 So with that, um, I'll take us to item 1.03, which are additions or modifications to the agenda. And I believe that we'd want to make it at least one to allow Karen to give us an update on if she's had any responses for the past RFP. Um, would anybody like to make that modification? Maybe we'll just make that 1.04 and we'll add Commissioner Durfee added a line item for an update on the. What are those called references references for the community facilitator RP seconded by a commissioner heart. Any discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed. Seeing none that passes unanimously and we'll go straight into the update. My updates. I sent off. After I got the document out of my junk file, I said I sent up to references I think we discussed to. And I have not, I am waiting. I called and sent emails so I have not heard anything back. Okay. Sorry, and you just did references for two of the companies or for two. Um, we, we decided last meeting that we would just. Um, set, um, do two references. So not for two companies before for a company, but I did review all of the references and I selected to and sent out notifications and called both of those folks and it was late in the day. So hopefully we'll hear something by tomorrow. Okay. It might be good to email everyone just that we get two responses. I think was what we decided on was to shoot email to all of them. And then hope that we get two responses. But I don't, but not to call all of them because that would be now. There are, there are several. Yeah, okay. I will, it's, I can easily send that email to the rest of the folks. I can do that as soon as we're done with this meeting. So, is anybody have any questions for commissioner Dourfee? Great. Then I'll move us into public forum. Did anybody want to speak Shannon. I didn't have only one request and it's from Lee Morgan. And Lee, I don't see you on the call and less, um, you're calling in. And this is your telephone number. Great. Then we'll also open it up to. To anyone who's just an attendee, if anybody wants to talk, feel free to raise your hand. And I believe if you're on a cell phone. That is like a star six last chance to raise hands. Otherwise, we will move on to item 3.01, which everyone should have in their inbox, possibly in their gen mail. And I'll have Audrey, if you don't mind sharing your screen so we can go through the RFP together. So I may changes and I track changes so folks can see them from the original to what it is now. Happy to take feedback on any sections. My goal is hopefully we can get it to a place today that we all feel comfortable with or comfortable enough with to hand it back to city staff to finalize and send out. We're there was a place that I previously just had call data where I think we need a little bit more text. That is. Yeah, thanks for scrolling on this page. There were some things where I thought we should add given that we could call for the proposal I've been to examine who what where and how we police, and I didn't quite find all the words for it after doing the editing. But if folks could help me out here I think that would be helpful, but other than that. I'll open it up for people to make edits changes. If nobody disputes any of my edits I think at the end of this we would want to accept them. But with that I will hand it over to you to make changes as you see fit. So right, do you think we should go through this section by section. Just to, you know, see if they're that might help organize questions or comments that people have. That'll be helpful to me because I just got out of work so I haven't even had a chance to look at it. So I'm looking at this for the first time so I wouldn't want to and I'm trying to read through it right now but I think that'd be very helpful. I don't know if I should just give you all a minute or but first section is the executive summary, which I made a few changes to the first paragraph, just talks about the general purpose, the only change I made there was changing to barriers and benefits rather than feasible and cost effective which is a change that you'll see made throughout the resolution or throughout the request for proposals. Then, and it kind of continues along that vein of what are we here for and I changed those questions lightly. And then it, the third paragraph is around what we're seeking and I made some changes to having the it be looser to be criminal justice familiarity as a whole, as well as change management as opposed to a specific to policing just to make sure we're not excluding someone who maybe has a decent relevant experience. Just for me, I don't have any additions or changes I think that that first section and the next section on background or fine. And so right, I'm not really chiming in because I already reviewed this. So, great. Okay, so I'm hearing that two are fine with the first two sections. Section one, just section one and two. Let me just see where the first. Yeah, I didn't have any comments until four and five. I'm also good with one and two. Right. So, people can definitely feel free. Oh, welcome Franklin. People can definitely feel free to jump on to say anything else about section one and two section two is just background on the resolution. So, I'm going to go back to the following committee section three is a list of attachments. I didn't remember what the report was called but I thought that we should add whatever the name of that report is, which Audrey is at some point you or Shannon if you or Stephanie would know what it was called can add the exact title of that that would be good. If folks have anything to add here feel free to let us know but other than that moving on to section four, which is the scope of work. And here I'll just give people a minute this is the part that I would like some substantive input. Just because I didn't get to it. I was adding some language here around to where and how. So I'll give folks just a minute to read through it, knowing that a lot of us didn't get a chance to do it because I sent it so late. I get a quick definition of PSAP based. I don't know I, Shannon might know this better than me but I feel like it's the it might be the regional dispatch. It's a type of dispatch, from my understanding. So I think it might be the nine, maybe a different type. That's correct. Yes, the a 911. Yeah and the chief is on. Yeah, is it in attendance if you need to elevate him at any point with questions. Yeah you can go and elevate him anyway because he's got a quick update for us after this. Which section are we on now. We are on section four. Oh, I have at least one. I've been at any time. Um, there's no line so I'm sort of sorry line numbers but on section for second paragraph under what just, um, I went to week. This seems oddly specific but I guess I'm getting hung up on this aspect of using the term public safety call volume as opposed