 Thank you all for coming today. We will like to present seven pillars of our public safety community safety proposal. Each one of the pillars has an immediate action step as well as several other proposed action. Some components of our proposal or action steps you've heard from us many times over the last two and a half years that just haven't happened yet. Some of the ideas are new ideas that came over several community conversations we've had over the past few months. It's a proposal we've invited many community members to co-create this with us, but we haven't invited everyone. So we are still open to feedback and we're open to changes. All of this is really just to start a different conversation about how we create a safe community and to move us toward meaningful action. I'll hand it off to Joe for the first three pillars. The first pillar that I'm going to touch on is gun violence prevention. Concerns about gun violence in our community are valid and we should be working proactively to interrupt cycles of violence and keep everyone safe. In order to do that, we have to start by engaging those communities who are most affected by gun violence, predominantly victims of domestic and intimate partner violence, communities of color, and poor and working people. Succeeding in this work requires us to acknowledge that those most impacted by gun violence often have deep mistrust of law enforcement and as a result are unable to work with police on prevention strategies. We must address root causes of violence and support organizations that have the trust of these communities. We must recognize the role that domestic violence plays in gun violence and homicides, with 50% of homicides in Vermont attributed to domestic violence, including recent gun deaths here in Burlington. We also must engage and support local partners who have strong connections with new American and BIPOC youth. This is an area where we agree with Mayor Weinberger and we are grateful to Director Carson for taking a leadership role in the newly created city task force on gun violence prevention. We hope the task force will consider looking at the care violence model and other community violence interruption models. Care violence works at the hyper local level to reduce gun violence and homicides with the ultimate goal of shifting culture over time. Studies from the Bronx show a near immediate decrease in gun violence with the 63% reduction in shooting victimizations and 37% decline in gun injuries. In Philadelphia, data suggests that implementation of care violence is responsible for a 30% reduction in the rate of shootings and the data also show a steady decrease in the number of young people choosing violence. The second pillar that I want to touch on here is increasing capacity for alternative responders. We continue to ask too much of police officers and EMTs here in Burlington, especially with rising cases of mental health crises and overdose that we've seen in recent years. It is not fair to them or to the community to expect police and EMTs to be primary responders to public health crises without the tools or the training to do so adequately. We need trained mental health clinicians, medical support staff with first responder capacity to be able to address acute mental health crises with the goal of reducing harm and using trauma-informed care. That is the purpose of the crisis response team modeled after the CAHOOTS program in Eugene, Oregon. At around 2% of the police department budgets of Eugene and Springfield, CAHOOTS responded to nearly 24,000 calls for service and only called for police backup and 311 of those calls. They also saved Eugene $8.5 million in public safety costs and nearly $14 million in ambulance rides and emergency room visits. This model has been partially funded in the past two city budgets at $400,000, but the implementation continues to be delayed as we wait for additional funding to bridge the gap. Given the rising calls for service related to mental health and overdose as reported by BPD, it's clear that this resource is sorely needed and we need to do everything we can to get that off the ground immediately. Additionally, since 2020 progressives, especially Councilor Hightower, have asked the administration to increase the number of CSLs. We've traditionally had two. We now have three, and the Council approved up to six positions. Now the department is in the process of hiring the additional three positions. They've had the funding approved since July since we approved the city budget. So it's long overdue that we get these alternative responders in the field. In that budget we approved additional CSO positions as well. We brought the total number of CSOs up to 12 from 8, and we are seeing these positions be very successful. They have responded to nearly 20% of the incident volume that BPD has seen in the last year. The bottom line is this. Officers acknowledge that they don't have the tools of the training to adequately respond to calls related to homelessness, mental health, and substance use disorders. At the same time, we are seeing these alternative responders have a big impact in the short time that they have been on board. As we've seen in communities like Eugene, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado, increasing resources for alternative responders will have positive and near immediate impact in improving outcomes, responding to calls traditionally handled by the police department and the fire department. And I'll hand it off to Councillor Hightower now to go through the next pillars. I'm going to talk through our next two pillars which are addressing root causes and increasing support survivors and victims of crime. We as a community, as a state, and as