendations align with the chief's
decision? In large part, yes. Um, in this data set, about 81% of the time, the chief is perfectly aligned with the review panel in the recommendations. The chief departures from the recommendations are pretty evenly split between imposing more discipline and
less discipline. And most of the time the um the departures are about one degree. So this pattern does suggest that the deviations reflect case specific assessments rather than systemic tendencies to increase or
decrease um disciplinary outcomes. And so how you read this chart is we have the panel recommendations across the columns there. So merit a through no merit and then um on the left side of the chart we have
the deviation degree. So how we would read this is if we're looking at column merit a down at nine because it's in the plus one that means in nine instances the ch the chief imposed an additional level of discipline. So you all
recommended an A. He he then imposed a B. Overall the results do demonstrate that the review panel recommendations are influential in the disciplinary process. Similarly, I conducted a comparative
analysis between individual panel votes and the panel recommendations. So, if a review panel composes of three panelists, um each panel will submit an individual vote and then the the simple majority of those votes determines the
panel recommendation. Overall, panelists agree with the majority recommendation in most allegations. However, voting patterns do emerge when we're looking at um the panelist type. So, a civilian versus a sworn panelist. So, sworn
panelists voted differently from the recommendation about 18% of the time. And in almost all of those departures, um sworn panelists recommended less discipline. And in contrast, civilian panelists when they voted differently, um they are more likely to recommend
more discipline. And then five quick key findings here. About half of the allegations in this data set were not sustained. Among the sustained allegations, 45% were coached. U misconduct allegations were concentrated within a small number of
policy areas and there is a high degree of consistency between the review panel recommendations and the final disciplinary decision. Um and lastly, review panel members generally showed strong agreement among each other. Um however when panelists departed from the
recommendation there are voting patterns that emerge by type. All right any questions for you? >> Any questions? Commissioner Kennedy >> if we could go back to the slide on the chief deviation. Yeah. So I just want to
make sure I understand you gave the example for the more discipline looking at the nine but could you also explain the less discipline using the three because and just to make sure you hit my confusion >> when we are talking about imposing less if there was a recommendation for merit
a does that mean no >> that he did not sustain the allegation that's correct >> thank you >> can you repeat that I'm sorry yes and So if we're looking at um column merit a down to three that falls in the minus
one row. So that means in three allegations the chief imposed less discipline by one degree. And because you all recommended a merit a one below that would be not sustained no merit. >> The the negative three if you could
rephrase that one three >> on on here. >> Oh yes. And so if we're looking at negative in in under less discipline under negative -3 going to the right there. So merit C. So that means that the review panel recommended merit C.
The chief imposed um what is it a decision three degrees less. So that would be no merit not sustained. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
Commissioner Shanfield, does that okay? >> Uh, this is a question I think for us here and um, uh, inviting of course guidance from the city as well, but um, when we conduct a course of research and study, then we want to talk about what do we recommend, what's going to happen next. I'm not sure if there are clear
recommendations that come from here quite yet, but I'd like to invite people to think about with me to think with me about what do we want to know next? what would help us understand um like what why do some of these violations keep
occurring? The 5100 in particular, we I went into that one. So 5-102 is professional conduct. And I I for my experience on the panels, I've seen that one more than one time. And I'm just curious if people could kind of think about their own experience with that. And
I'll share from from my perspective. um the policy itself is um is is pretty vague and so often the the in the conversation on a panel it's hard to prove that 5102 is violated. It's more more a matter of opinions and um that's
troubling to me because I know the department wants to be seen in a different way. Um so curious about if people could reflect on their experiences and if we have questions related to that in particular. >> Any thoughts or comments? When did this data set start?