to like really to please department call volume. Because I find that in my brain the term public safety goes like a very broad concept. And I think this, what I'm understanding with is our piece that it's meant to be pretty focused on the police department and relatively focused on like community issues once they like reach the need for sort of like crisis response response. So I don't know if that makes sense to just change it safe for his current police department call volume. And I know it seems really specific but I feel like it all like made sense of the sort of a way it was focused up until that point and then I was starting to get confused again around that I don't know why it's very oddly specific but that was just something that jump that I saw. I'm trying to hear other things that I highlighted. Other people can go and just sort of I don't know if this is a specific change you just wanted to delete that. Or just write like police department call volume instead of public safety call volume. The term about public safety I think it's just too broad. It just I think it maybe I'm just the only one getting confused about this but it can choose me. I'm trying to think. I guess. Oh sorry. Oh God. One of the things that I may be so confused about is that under the section scope of work and I'm sorry this is going to be kind of rambling because I'm trying to make sense of this in my head. But like, I guess I still don't understand so the primary question that we're looking to answer as described. I don't know if you're aware of who what where and how we are currently policing. I still I guess I still don't understand how I know we're looking for alternatives to policing. Like I just don't understand how this, the scope of work is looking at like the way that the Burlington police department is policing. Or maybe I'm just, I'm just like missing. And I'm not reading it right or something. So that was virtually missing which is part of the reason that at least put the framing in there and hope to that you all had some additions. One quick change Audrey if we could remove on that fourth line in that paragraph legality and feasibility and change it to some barriers. I see what you oh I see what you're saying is right about the who where and how add here add here add here. Oh I see you're saying that we would add things there. Yes. Gotcha. I don't know. I think it was in pink and my brain just like was like, Oh, I don't know. I still have the track changes set on and I think my brain is only partially on the public safety language. Are we wanting to capture calls to Howard. Straight outreach for example, or are we strictly going by police department call volume. And I wonder if we do want to do that. Can we just write that then specifically like each other agencies like Howard Center. Oh, so it's just really more specific. Yeah, chief mirad. He's he's not on the call but it would be useful to know if like Howard Center calls actually or you know street outreach goes through the police department. I think all you need to do is add a sentence in here that indicates you're talking about calls for service directly to the police or other community agencies. Hey chief are you hearing this discussion we're trying to figure out how we should best describe the call volume is. He's not on the call anymore. I am. I didn't see you there. Well, I think I was just promoted because commissioner Hart was asking. What I want to keep myself only the specific answers I don't want to, you know, add two cents so what was the question I'm sorry. Okay, so can you are you able to see the the screen share right now. I am. Okay, so the language is the highlighted language. The primary importance is analyzing Burlington's current and the language was public safety call volume and workload. And what we're trying to make sure is we have concise enough language but not too concise that we exclude what might be included in calls. So would street outreach be ever that would like what comes into the police department. I'm just we're trying to capture that. You know the whole point here is to make sure we have an idea of the calls that potentially are handed handled by the department or other service providers that we need to be aware of. The calls that come from the PSAP and that that's the public safety answering point it was a component of the presentation that we did about how dispatch works. The calls it's what you get when you call 911 rather than calling direct to our dispatch. The calls that come from the dispatch from the PSAP really go into two directions they either go to fire or they go to police. Public safety is the term here because we are counting some calls that are police oriented in that we end up co responding or sending police to them also or upon responding fire says we need police as well. So, those things do need to be counted not at the PSAP level but at the dispatch level, because a fire officer does not call 911 to say I want police at this scene a fire officer calls into his dispatch which is our dispatch just two different terminals, but in the same room, and they say okay and they dispatch police that that was the nature of using public safety rather than merely police with regard to your other question. Yes, a portion of Howard Center street out reaches calls are recorded on our Valkor system they will put themselves over as going to calls officers will call for them to respond to something with the officer. To which street outreach will respond solo, but it's only a portion because the majority of what they do is not filtered through our dispatch. Nevertheless, that was the that was the reason the rationale for talking about a public safety call volume and frankly, we're also talking about the end result is going to be public safety not policing, because we're not merely talking here at least I did not think so the end result of the RFP is not to measure only what police will do it's to measure the possibility of all these things being diverted to non police resources. Thank you. So, just to beat the dead horse public safety for you was a reference to what would be fire department and police department potentially. Correct. public it's fire department and police department and then. And I do think that on some level there will be some examination of the fire department's load workload and the calls they get but not nearly as in depth this is necessary for what what we're talking about here. The bulk of what we're talking about is how to take those, those call type ones which which is really an ad hoc measurement of call types that can be handled by a phone response during the covert era, and determining whether or not some large portion of those can be further diverted into new call types, or diverted into other resources, and then determining whether or not some call type twos may fit that bill as well, but