a country have been underinvesting in community care for decades. What we're seeing now are the holes in our outdated safety net combined with the stress of COVID. We didn't put care systems into the place and it shows in the number of people who have fallen through the cracks. We know this is not happening because of the loss of officers in our department. Other departments without a loss are having the same uptake in car theft and gun violence. This is happening across our state and across our country because we've left too many people on the margins who didn't have the means to weather a shock to their life, be it a car breaking down, an injury, or an increase to their rent. Lack of resilience became systemic with the shock of COVID. Doubling down on crime and punishment doesn't help us much in the short term and it certainly doesn't help us in the medium term or the long term. We can double down on drug dealers. We're not, but we could, but if we don't address addiction, what good have we done? What have we actually fixed? Billions of federal dollars show that we can't war our way into a drug-free America. We can double down on theft, but if we don't address people going into debt due to healthcare needs, what have we done? What problem have we solved? We can double down on camping in our city, but if folks have literally nowhere else to go, what have we accomplished? Right now we're talking about tough guy fall spandades on the symptoms and leaving the disease untreated. We need to start thinking about the disease. Research is clear that real safety happens when communities invest in taking care of each other and make sure people have what they need to thrive, which is affordable housing, strong public schools, vibrant public spaces, and access to healthcare, which includes substance misuse treatment and mental health resources. Criminalization is not the answer and never has been. What could we achieve if we spent the $57,000 a year that it cost incarcerates someone on proactive support instead? What if we spent the salaries that the officers we currently don't have on real community care? We need to right now stop doubling down on our old playbook of crime and punishment and integrate plans for reducing bias, housing access, little wages, corrections reentry, and healthcare. One of the ways that that looks like is focusing not just on the folks who are doing crime, who are probably also historically victims, but also focusing on victims. The police have only gotten involved if a crime happens and there is a suspect. No suspect or way of obtaining one, no police action. Not historically, not today, and not in the future, but a crime still happened and it happened to someone. We spent so much time focused on punishment that we as a society have chronically undervalued what victims actually really want or need, and they don't always want police action. University of Vermont researcher Kathy Fox noted in VT Digger last year, overwhelmingly, victims report higher degrees of satisfaction with restorative processes than traditional criminal proceedings. Similarly, a 2060 study shows that by a margin of three to one, victims believe prison is more likely to make people commit crimes than to rehabilitate them. Victims seven to one would rather see investments in mental health than jail and four to one and drug treatment. Let's listen to victims and let us support them. If for every $10 we invested in crime and punishment as a society and as a city, if we could spend even $1 in making victims whole again, be that fixing a broken car window or providing free access to mental health treatment after a violent crime, we would be a different community. The 2020 racial justice resolution requested demanded that we spend the funds of any attrition and BPD on community care. We've had plenty of attrition, but no reinvestment in community care or supporting victims. Let's change that this year. I want to talk about transparency and community control. It's no secret that we witnessed police excessive use of force against young men of color. Officer involved shootings and fatalities and scandals that led to the resignation of two police chiefs. Police Commissioner Stephanie Seguino has documented racial disparities in police stops for years. This did not start in 2020. And all of this has eroded community trust in the police department and trust is crucial for public safety, for all of our safety. To restore and maintain trust, we believe there must be greater community oversight and transparency. When the mayor vetoed the community control proposal two years ago, he and others said that the existing near monopoly of power of the chief over discipline was an aberration in our democratic system. He promised that they would strengthen the role of our police commission, which is the existing appointed community oversight body that's embodied in our charter already. But he did not. And it is disappointing that the mayor's next steps to advance public safety did not include a commitment to push for the reforms to strengthen the role of the police commission. It is disappointing that he and the acting chief have taken an adversarial position with the commission. And if you want some specifics, look at the commission's 2022 annual report that they presented to the council on September 19th. And if you look at the tape of that footage, you'll see some of us commenting about it as well. To build trust and transparency and fix the monopoly aberration, we should formally strengthen the powers of the commission through the adoption of the ordinance that it requested. And we should also fund the police monitor and staff attorney positions that they have asked for. I want to now move to address the proposed