>> Um, January 2024. >> It might be helpful, Commissioner Sham, for people to think on that and get get back to you. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think there's there's maybe a gap here between what the public we the public think of as professional conduct
and what's written on paper. And I think part of our job in terms of recommendations down the road is to figure out how do we close that gap both in terms of recommending improvements to behavior but also in terms of educating the public and understanding um so that
the complaints are really warranted and and um then action can be taken. The other one stood out. >> You're on. >> The other one that there was a lot um I think was domestic violence. Is that
right, Belinda? Commander Shamp we I'll just make sure that you >> Okay. One other one other thought um go ahead. One other thought occurred to me as I was reviewing this um which is that the types of discipline that we issue or
recommend we don't issue a discipline um but when we recommend um there's a written warning. there's no oral warning or verbal warning and in most jobs that is part of the discipline process and I'm curious why that is where that came
from. Um if there if that was something to uh recommend I think there are several cases in which I would have recommended that. >> Okay. I also have a question about are you guys seeing we don't get to see previous
discipline but I'm curious to know do you guys see all of the previous discipline before we get the investigative report. >> So we don't make um disciplinary decisions but the chief who does does see their disciplinary record? No, I mean before you all do your
investigation, do you have a list of the officer's previous discipline before you send us the investigative report? Does your staff see it before we get it? >> Only if there's a consideration for a
coaching referral. Otherwise, we try to remain So, I see. Go ahead. So I guess my question is just to make sure I clarify a a thought of a coaching referral. How does that happen then? Because you have
to know if the person had this discipline before. So if you don't get the information off top for everyone >> and that's going to be an assessment that we make in reviewing the complaint, the conduct and if it is during that initial intake review. If it
does seem to be a low-level, low impact violation, then we will look at the disciplinary history. If this is something that we wouldn't even consider for coaching and we would send to a full administrative investigation, we are not pulling the disciplinary history because we're evaluating the conduct in
isolation. We're we're reviewing that incident with that officer and that that is up to the chief to take into account any disciplinary history for mitigating or aggravating factors. And honestly, I I I would I know we're over time, but I
as you try to Oh, go ahead. >> Motion for what do you got? Five more minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? >> Director And I I just want to say and this is 100% not to discourage or
detract from any further um further requests or resolutions or questions around coaching. But I do want to just call back to our intake routing disposition numbers um from my presentation um over the past six months. Generally the
proportion of coaching routing decisions um compared to the overall number of complaints. And then I also want to highlight that a new discipline matrix will be helpful for for us as well in OPCR to have you know to not uh have as
much discretion and I say that in a way that you know we don't want to be operating on the fringe or in between discipline levels and trying to make that assessment as what is negative impact on MPD operations. what is negative impact on community trust u because I think there are very different
ideas on that none of which are are very helpful for making that decision um without any type of scrutiny now or in the future. I also think the Alifa coaching baseline assessment is also very a very helpful starting point
because that gives that sheds some light in terms of the types of decisions that were made and the different points at which those decisions were made either routings from internal affairs and OPCR or decisions made by the chief after a full administrative investigation. And I
think those are very important delineations in terms of where those decisions and routing decision where those routing decisions and where those disciplinary or non-disciplinary decisions are made and and I just I look forward to a
future audit and assessment that um you know under a new discipline matrix that makes this much uh I don't want to say much easier but just much clearer, much more predictable and much more transparent so that there aren't questions of what violation, what type
of violation, what type of conduct. Instead, it'll be very, it hopefully will be very clear and very well known what is eligible for coaching and level A recommendations and what is not. >> Okay. >> I just want to leave it at that. >> Any other questions? Commissioner Shamp.
>> Yeah, one other question for Linda. Um, uh, Miss Jong, uh, the the data, just to make sure that I'm understanding, um, it looks like on page four there's, um, a chart that has IIA and OPCR data. Is is IA data also woven
throughout the report? >> Yes, >> it is. Okay. So, we wouldn't need to request the same kinds of report be done from IIA. >> No. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> And I do have one clarifying question, Director Fujiso. So, just to make sure that I'm clear, a case comes in for intake. You see it's a low-level
offense. You decide, hey, this woman might be eligible for coaching. So, I'm going to request to see if this has ever been an issue in the past to see if it's for coaching. But if it's if it's not, there's no other time that you request to see previous discipline if it goes on to administrative re uh investigation.