some call type ones need to be elevated back to purely to police, because the type designations were not designed with this in mind they were designed, again with with coven response and just how is a police officer going to respond not could a police officer or someone else respond. Right. Okay, so our folks comfortable with leaving public safety. We just put Burlington Police Department and Burlington Fire Department current all volume of workload. Isn't that what we just said. You just said public safety to you as fire department and public police permit. I indicated that it also included some degree of Howard Street, excuse me Howard Center Street outreach which also operates through Val core, and is dispatched or records their calls for service through our dispatch. And it in call incorporates other agency assists other police departments other agencies that will call in and use dispatch. I think that it is it's it's more than that. I mean if there's some sense of ownership of certainly no there's no indicate there's no effort to make public safety owned by police that's not the purpose here. I guess I guess it's just still. I just think it's so can it's confusing but I get I get fresh. I am frustrated by the or concerned about the idea of public safety will be used public safety not having a distinction between like a comp a holistic idea of public safety which includes like prevention and anti poverty, whatever and then like elements and then public safety which we really mean is just like crisis response and service response. And I think I am struggling in these conversations continually to like sort of have both have conversations about all of those things and then it all gets conflated into one thing which we assume public safety means crisis response and so my attempt at changing the language that we're using to talk about this is changing the way that we're thinking about public safety and changing it to be more of a holistic understanding so that's why the semantics on this struck me as wanting to tweak it slightly but by all means it's not going to make or break public you know like our holistic public safety model in this time so if it's a if if I'm the only one that's really fine we can just leave it as is I just it's just something I keep coming back to can we make it am I hearing something like maybe saying police and fire and crisis response and other some kind of other service yeah crisis yeah and response service agencies yeah I just wanted to be more specific about what aspect we were referring to but I would say so parents to that and I totally see where you're coming from, but I actually think your change discourages what you're trying to achieve, although generally, your changes and concern, you know, by keeping it broader, you basically want every call basically right that that bpd gets we want to know what happens right we want to know soup to nuts, what happens how many, and by keeping it broader, you'll be able to assess do the analysis that you then want to, you know, from use that information right the raw data and and then go to where you want to go which is to this place where we're going to start calling these non police calls you know right off the bat. We're going to create a system to divert those calls this way. I think we we should keep the broader term for that reason. If I understood if I understood correctly. It's Commissioner derpy. Can I say something about that. I think when you get down past that. When you get to end goal. There's room. In my mind. To really talk about alternative services and then some time some how to specifically for counselor Freeman, the who where and how we might. We might focus on that and and and try to, because I, I, I hear what you're saying, you know, I think that it's further down that we're going to see that made clearer and then also if we work on who where and how we might be able to be a little bit more purposeful with the piece about alternatives and including some specifics. That's just my thought. And I think you can say it I think it's set in different parts of the document and that's just my and I think leaving it broad. It allows us to capture everything. Great. So long those. Oh, welcome. Director Dodson. If you don't mind just because we already have so many voices and you did have access to this document. And let's see the specific comment I'd rather say any of your feedback for the end. Is that okay. Great. So, along those lines are people okay with turning to some of the who where and how and have any suggestions there. Director, hi tower. For me, or I think it might just be me. Talk a little more about what you're looking for here. With the who where and how I, you know, I guess what's confusing is this site traffic stop data. I'm trying to link my who to that. And I just don't know what you mean by that. Right. So I think it's actually unlinking. So what I heard us say the first time we discussed this, which was a while ago now, but was that we were zooming in too much on the call volume and data and that we were that that wasn't like that that wasn't as full of an assessment of the department as we would maybe like to see. And so I was trying to use that framing to help us zoom out a little bit here so one of the other things that we can look at is, you know, things like how do we search and her coworkers around. Okay, how do we start to like, when we say, who are you policing it's like how do we start to take a better look at like populations that are over targeted or under target it. When we're talking about where is there some kind of differential approach that Burlington Police Department takes for different parts of the city how should that fit into like what the consultant looks at if anything about something we don't care about do we delete the where we start having some kind of discussion on if we don't just want to look all volume and work with what do we want to look at and what what does that mean and I I didn't, I think especially because I think the police commission hopefully has a slightly better understanding of some of the things that they you might want to look at but I didn't want to put. I already made so many changes to the document I didn't want to completely steer us in the direction but that's the kind of thing that I was hoping for. Does that make sense. Absolutely. One of the things that I've always asked as a commissioner is. And when I think about consulting I think about looking at and chief mirad had sent us a graphic at some point I'm not sure if it was in this meeting or commission meeting but looking at could the consultant look at scheduling. I don't know how to say that I mean one of the first things that I would look at is how many people are needed to do the job. How many officers do we actually really need. I think that I'm more of a data logistics person and so I was more