community control board that thousands, thousands of Burlington voters petitioned for. We supported an independent community control board two years ago and it passed the council seven to five. So did the ACLU Vermont at that time and hundreds of Burlington residents spoke in favor of it at that time. It was positively, positively vetted by the National Association for Community Oversight of Law Enforcement, NACOL. The CNA report also supports greater community control in the discipline process. Now, after the veto, thousands of Burlington voters petitioned for the right to vote on an independent board. And we want to say right here and now that we support those voters and we support their oversight proposal and we hope that the voters approve it. Let me speak on a few specifics in relationship to what the mayor criticized about this proposal. The mayor is wrong when he says that the proposal gives exclusive authority to the BPD to a board of over the BPD to a board of unelected officials. The proposal focuses on investigating disciplinary problems alone. Supervision, training, deployment, rules and regulations, host of all the operations are still vested in the chief. The police commission still has the oversight over monitoring and auditing that the charter through the council gives it. Fearmongering, this fearmongering is just plain wrong. The mayor is wrong when he says the proposal will exclude the chief from all discipline of department personnel. There's a whole section on the department's powers of investigation and adjudication of complaints. You should check it out. It's right there in the proposal. The fearmongering is just plain wrong. The mayor is wrong to complain about an unelected board having the power to investigate and discipline police misconduct. Look at the diversity of the board and the selection committee for the people who are actually going to be choosing the board. Who among the listed types of people and groups is the mayor afraid of? The board will be appointed. That's just like the existing police commission and every other single commission. The city council and the mayor appoint a selection committee. It's made up of representatives of community based organizations, but we get to choose them. Plus the mayor, plus the REIB director and a city counselor. I believe that the proposed board is much more democratic and inclusive than investing absolute authority in the chief like the current charter does. It's more democratic and inclusive than the current appointment process for commissions that we have right now. Finally, on just making this critique, the mayor's position is wrong in claiming that the proposal will undoubtedly undermine our efforts to rebuild the department. And accelerate the department of current officers. One of the problems is that that claim itself can be self fulfilling. The CNA report speaks to a lack of consensus among BPD members and community stakeholders regarding police services. The attack on this proposal is no way to build consensus. We should embrace a democratic community control over our police department. The proposal simply codifies the principle that the police should not police themselves, but they are accountable to the communities that they serve. I want to focus on the seventh pillar right now that is the elimination of racial disparities in policing. When we talk about community safety, it's important to make sure that we're talking about safety for everyone. The CNA assessment of the BPD noted what we've known for years now that data shows racial disparities in BPD traffic stops, traffic stop outcomes, arrests and use of force. Without eliminating racial bias in policing, many members of our community will continue to avoid calls for service and see the police as a threat rather than a resource. And I would just point you to the seven days warning shot story. It made that absolutely clear. A key reason for the lack of community trust is that BPD still hasn't taken accountability for the ongoing racial disparities in our policing. The last report that was issued by the department doesn't address that, although their data year after year has shown those discrepancies. We need to do better if we're going to come together as a community. The BPD must acknowledge the reality of bias in policing. It's telling that one of CNA's recommendations was simply that the BPD consider accepting what local data has shown repeatedly about disparity and traffic stops and use of force. And just to quote or pretty much quote the report. Key training topics such as procedural justice, implicit bias, fair and impartial policing, restorative justice, response to mental health calls, cultural competency, and de-escalation are either covered insufficiently, not required, or not covered doing either new officer training or annual in-service training. The mayor's position on partnering with the Center for Police Equity does not fully address this problem. It should. We're glad the mayor's plan includes increased training on bias. We're concerned it simply calls for A training. Training has to be ongoing and not just a box that gets checked. And finally, we should act on the request by the Commission to engage the Center in data assessment and propose solutions for departmental racial bias, whether that is intentional or it's implicit or systemic. The mayor's plan is silent. The Commission asked for this a long time ago. We believe it should be done. Thank you for your attention. As we've outlined here today and will share broadly this afternoon, there are many areas where Burlington can and should choose to lead on public safety transformation. The document that will release this afternoon is intended to serve as the foundation for a