>> Generally, no. >> Okay. >> Um and that again is because we were tasked with investigating an incidence of misconduct, not necessarily make an assessment of an officer's conduct over the course of their their tenure as a law enforcement officer.
And so like for for that example, I mean if we get a complaint about an officer uniform for example and depending on what what is wrong or what is what has been changed with our uniform and if it is again this is the the question of
public trust MPD operations but that's generally the type of violation that we're looking at for coaching um and for us to take into consideration um you know, disciplinary history for something larger or more impactful um
then that's starting to impact how our investigation is conducted. If the writing and the analysis is potentially biased, taking into consideration officer history versus this isolated incident, right? It is not our job to
influence um one way or another knowing that information of what that officer's past disciplinary history may or may not be. >> Okay. Thank you. I think some of my additional questions will be answered in the resolution coming forward later. >> Mr. Chen, >> I've just got Could you go back to the
chief de deviations from the panel recommendations? And I I really appreciate the work that has been put into this. I it's really really helpful. But this is this is the one on the less discipline that really jumps out as me out at me is worth a lot more
investigation because if you look at the less discipline, the three cases of minus1, five cases of minus2, one case of minus2, one case of minus3, all of those ended
up in merit a or no merit. And so that that's what 10 of the 19 that the chief changed to. We have no public record on that ever again. >> Um so that's that's a really troublesome thing and something that I think we need
to look at more. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. So we have two more questions and someone like to make a motion to extend time. >> So moved. F >> 10 minutes. >> Second. Is there a second?
>> Second. All right. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Commissioner Candy and then Commissioner Smith. >> Director Fuji Sawa. I have a followup to the chair's questions about uh the process for looking at past discipline.
It's helpful to unpack this because I I'm speaking for myself. We've maybe made some assumptions as to where that fit in the process. So taking what I've learned from you tonight, my question is now so who meaning which department is
responsible for that process at some point presumably kind of at the end of the investigatory stage? It sounds like even after the review panel has happened who is going back and making sure that the chief's process has everything that
should be there whether it was previous discipline coaching or whatever categories it might be. And and so you're talking about to ensure that the chief has the officer's disciplinary history to make an ultimate disciplinary decision. >> Right. And just one other quick comment just to explain why I'm asking what I'm
asking because it's now occurring to me that maybe whoever you're about to say as the answer for who is doing that is a group of people that are never before us talking about the process. And so that's what I want to understand. Are we ever hearing from the groups of people that
are are that part of the process? And so it's actually internal affairs that manages um and provides the disciplinary history of all the officers when it go when that case goes to the chief for a disciplinary decision and and so that is
from whom we request disciplinary history when we're making the consideration for a coaching referral um for those lesser violations. >> Commissioner Smith. Madam Chair, my comment for follow-up research was also on that uh table regarding the chief's
deviations. And if the chief deviated 34 different times, um I for follow-up research, I would love to see where he documented his deviation and explained it. And I'm guessing that we don't have
34 explanations. There'll be a fewer number, but what are the barriers to getting those explanations? If there was discipline imposed, those um chief's memos are public. You can find them on the on the discipline dashboard. Um but if he sustained it at
a level A or it wasn't sustained at all, then that information is not made public. >> Right. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Barts. >> Thank you. Um, director, can you say a little bit about how coaching cases are
being tracked in IIA and OPCR in terms of for your awareness of the history of coaching versus discipline so that that can, you know, so you know whether or not that officer has had coaching for the same thing more than once. And so
you're talking about if there is are we able to pull a history of coaching if that has been done? Yes. And so that is 100% so in if there's a low-level violation of a
uniform violation. Um first we're making sure that it does not uh go beyond the threshold of MPD operations public trust. We ensure that it is a minor violation
and then we request the blue card for that sworn member to ensure that they have not previously been coached on that incident and on on that policy and not that incident excuse me on that policy and so that this is not a repeat offense for which they are
being coached. So that is very much one of the main things that we are looking at. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. We'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report.