drawn to that graphic that chief shared with us some time ago. Scheduling personnel, you know, specific roots, you know just more about. I don't call it labor cost control but I have an MBA terminology I know but you know more about you know what you know what what what what is that end of it. Scheduling labor distribution. How many officers are really needed and then the other thing that I've always been interested in is the administrative administrative labor side as well so what happens internally and in my experience and in the assessments that I've done working with consulting teams. Those things are sort of focused on in terms of you know what is doable what's, you know what are we asking for here so those are the things that I'm specifically interested in as a police commissioner and then I also don't know if this is something the consultants going to look at but you know I think if you're on the commission or looking at policing, you know, officer training is news of the day types of training. I'm not sure if that's going to be included here. That's it from me. So, can I chime in. I like, I like a couple things Karen said. Go ahead, Franklin. All right, so I like what Karen said. I think I will second. I think one of the things that came up for me, she brought up which is looking at, I don't know the human resources term. I think there's some people that do know better than me. But looking at how many positions and what would be best for the department right so taking the call volume, taking the needs of the department, the community and saying well, maybe we need, you know, X in managerial roles, maybe we need X in road patrol. Maybe even give us like three or four scenarios like if you have this many, you know you might be responding better to these areas, if you have X may so I think I second will Karen say which is like focusing more on the what, which we were doing now. So, so I guess one is the, the breakdown of positions, not just the number of officers, but then I think what Karen also said was the routes, or, I don't, again, don't know the, there's probably a better term for it but the way police patrol for Burlington, are we doing it in the best way possible, is there an alternative, you know, do we need for officers at all times at the new north end, does the new north end need, you know, an outpost for police officers there do they need a little office there by the fire station that'd be better for Burlington does the south end things like that. When you look at when we look the presentation by BPD, it was pretty clear that they had a sets, obviously they have a set system but but is that the best system, are there problems with it. And how can we so those are the two things I think are really good. So do you think we flesh that out and what where we talk about staffing levels does that go to that middle of the paragraph under what where we talk about determining appropriate staffing levels seems to all tie in there, the root part I think stays with where but Can I jump in real quick. Yeah. Yeah. Harry and then me and love just to start a stack. Okay. My concern a little bit with that framing is that which I guess, and I was trying to figure this out earlier because I understand why the scope of the RFP needs to be more like pretty potentially kind of narrow or just rather focused but like my concern with that is just like in general, I'm just asking how many, like what are the staffing levels me what are the management like, compared to what and like for why, like, because my concern is like, ultimately the answer that we're going to get is like that we need a lot, or like, and I don't know if we're going to necessarily get that but like, the, sorry, kind of, I'm sorry, because the conditions. And I'm not just in the sense that so like the critique on police departments being underfunded is part of a critique of like preventative anti poverty measures being underfunded. And like, if you don't look, I'm just, I'm struggling with this for me in general because like if you don't fund those things and if you don't think of housing like you don't look at the fact that people have not been making like our minimum wage is peaked in 1968. So if you're not looking at like those systemic causes if you're not looking at people's access to education access to food. I already said housing access to health care specifically mental health care which we're seeing like horrendous levels of people with mental health issues ending up in incarcerated or houseless. I just it just feels sort of like a predetermined answer that we need. People don't have the supports that they need so that's why we're relying on heavily on like crisis response and policing systems to like once people are at a point of crisis so I guess I'm just wondering for folks who are wondering like I don't think it's bad to look at the levels of staffing and I think we started to do that this summer when we made like analysis based on other cities of our size and kind of looked at those things. But I'm just wondering if we're not also answering the other question about the systemic causes and doing prevention then how are we actually figuring out like what is they all sort of seem tied together so I'm wondering for folks who want to see that as part of this RFP like how they're also addressing that aspect which I feel like it's just an unanswered question and or an unanswered factor and variable and maybe folks who have a like a much background or will not can can speak to that as well but I just I'm trying to fit it all together and how this works. So Milo and then Karen, and if folks can. I can't see everyone because we also have the RFP so just be patient with me and or raise your hand virtually. Oh, I don't know that. Yeah. So Milo. So adding to what counselor Freeman mentioned is the following do we want to make sure that we have these tasks done in a specific order, because what I'm thinking about is if we look at the numbers first and then based on the numbers being the call volume from the various sectors of public safety that we just talked about. And we say okay, do we have enough officers on the road to meet this particular call volume. That to me is not the place to start because we want to start first with making sure that that call volume is looked at and evaluated to see if some of those calls that are coming in can be handled by individuals other than the police officers so we don't want to go straight to evaluating how many officers are needed on the road before we determined what we can actually take off of the department's plate. Because if we can say we have event a occurring X amount of times, and we can move event a to hear so that a police officer does not have to actually be involved. Then that will change how many police officers are on the road does that make sense. Am I making sense. Yes, no. Yes, I'm