broader community conversation. We welcome and encourage folks to read it, process it, and provide feedback. This is just the next step in building a community where everyone feels safe. And we are called to participate in imagining what that looks like. Thank you all and we'll now take some questions. Yeah, so certainly part of it is state funding. You know, I think we we've known since we were engaged in budget conversations in the late spring and summer last year that the money that we had allocated for it wasn't going to be enough. We passed a budget resolution that called for this program to be off the ground by October 31. So I think it is a it's a mixture of a lack of awareness around capacity to actually get that program off the ground and the state not being as quick with with funding support as well. And by capacity, we have a community partner who's ready to implement the the model we just don't have the final funding to make it happen. In the budget process, we asked we said we know we're not allocating enough to this what's our plan for if the state doesn't come through. Are we ready to fund it because we know that we needed this program yesterday. Now we know we don't know when the state funding is coming or if it's coming and I think we just need to say as a community we know that we need this. We have to find a way to fund it even if that is within our own resources. The majority on City Council, how do you hope that you can get some of these really ambitious measures off the ground and get them, you know, to the city to work. Well, we've not had a majority in the City Council and the whole time I've been here we've only had a half which always meant that it's the same it's the same strategy we've always needed another vote to pass anything. Which continues to be the case so it's working across the aisle making compromises finding ways to push things forward. The difficulty maybe with not having half is that we don't have the same leverage to say this isn't okay we need you to compromise with us. Again that just means now also on the other side not just on passing things but also on saying no to some of the mayor's initiatives working across the aisle and saying can you stand with us until we get some of the more important things that we think into the proposal. I was just going to also note that, you know, many of these proposals that we've been talking about for two and a half years have support from Democrats and independents as well. So, you know, progressives aren't standing alone in calling for some of these things but that doesn't mean that the delays aren't still happening. Let me just add one other thing which is that if you recall when the Board of Health brought forward the gun resolution asked us to do that. We had had conversations with them but that also included working with Democratic counselors. And it was in that context that we raised, progressives raised the need for research on gun violence. And I'm happy that the mayor has included this in his proposal that you saw. I totally support that and it's the type of thing where when we start to float these ideas they become part of the public process. They become seriously considered and there is an example where it got picked up. And I'm just really pleased that that was the case and I think all of these things are things that we'll continue to do in that vein. Some of these initiatives can be enacted. There was fairly low turnout at the caucus just wondering if some folks could speak to that. Coach, that's to me. We are excited about, I mean, we are excited about our candidates. I think we've got a great suite of candidates in many of the districts and for the Ward 8 election. In 2020 was the first time that we got to the half. It's not going to happen for us every time. I'm hopeful that we'll get there again in 2024 and that we'll run those competitive races and try to get at least half of the council again. But again, I feel like progressives especially are power very much rests in people power. So that as much means getting folks excited about volunteering and on the doors. We did have progressives still hold the record for the largest caucus turnout. But yeah, I think we're excited to run competitive races. I would note that the 860 some odd of the supposed I don't know for a fact that I'll take it as truth. A thousand Democrats came from word five. We did pretty darn well when you think when you have to weigh the numbers up. Are we going to see calls for more going forward? I certainly think that we should be investing in these positions more. You know, during the budget process last year for the current fiscal year, the acting chief came with came to the board of finance with a proposal that asked for still increases, but smaller increases than we actually ended up with. And I think the fact that we are seeing CSOs and CSLs responding to such a substantial number of calls with relatively a little lead time in terms of how long they've been with the department. I think we're seeing the success already and these are positions that we can hire much more quickly. We can deploy them much more quickly than we can with uniformed officers. So yes, I think we absolutely have to be investing more in those positions. And just to add to that, I think a couple years ago, I know there was a progressive counselor that was basically laughed at for proposing an armed police officer. The fact that we have 10 now is a huge move from that position just a couple years back. And so I think sustainable growth is going to be important. So definitely make like analyzing the data. We already have some of the early data in terms of how many calls those folks can handle basically almost independently and some early data