>> Um, item 11 is the discussion of policy 1-406, responsibilities and duties of supervisors. As chair of the police policy, research and recommendations committee, Commissioner Champ will begin the discussion. Commissioner Champfield.
Chair. Thank you. I'd like to invite people just to have a chance to flip to the policy here. It's after the OPCR presentation. It's about halfway through your packet. Um there's not a page number. It looks
like this. >> Yep. Mhm. >> I do have a second presentation if you would so allow. >> Yes, we would. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> I know. I had to go check the agenda to
see if it was on there. Yes. >> I just realized my microphone was not on the review panel. Yes, >> there we go. Thank you. Okay. Um I'm going to try to run through this quickly again um to save us some time so you guys can ask questions. Uh but again I
may be the one presenting this report but I was not the only one who drafted this report. So you know Chenise Watts who you are all very familiar with um provided me with an immense amount of support to get you know the survey together to get responses and then for the analysis as well
background. So similarly um this body requested an air of research around the review panel process on outcomes. The previous report was on the outcomes. This is now on the process. So the office of police conduct review drafted the survey in collaboration with the CCPL leadership, the chair and the vice
chair and then the committee chairs and then additionally with the CCPO's community engagement committee. I uh we received 16 respondents, seven civilian and nine sworn. Um I do want to note that this report should be interpreted as descriptive feedback from the
participants, not statistical representative conclusions for the process. All right, we conducted the online survey from April 7th through the 21st. The survey includes four sections um training and preparation, deliberation
and decision-making, perceptions of fairness and impact, and process challenges and improvements. The survey questions included statements rated on a likeart scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree with an additional notlicable option. We had
multiple select questions and open-ended narrative responses. All right. Overall, um, most respondents reported feeling confident interpreting investigative reports. They felt as though their fellow panelists came
prepared to deliberations and generally felt confident interpreting MPD policies. Um when asked to identify areas of additional training, half of the respondents requested more guidance related to MPD policy and application of
the disciplinary matrix. And then six of the 16 respondents indicated need for additional training related to the fac the facilitation of deliberations. I've also pulled quotes from respondents throughout the presentation. Um this one
demonstrates again the need for support around the application of the discipline matrix. I would say more clarity or brief overview on the discipline matrix. At times all three panel members had different opinions on what level the discipline was.
Next we have deliberation and decision making. Again um these responses to the like art statements were largely positive. Panelists felt as though their contributions were valued by other panelists. Respondents largely agreed that civilian and sworn panelists were
equally heard. And then pan panel deliberations were described as respectful. In every panel I've been a part of, discussions have been respectful, informative, and collaborative between sworn panelists and civilians. I've always felt that my perspective was
heard and that the group works together to reach fair and balanced outcomes. Although the liyker statements were largely positive, the narrative responses reflected more variability in panel experiences. So, a handful of respondents shared similar sentiments
around the need for clear um facilitation pro practices, noting that the panel process varies greatly depending on who the panel members are. And that emphasis um needs to be placed on the case file and not
personal perceptions of policing or what's seen on the news. So these responses support the request for more training around facilitating deliberations as stated in the training and preparation section of the survey. So perceptions of fairness and impact.
So results in this section reflected disagreement among um respondents particularly around panel composition and consistency of decision-m. So, six of the 16 respondents strongly disagreed that the current structure is fair and
balanced. All six of those respondents were sworn panelists. Pulled a quote from the responses. As far as the panel composition, it went from two sworn to two civilian, 50% sworn representation to two sworn and
three civilian, 40% representation, to now one sworn and two civilian, 33% sworn representation. Is that a fair and balanced structured? No. It has been consistently moving further and further from being balanced. And other
sentiments shared via the vignettes were similar to this. Despite concern on panel composition though, 81% of respondents believe that including both civilian and sworn panelists enhances the credibility of the recommendations.