just waiting. I think it's going to be really important to I mean, when we come to where you definitely we have to be looking at everything across Burlington and the different wards because the different wards get different amounts of services. And some wards have more of a particular type of call than other wards. So we definitely want to be looking at the breakdown of the types of calls for each ward, and looking at why does one ward have this type of volume over other wards you know and what can we do. A big thing, going back again to community outreach. What can people within the community do to help the police department reduce certain types of calls. So that would be part of the conversation as well. And that's all I have for now. So Milo did Audrey adequately capture what you said or do you want to summarize it if she did not. Oh, let me go back to my one zoom on my phone but let me bring back the document on my computer. It's going to take a moment because it just logged me out. We'll come back to you Karen. Thanks. So I just wanted to say, in terms of looking at the number of police officers in a fear that that's somehow going to change the way the consultant looks at this and produce some type of data that may not be authentic. The reason that we're, we're doing the RFP is because we need an outside person to come in and assess the city situation and I do think that, you know, the list of things that we asked the person to do definitely can impact the work but after reviewing, you know, the folks that we chose. They're doing, you know, I did reference checks today and read everybody's references, just this one groups references and, you know, I, I trust that this selection. They're not the lens that these folks have is really very clear and their way above what we can do at a community level. Number, number two, you know, any kind of database assessment is going to probably make a recommendation based on, you know, just the data that they're that they're going to have to produce so whether we ask it outright or not. You know, there is going to be some recommendation. And, you know, I, I, I totally hear, you know, what everyone is saying about oh well we don't want to skew this but we definitely the original goal of this is to implement the racial justice resolution to really put this thing on the ground. And you know the sooner than we can get to an assessment with real data. I think the better we can serve the community. I'm done. I know Kyle was waving frantically, but I don't know if you can see him, or if you want to make sure we get to the commissioners and I know how to be a little long winded. He did have this RFP longer than you all did so given that Kyle if you can keep your comments very short. Absolutely I'll take long winded as a compliment. All I have to say is that per Councillor Freeman's comments. I think that it is clear that poverty and history and all sorts of things are connected to our current status but the RFP is already a big wish list which is as we want it. And I think the best thing to do is to move forward I think we will learn a lot in interactions with actual vendors who are experts. We will learn about the feasibility time wise money wise things that have happened elsewhere that will be really important and help us move forward. But I don't see how the RFP for the BPD assessment is going to address poverty. I don't think that's what that part is supposed to do. Although our community probably wants to look at poverty and its connection to policing and what happens in BIPOC communities. But this is a relatively narrow discreet activity I believe to look at what happens currently in terms of policing and how we can broaden that to a more public safety lens. And also I thought Perry had a concern earlier we got to separate public safety from public health. We're doing two things. They're not necessarily the same thing. They're connected but they cover some different things. I thought that clarification might be helpful. I think that's how I'm seeing it. I think this is one piece of a much bigger part of work. RFP and this assessment. Great. Perry wants to respond also just want to see if Stephanie and I think Sherene if you had any substance with input. But Perry go ahead. Yeah I mean we can we can do this RFP we can look at the second levels. I guess what I'm trying to say is like if we don't address poverty then we're going to need a lot of cops. So we can do an RFP that looks at like the mandate that I heard from like organizers across the country was not like how can we just not look at structural changes and just figure out like let's just do like a quick analysis of police departments and just let's just guess like how many cops do we need like let's let's just run some like data look at our workload and like we'll just that will just be the answer like I understand that this RFP is like trying to be super focused and narrow but like the call that I heard to like to change that happened this summer was around the systemic issues and like maybe that will be addressed in this RFP but like because it's the first one and we're looking specifically very narrowly at the police department but like I just don't we can do this RFP we can get feed but we can get certain answers but it just I think it's just going to be potentially incredibly limited and if that other conversation and that other like work is not being done because the divest camp the divest from the department and and looking at the staffing levels that the organizing that came that asked for that to happen did not come from like we don't have we the department has too too little of a workload so they should have less cops because the workload is not enough that's not where that campaign comes from and where that organizing comes from and where that concept to me it comes this aspect of we are under investing in communities and we're over and so thus we are forced to over invest. And he's castle and punitive systems. And so that's why we have and the staffing levels were part of that and then there was also another conversation about the fact that we just have what looks like more staff in Burlington compared to most cities of our size which was, I think, just ended up being an interesting aspect part of that conversation but I don't I don't think I just think that we're we're veering we're veering into this aspect that like is we're sort of asking the wrong questions and that's that's sort of my concern with the frame of this with this RFP but we can we can try. Maybe, maybe this is maybe this is what we need. I don't know. Great. So, Sharon, and then, again, Stephanie, if you have anything to say, I can't see you so I'm sorry if you're using your hand. You are. Okay, so let's go. I'll talk after Sharon. Just going to be really quick. I hear what you're saying Perry but we're really going by the