on how much not just even if they're not doing it independently, how quickly an armed police officer can leave the scene after making sure that it is stable and safe and then can have a much more long term proactive addressing of like, okay, let's have a conversation about what's going on. Let's have a community service liaison follow up the next day or the next week or the next month or whatever is needed. So yes, I think there is opportunities for growth. I think we're still waiting for some more additional data on how effective that program is before we expand it. I just want to say it in my work around my ward in particular, I've heard folks talk about safety in Palma Ray Park, talk about Roosevelt Park, talk about Battery Park. And when I have raised the question of presence saying that we need to have presence uniformly, people in those neighborhoods have said that having presence does not mean that they have to be armed officers. Park Rangers, CSL, CSOs are all part of a solution because presence is really important. So I think that we'll obviously, as Araya said, we'll see data. But this is something that from my interactions with folks, people are definitely supportive of and I think it only makes sense in the anecdotal experiences that I've had out there. Sort of like getting followed by a cop when you're driving, you do tend to slow down. Having people present is a good thing. In terms of all these priorities today, would you say they are a response to the mayor's conference last week or were these things that were in the works anyway? How would you describe why today essentially? So I would say it's a mix of both. We've definitely, over the last year, heard the mayor's tone change from transparency, accountability, transformation to rebuild back to normal, which so we've heard the shift over the last year. So half of this is a response to that. The other half is we've definitely started being more proactive on having community conversations and distilling that into what the themes are that we're hearing and what we really want to prioritize. So this is coming out of feedback and input from a lot of different organizations and folks in the community. And then to some extent it is a response to what we kind of expected to hear on Friday based on what we've been hearing over the last year. So we wanted to, we're glad that some of the things that we've been talking about, like being more proactive and reaching out to communities who are most affected by gun violence and some other things are in the proposal, but we expected there to be gaps and we're happy to be presenting those gaps. So I guess I have two points on that, which one is we, back when I was on the Public Safety Committee, we had for a long time, we did a whole review of the CNA report and I heard the one of the assigned delegate of reviewing the CNA report from the Burlington Police Officers Association to say that they're not opposed to community oversight. And I think, which is a different position than the Chief, but who in that meeting very much said he was very, when we already knew he was very opposed to community oversight. I don't think that this is a universal opposed to. I think that this is the beginning. I think if the department wants to rebuild trust and wants folks to be supportive of the department, this is a great first step. It's just saying having more transparency. I think there can be some compromise and conversation around what that looks like. But I think one of the reasons it's hard to be a police officer now is because of the lack of trust and the lack of trust comes from all of this. And so I think this is actually the start to improving the system. It's not in any way an attack on the officers. Just like when we do a financial audit, it's not an attack on our accountants. It's us doing our due diligence. There's another point that I have, but I'm sure somebody else will say it. I mean, I addressed that in my prepared remarks. I just think that at its basic point, it is fear mongering that creates a tenor, which actually reinforces that. So the opposition to that, I think, is not helpful. I just don't buy it myself. Oh, I remember my second point, which is that the city council has done everything essentially that the acting chief and the mayor have asked in terms of rebuilding. That's everything from salary increases, bonus increases, a really historic kind of new union contract that is supportive of officers. And I'm not sure that that's getting at some of the problems. I think ultimately the reason it's a hard department to work for is trust. And so we have to start with addressing that. And I think there's other departments in Vermont who aren't having the same issues that we are because they're committed to transforming and transparency. His points in regard to rebuilding that were in his plan for the most part, with the exception of this one point, seem to me to make a lot of sense. So if you're looking to build a community that's not divided, if you're looking to build consensus, then I believe that we should be focused on those things. And I think that there is agreement on it. The initiatives that you find most opposition to are things that you don't like the most out of his plan. Have you got to compromise on those? Well, there's some things that I don't like, but I think a big part. For me, I'm more focused on the gaps. I think, for example, Jean mentioned this in his statement, but when the police commission came out with their report, the mayor started the speech on how could they be focusing on bias when we should just be focusing on rebuilding the department. And I was like, Maro, you're focused on rebuilding that we can't all like, if you're not focusing on transformation