Um, and I think this now has been addressed with the chief's decision report, but 40% of respondents do not know how the panel recommendations inform the decision. Again, pulled out a quote that represents most of what I've heard from the responses. I do not
generally see the chief's final outcome to know whether the panel recommendation is being followed, but I have heard that this is not the case at all, which completely devalues the process. Also, it may be helpful for panelists to know if the chief is interpreting policy differently than the panelist. Again,
shared sentiments across multiple respondents. So overall, the survey responses reflect continued support for the review panel process um for the inclusion of both civilian and sworn perspectives while
also identifying areas of improvement. Um the three being a need for clearer and more consistent guidance regarding MPD policy, standard of proof and the application of dis the disciplinary matrix, a stronger desire for facilitation and more standardized
deliberation protocols and uncertainty regarding how panel recommendations are considered in the final disciplinary decision. Um, OBCR is already working on addressing some of these, the last one, through the chief's decision report and any sort of consequent report that comes
out and then also looking into creating some sort of um standard protocol for deliberations. Not meant to be prescriptive, but a guide if you need one. >> Okay, any questions? >> Any questions from commissioners? Mhm.
>> All right, Commissioner Kennedy. >> I hesitated because I admit there's probably not a question in everything I'm about to say. Um, but it's a thought. So, uh, first I really appreciate this report too. Um, and agree with the point you made while
speaking on this report, which is the previous report has maybe or arguably addressed some of the weaknesses that this report on the review panels is highlighting. Um, I'm thinking of we had a a public comment tonight that spoke to the long delay that uh or the long
process. I won't even call it a delay, but the long process that discipline can um take. And that's also true from our perspective as um civilian panelists because although we can
learn where to go on the website to look at the the review information and we're getting better at getting reports like this to get information on the chief's discipline. I think part of the reason there's a huge disconnect here is sometimes a year or two years could pass
even after we see something in a in a review panel. Maybe that's an overstatement. Maybe it's not that long from review panel to final outcome, but it's still a significant amount of time. So anyway, all that's background to share essentially some brainstorming I was doing here. One thing that might
help all of us get a better sense of how this process works and how the chief's decision impacts or how it relates to um review panels is if we could kind of develop data sets of
cases that go through the end of the review panel process. Um, say for example, we track all the cases that go through review panel in 2026 and we are then given data on that
cohort of decisions and then instead of just releasing the chief's decisions kind of or I'll say in addition to releasing the chief's decisions over time, if we could also get periodic reports of how the chief's decisions relate to our 2026 cohort of cases.
Right? I'm not sure I'm describing it in the best way, and this is an initial thought, but I don't think we do any of that right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be the best way I could think of to try to like over time build a real comparison between what happened
in the phase we see and what happens at the chief's decision process. >> Understood. Yeah. Um, I think that was an idea that was floated at PPRR is perhaps the chief's decision report is an annual report or maybe a uh um you know a bi-annual report of some sort. I
will say that there is largely a delay from when you guys are reviewing the case to when that final disposition is um made is because the officers do have a legal right to appeal whatever the decision that the chief imposes. And so
because that appeal process exists, um we are not allowed to talk about those cases even at an aggregate form. And so all of the data points in my reporting for the chief's decision or decisions that have already been through the appeals process or the appeals process
have been declined. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Clement. >> I Well, I don't really have a question. And I just so then it looks like that as like a commission just kind of like hearing this data and kind of unpacking these things is we need to start
navigating just the decree in general and looking at how is it that 50% of the changes that were that we made the recommendations that we made for don't have to be explained to
us. um and um how can we see um previous discipline because that is ultimately really important. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> All right, seeing none. Now >> we have another one.
>> Oh, Commissioner Sheffield. I wanted to follow up on what Commissioner Smith um mentioned that the community engagement uh uh folks suggested um there be a time for officer uh sworn members and civilians to unpack this data together.
Could you speak to um how we could make that happen? >> Yeah, so the body has to present you know a more um what is it formalized idea and then we can move on with that. I believe that that conversation is going to go back to the community engagement committee so they can flesh
out the details of that, but we're in support of something like that. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? >> All right. Thank you very much. We'll ask the clerk to receive and file those reports. And now, Commissioner Shanfield 1-406.