language in the resolution, which is inquiry inquiry include a full operational and functional assessment of the BPD. So, I think what you're talking about just doesn't sound like that's part of this assessment that we're doing I think it will come up on the other side. When we're getting community input, but I don't think it is at all in the realm of what we're discussing in this assessment. That's just my opinion and that was my, that was my take away from the resolution. Stephanie. I actually think the RFP is fine the way it is. There's might be some small language changes I would make to just make it crystal clear. But I think a lot of the concerns that have been raised are actually implicit in this document and a good consultant will be able to read that, and will be able to respond to what's underlying in the text there. The issue around structural problems, you know, as my work as an economist, those take years to solve. And so that requires a plan that is much broader than simply this particular focus. So, I think this is a first good step in terms of public safety but the structural problems that we face really have to be developed in terms of citywide policy by the city council and the mayor in terms of a plan to address various structural problems of poverty, low wages, single parent single moms and the struggles that they have and so forth. This is, so I think that's a longer, a longer time frame than this particular, what this particular RFP is trying to achieve. Great, and then throwing in my two cents on that before going back to Milo is, yeah, I think that the resolution did ask for an assessment of BPD and to some extent, and not to some extent and that is what this RFP is trying to do. I think we do still want to be careful with how we're framing that. I do think sometimes saying like well what could we get if we had like 100 police versus 50 police is a little bit of maybe something to avoid because of course like you'd be able to get twice as much like it's not. It's I don't know how useful that question is more than anything but I do think that ultimately this is a question of, I think to some extent the original framing was good with like what are policing what are alternatives where does it make sense to move to the alternatives and what is the long term benefits of that. I think that this was really helpful to me in terms of, I mean I guess to all of us in terms of getting some additional ideas that I wouldn't have put in on things to look at so I'm glad we still did this brainstorming process. We obviously don't have an end time but I guess I would want to keep asking for input on this section also start looking to other sections and also to get you all to start thinking about. Even as we probably won't finish the language here clean it up as a group what you all want the next steps to be with that I'll go to Milo if you were raising your hand again. Yeah, I had. I just thought about the police officers themselves. Are we making sure that they are surveyed. I guess it. We consider that to be implicit like what language would make sure that as part of this evaluation, we're actually talking to people that are doing the jobs currently of responding to these calls. I'm sorry I got distracted can you say that again. Sure. I want to make sure that as part of this process. We're actually talking to police officers. And is that something that is implicit in language that's already here, or do we need to clearly state that that needs part of the needs to be part of the process. I mean, I think since I've seen the most time with that I'm happy to answer I wasn't implicit to me so I think if you want that to be in there then. Unless I hear other folks say no that is something that we should add in play I guess the question would be what would be the purpose what information would be derived there that's germane to this RFP. It's important to hear from the people that actually are doing the job in terms of responding to these calls I think their input would be important in terms of what do they feel are calls that they go out on that. I feel that hey that shouldn't be coming into the department as one example, but I think it's important that when we're looking at all these processes we have to involve the people that are actually doing the job. I think that makes sense I think it's very easy to put a line in there that just simply says something about, you know, who we would expect the consultant to reach out to which groups of police officers the mental health authorities so on and so forth. I think that was helpful. Seeing now go ahead. This isn't a response to come sugar. This is a response to the other conversation that we're having before I think if we're talking about the function of BPD and the and the resolution getting at that I guess I'm confused, or I'm concerned about the focus on staffing specifically. It seems like we're talking about the broader function of BPD it seems like to me I interpreted the resolution language as not just being about like what other agencies can participate in policing and like other alternatives to policing but like I think because we just need other agencies to do policing we just also need the Burlington police department to be to like not be raised and to be less racist. And so, I guess I'm just, there's just an aspect to the, to the framing that of this that still feels a little bit off to me but I think I'm, I think I'm also just struggling to figure out exactly how to articulate that in alternative language so I apologize for that but Yeah, I think I'm just still, still struggling with it a little bit and the, and the focus of this. I think that's there I don't think that the rest of the RP has as much of a focus on staffing as we've had in this conversation I think that was a little bit unique to this conversation. I do think that our general has much more of a focus on alternatives. I don't know if that addresses your concern but I definitely think that that was more I think that that was something we are adding to the RFP, as opposed to something that it now is mostly covering. So my question is, are we just looking at other agencies that can deal with the workload are we also asking this consultant or consultancies to look at, or like an agency to look at the practices of the of the Burlington police department, I guess I'm just not. Maybe I feel like I'm, I don't know if I'm just not reading this correctly or if I'm missing something. I think that in terms of policies that you did want to look at I can give me now would be the time to bring it up in terms of the how aware or anything like that. Hey. I don't know I just I spent most of this week looking at that there were just, there's a really short deadline and around the community oversight model and charter change committee and so I've been working on that for like 20 hours this week, and