anymore, at least let the police commission focus on transformation. And so I think this for us is as much as about having the other conversation about what makes community safety, which is all of the things that we just talked about. And so I'm, I think, less worried about getting rid of some of the things in the mayor's proposal and more worried about having him address a lot of the things that weren't in his proposal. I don't know if the other counselors feel differently, but. He did add the study, right, for gun violence. That was not part of his thinking before we brought it to his attention and asked that it be included. So I think, as Zariah said, they have asked and where they have been reasonable. We have given them our support and so bridging that. I mean, things are two way streets, right? So, you know, we have put out desires and we hope that they'll be matched with the good faith that we're all trying to provide. I'm wondering if you could weigh in on how you plan to vote on John Muir as your appointment when that comes up. And if you could say why? Sure. I am still a no on confirming acting chief Muir as the permanent chief. I think council progressives were very clear this time last year when the mayor brought that appointment forward. We were very clear with what we wanted to see change to have the department acknowledge that racial disparities still exist and that bias is the result of racial bias. I still haven't seen the acting chief take that position. And worked proactively to address it. And, you know, we just continue to see an adversarial relationship with the police commission hearing from folks the way the acting chief presents himself is not effort at collaboration with with folks that all have a very a vested interest in seeing transformation and progress move forward. And in most cases are willing to have conversations with him to make that happen. And so for those reasons I am still opposed and I don't know that there's much that could change that would flip my vote. And I'm going to add to just because I have a slightly different position is I a year ago laid out to the mayor the four things that I needed to see which are very public. And you've seen them on what I would need to see change. So I for me this is as much on the mayor as it is on anybody else as the acting chief supervisor is. I just wanted a performance improvement plan and some outcomes before I and now a year later I don't have those things and I'm being asked. Maybe asked to have the same vote and my answer won't change until I see the concerns that Joe just laid out being addressed, especially on the. I don't think you can ask the current city council to appoint an acting chief who still hasn't said that the racial disparities that we see that they see in their own data are real, or that isn't willing to create a plan to address some of the confrontational energy, especially when experts disagree with him. So I think that's on the mayor to create a plan for that. I am more aligned with Zariah on this one when I met with the mayor before I was sworn in. I said if there was a real commitment to transformation that I would be very open to changing my position. It was a position that I posted on the front porch forum prior to his the last appointment vote and explained the reasons I have not seen the motion that's necessary to change that. And I've heard continuing problems with regard to demeanor. I am I'm concerned that our police chief, even well intentioned, even really smart will have the type of relationships and not embrace the type of transformation that. That he has in that we need talking about the demeanor and in the transformation. So at this point, I will not vote yes, perhaps if he were to hold off and can do and do that work plan, you know, that would, you know, hope springs eternal and dies last. I'm going to make one more point, which is one of the other requirements. What for me was oversight supporting oversight as we've to the question of, will that affect morale? The, the mayor put out his own proposal for oversight that hasn't gone anywhere, but he did put one out two years ago. And so I say that at a minimum, if we're having a transformational chief, they have to support the mayor's version of oversight, which I think is a fair bar. Which again, like the BPOA seemed open to discussion. And I don't think I think if we have an acting chief who's opposed to any kind of oversight of the police department that is going to create a. I don't believe in trickle trickle down effect into the officers in terms of how that is perceived as a threat as opposed to as a opportunity. So one thing that strikes me, I frequently hear people say that we need to restore the trust that the community had in the police department. And that to me is an incomplete phrase, because we need to remember that so many members of our community never felt that trust. They never had that relationship. And so in answering your question, you know, I stand with the progressive counselors and the progress party with Milo, who's also running. But I can't give you an answer right now, because I think that community safety really comes down to relationships. If we feel safe in our community, it's because we have strong relationships with our neighbors. We have strong relationships with our institutions. We have trust and we have faith in each other. And so I don't want to give you an answer because I haven't talked to acting chief mirad about it. And I think that it's really important to put that faith in and trying to build a relationship. Right. Thanks. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for our questions and we'll be sending out the full proposal as well as a press release shortly.