>> Thank you, Chair. >> Yes. Um, give people a minute again to flip to the right page. There are lots of policies in this packet, but this is 1-406. It's right after the presentation um Miss Jang just gave. Uh quick walk through. This is the
policy that governs the uh behavior, responsibilities, and duties of the supervisors. The old version, um this is a you can't see the red lines in this version, but this is the version that's up for comment. And so there's some changes the department has already made to this. Um the biggest of being that
the duties are much more detailed and outlined here. I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that coaching is mentioned in this policy and so this our review of this policy may be a place to make some of the recommendations we are talking about. Let me find that part for
you. If anybody finds it first, please tell me. What are you saying here? Um, under it's on page six, I think.
It's on fourth. Oh, this is the red line. Thank you. >> The top of the fourth page. Thank you, Miss Py. >> Responsibilities of sworn super. So on page four in the middle there's a bar that says room number five responsibilities of sworn supervisors.
Right above that it says that the responsibility and duties of the supervisor is to complete the steps into 104 which is the new coaching policy for matters referred for coaching. So I think we should look at those two alongside each other. Um as you'll
remember the policy 2-104 2-103 we reviewed them back in January. um and they've been approved in the most recent AIFA report and so now the training will have to happen before they go live. So I think some of our work to be done is to think about in the interim in the next
six months what will um close the gap here um so that not as many things get referred for coaching uh uh without um without uh uh sufficient details. The thing that I like about this rewrite
so far is that it requires supervisors to meet with their supervises on a monthly basis, um, that's something that we haven't seen before and that suggests some more proactive and preventative steps to the process. Um, I'm of the
mindset that all discipline should come with coaching. Um, it is part of the process. Um, and so I I think that that is a a positive here. I'd like to invite comments. You may have had a chance to read this policy, you may not have. We
will be looking at this at the next PPRR meeting and then we will not have time to come back to the full body in order to submit the recommendations. So um any comments you have uh tonight would be great and or in email in the meantime so that um we can pull together the
recommendations. Let me stop. So invite other folks. Okay. Anyone have any comments or questions on 1-406 in relation to 2-103? You need a minute to look at 21103. That should be in your packet as well.
Uh >> I see is a separate handout. >> Oh, thank you. Yep. So, the separate handout 21103, this is the current policy in effect. It's the old version, quote unquote, but this is what's in effect and will be in effect until likely next year.
Okay. take a couple minutes to review it and then if you have anything you'd like to add, just let me know. Otherwise, we can submit by email if that's helpful. You have the new copy as well of all the 2100s in your packet. That's why it's so
thick. So, now you have the old version or the current version, the approved new version, uh, which is 44 pages long. So, I don't know that people will have time now to do that, but um I'd like to make a motion that the police policy research and recommendations committee then
review um will take any comments that come in the meantime from the public as well as from the um commission. Uh and we'll discuss them and submit uh recommendations on behalf of the body as a whole by the deadline in August, early August. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Uh any further discussion? Were you Were you going to give us a deadline? Were you going to give us a date? >> You said early August, but like when do you want that info? >> It's due to the implementation unit I believe by August 7th. Is that right, Sam?
>> Thank you. So, we would we would like your feedback before our next meeting. That would be great. Yeah. Let me just see when that is. >> July 20th. >> Yep. July 20th. Yep. Thanks for asking, Jen. All right. Seeing no further discussion.
All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right. PPR will bring recommendations forward. We'll have until July 20th to get those comments to Chair Champfield. Anything else, Chair
Champfield? All right. Thank you. or ask the clerk to receive and file that report. Um the comments and recommendations from tonight's meeting will be compiled into a document and submitted by the police policy research
and recommendations committee on behalf of the body as a whole. I would invite um if there's not any thing else uh next is a discussion facilitated by Commissioner Sheffield on coaching. Get two Thank you, chair.