last week so I just, my brain is like sort of fried and I apologize for that but I've like, like read an unbelievable amount about community. And last week and I've been like, I've just been in like hours long meetings like almost every day about it so and trying to because I have to write. I apologize if my, I'm just maybe my brain is like just not really fully grappling with this, even though they're related. Is there anything on those lines that you wanted to put in or was that my side. I, I honestly, I don't know if I can other than that I feel like. And let me see if the. I'm still looking at my draft so I don't know if you've made changes now to the. How the scheduling. Yeah, I mean like I said like I think we can pass this I just, maybe I was also just seeing if other people had similar concerns and it sounds like I might be the only one who has these concerns, and if the rest of the joint committee feels like this is the right direction and the right first step and, and it seems like an overwhelming majority then maybe we should just go with that and maybe I'm totally often left field or just sort of isolated in my view and that's okay too. And like is yeah I think we can start with this and see where we end up and and then reevaluate and go from there. Great Franklin. So I was just going to make it quick. I wrote down something that is probably not good. So I wrote it down so I'm going to read it. And I don't know if Audrey, if you, I don't know if you could take notes about it in case people like it, but I'm going to try to. I think some people disagree that I agree with what Professor Grino says which is that a good person will know what to do. That part of me wants to like belt and suspenders it and under after staffing levels I guess I would add something like including but not limited to a performance plan that looks at the optimal. And that's where I would I would ask for help but a performance plan that looks at the optimal number of positions between road patrol administrative roles and managing real roles. Again, we can edit that but and and and parentheses there just defining this, I guess the three level staff managers admin. And then just right and road patrol routes and or police patrol routes and responses. I think what Milo was saying was like, I was looking terms HR on different HR websites is like an HR audit which I also was really excited about early on because we're, you know, we're looking at the best police department, and we're looking at creating the best police department here and and I think an HR audit sort of gives the staff level, you know the union members. I would like for that to be anonymous so that like somebody at you know road patrol officers been a year feels very comfortable being totally honest about his gripes. And what we can do, as well as the person who's, you know, under 29th year about to retire and can verbalize those and writing and then give it to the expert and then somehow they take that data so well I was thinking about a survey. So I don't know how to put that in here. I just kind of wanted to reiterate that I was excited about that beginning like an asset, I guess a professional job function analysis type. I mean, none of these words fit because you look them up and have multiple definitions so I think we just have to be clear what we want, but thank you. So not seeing anybody else's hands. I'm going to jump in and say that's actually just in terms of in case you do end up deciding in case Sharina and I are supposed to wrap this up ourselves. That is the opposite of what I heard us like like saying something like finding the optimal number is the opposite of what I heard us say last time where I said we want them to bring us information and then we make those more subjective things I think again that's a lot to ask a consultant is to make more subjective decisions like that so I would, unless I'm hearing strong consent for Franklin's idea that is in contrast to what I heard folks say last time. Not saying that it can't that we can't have folks look at those things and compare them to other cities or things like that but I would stray away from the beginning part of that. I'm not wedded to anything I just kind of felt like we were throwing out ideas and having. So it doesn't have to be optimal it doesn't have to be a recommended. I'm open to all of that it's more about putting something in there that beyond staffing levels for me that kind of just gives a direct mandate of like this is what we want. But I get you, we want we want more of the raw data so we can do it ourselves kind of thing I get it. Sure. I was just. I am glad what you said is right because what I'm struggling with here is I feel like we're then taking the other RFP information the community input and I feel like we're taking both of those and that's that informs what our community safety public safety system might look like. So I don't know how we could have someone speaking to optimal numbers in this context when really we're putting it all together and that's, that's the million dollar question for us, in my opinion. I think Franklin's hand is still up from a minute ago, so I'm going to kind of move. I'm fine. Thank you. Okay, great. I'm going to kind of move us on to look at the other sections. I think we've got some good input here and I'm getting a sense of where the committee is at on end goal. I'm trying to remember I made this a while ago. I think it's the same. Oh, it's specifically saying that the end goal is kind of maybe to your point very more about looking at potential alternatives and what those could be. And looking at the barriers and benefits to those. And then some things on possible guidance the only thing I changed here is in support formats I think I changed the title, which didn't show up because there was a. I just did this today and didn't realize it was tracking changes for a bit but I added Kyle's position as a potential resource for the consultant because I don't think he was on board yet when we started this process. I also added this part of supervision and key dates for deliverables and that they should give us monthly updates. I'm not sure how can we'll be meeting, but I assume it'll be at least once a month so hearing updates from them. And then on prerequisites. I collapsed two of them into one the quantitative and qualitative research skills and social science methods. And then on to and again I apologize those changes are in track but I made them today so I know what they on to it just said public or it said police best practices and law and I changed it to justice policing or public safety to try to be again a little bit more broad on what who might be applying for this. And then made the submission guy that lines a little bit more clear and what we wanted to see including adding page limits to different sections and spelling out what