In our PPR work plan from LA start that we started last June, so it's just about to expire now. Um, we said we wanted to uh figure out how to examine the coaching practices and uh recommend refinements to the standards and practices for coaching that was on our
agenda. Um, and it seems to be a perfect storm of events now. uh what we would like to do um in our discussion at our last PPR meeting. The conversation um resulted in sort of two big buckets of
of curiosities. One was how do we assess coaching outcomes since the settlement agreement has been in place? Have things improved? And then um we'd also just like to know more about the coaching process. Some of it seems um uh uh veiled. And so we'd like to understand
the procedures um and also how the outcomes are documented, tracked and evaluated. So is there a play a world in is there details um and a and a process to determine whether the coaching has
successfully addressed the identified performance or policy concern. We'd really curious about the efficacy of the process as well um and and how it happens. Um uh and so we uh put together uh a resolution which you have a copy of
on your uh desk here um that details all those things. So I'll just walk you through it very briefly. Um on the bottom of the first page, uh it's it it asks for an aggregate summary of
the the types um of allegations and which policies much like the report that Miss Jang presented tonight. Um we're also looking for the number of officers who may have multiple coaching violations for similar uh violations,
separating the cases that are routed to coaching from intake. as we've been discussing tonight uh as o versus as the result of a panel that those coaching perhaps are are of different weight. Um so we wanted to look at that and then the frequency of coaching as the result
of a review panel how often that happens. Um and then in light of the discussion we've had earlier please. Okay. >> Um, the other piece uh that we were curious about is cases that were previously in the last several years
assigned to category A of coaching that would no longer be eligible for coaching under the settlement agreement because of what's now not allowed to be coached. So, we were wanting to look at that data. And then on the back you'll see um
in addition um we were asking uh OPCR for parts of the manual that detail the process that do uh director Fuji Zawa has outlined tonight. Um they'd like to look look at that in writing and understand it better. And then um the
last paragraph is uh a request for MPD to teach us more about the process um sort of lift the uh hood up and understand what is currently being coached, how it's happening and a description of the training that prepares supervisors to do that
effectively. That will help inform our 1-46 review as well. Um we were requesting to um this course of research and study really not be um a new course of research and study but we
read the coaching study done by the PCOC in 2014 which is here in the packet as well. Um some things have changed since then. So we were hoping for an update um of the coach of that report. And so we were asking for this to be done by early September. The date here is September
5th. Um so that it would be available for the public hearing um which we've decided is the 17th. Is that right? What questions do people have about this andor additions are welcome?
>> Any questions? All right. Seeing none, anything else? Commissioner Sheffield, >> I will make two very small edits to this copy um semantic and um would love to put this up for a motion if
>> you want to formulize the motion for the the notes your microphone. >> Yeah, I would like to make a motion um for the committee to adopt this uh resolution for course of research and study on MPD coaching.
>> Okay. Is there a second? >> Smith's second. >> All right. Any further discussion? Clerk, I ask you to call the role on this motion, please. >> Did you want to make your edits? Didn't Did you say you had?
>> Yes. Can I just say what they are? Okay. Um on the first page, one, two, three, the third bullet point, it says um via intake subsequently coached after review panel reviewed the case. We'd like it to say the review panel and the chief
reviewed the case. Okay. And then the final bullet point on that page, is that right? Yeah. Uh where it says an assessment and that that same line with which a coaching is a result of um it
should just say decision of the chief. Okay. With the motion on the table with those two edits, I'll have the clerk call the role. >> Commissioner Mlehaney >> I. >> Shanfield >> I. >> Newman
>> I >> Clement >> I >> Canada >> I >> Barts is absent. Uh Smith >> I. >> Vice Chair Olsen >> I >> and Chair Reeves >> I. >> There are eight eyes.
>> All right. Thank you. The motion passes. The final item on our agenda is the public hearing next steps. Um, Miss Pini, were you going to address that with the annual um report? It's not on here. >> Yeah,
>> it's uh it's been kicked by the clerk's office. So, that'll be a future point at a meeting. >> All right. Thank you. Well, seeing that there's nothing else on the all items on the agenda for this meeting, I'm sorry. >> Okay. Without any objection, the commission stands adjourned. Have a good
evening everyone. Thank you.