those sections should be open that's folded awkwardly. If you don't mind. So, feedback on any of those sections, as well as thoughts on next steps. I mean, I think a lot of that looks good, you know, I think it's hard to word Smith as a group. And my thought, you know, typically, you know what people can do is send in their suggested revisions and then you as the, as the person handling this document can integrate them. So the reason I can't do that is that would violate public meeting law. Oh, the reason we're doing it awkwardly like this is feedback publicly and then make those changes, but you do kind of have to state it because if the point is to get to consensus on this then doing it over email is actually not okay. Otherwise I would trust me I would never choose to create a document like this. Can I just ask a clarifying question. So it seems to me that if this if the consultant is going to look at alternative models of public safety, which is basically what we're asking that the consulting firm that does the public. The last RFP that we looked at that looks for public input on what the community wants. They would be relying heavily on that document. Is that correct. Do we say that anywhere in here. And if not, maybe that would be helpful to articulate as one of the starting points for the work. I think so an end goal, which we can rearticulate around us is the concept select a consultant will help the joint committee examine alternative to losing. Specifically, are there other interventions that are more effective or rooted in community values to see community facilitator RFP and police for certain non criminal calls for service or even certain crimes. Is that explicit enough or would you like. Yeah. You know, I think that's fine. Other thoughts. It's commissioner Murphy, I, I like the end goal as a point of clarification. I think it as a as a next step suggestion. I don't know if it folks are comfortable with it but I, you know, I think. I guess it's a question about the public meeting meeting law. So once there's a draft of this will come back all together as as a group again, and look at the final draft, is that what we would do. I think it's more of a question. It's up to you. So if folks are feeling I know that there was some, some question on the scope of work section. If folks feel like Sharon and I are going to get it right enough. I think it's up to us the authority to like we did with the community facilitator RP to the two of us finish it off and send it. If it feels like there's maybe too much discussion still there then we could do that and then you could review it at the next meeting and then approve it or not, or make changes to it. But that is, I don't, given that I will probably be one of the people looking at it I wouldn't want to make anybody decide, and either way. I wouldn't want the motion to adopt the, not now. I think that's the way to go for the reasons Professor Guino stated to make a motion to adopt the recommendations and comments and input given by the committee members here today. I think that's the final RFP to be sent out. I think it's, I think you know, at the end of the day, we could be here all night and I'll still have changes, you know, so it's like, it's clear the person's going to get this, they know what they're doing. At the end of the day, we're talking about police department here. They have data, you know, we're not talking about another kind of agency. Franklin just to clarify, are you seeing it sent out as it is on Audrey's screen right now. Well, with the changes that you ensuring are going to make. Okay, I see. I was like, oh, it looks very rough. I feel uncomfortable with that grammar. Okay, understood. Is that an official motion or is that a suggestion. Suggestion to throw out there so people can, you know, I wasn't, I don't think they're prepared to make a motion. I would concur with Franklin's position on this. I think that give you incorporating kind of the spirit of this discussion is sufficient for me to approve the RFP in its form in its current form. Okay. We got through me, Perry. Or Milo and I think we heard from you. Did you have a. Yeah, I would, given the amount of changes that we just made and the fact that I, I didn't have a chance to read it through because it came over this afternoon, I would rather see a cleaned up final version. Right, Perry. Yeah, I was going to say basically what Commissioner Grant said, and more so just, yeah, just wanting to. I would probably want, yeah, to look it over some more and consider the edits that were made by you and Commissioner Hardin. But yeah, I mean, yeah, so I might vote if we do put it to vote, I guess I would vote now at this point and would prefer to table it until next meeting but yeah. Great, so I was going to suggest if it was just one of you that maybe you just joined the final thing but with two I think it starts getting into a lot of the people on the shy away from that but Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Perry. I just I thought about that but my concern was that I would want to change things that wouldn't really feel like I've already kind of that I just feel like then I would be influencing it in a way that people, the majority wouldn't. I wouldn't know if there was actually a support from the majority and I was a little concerned about that but I hear what you're saying to you about it being if it's multiple people then being a little concerned as well. Then I think we have disagreement and so I think we have two potential different motions and I won't tell you all. But with entertain either motion. Okay, I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to incorporate the changes discussed at the October 26 2020 joint committee meeting to the draft are a P to one that to dash one and to make the document final. With a second. I'll ask a point of information to the chair. Motion made by Councilor Paulino is there a second second. Look at it by commissioners to go now. Go ahead Franklin. So my question for the chair is are we able to. Are you able to incorporate the changes send it to us on one on one for us just say that looks good via email on say the date again. So would it be, would there be any violation of opening law if you sent us the document before the final document so that we can just give the okay. If only one of us is in the email. Just a yes that look good. So not not with the intent to change it but just to see. Obviously there's some huge mischaracterization which there won't be but just to see it as so people can get that last chance. Joy, do you need settling in our training. I don't know if that counts as shuttling but joy. I think that it is obviously okay to distribute the final version to everyone to look at but if it gets the point where people want to make any changes to it then you definitely have to come back and there can't be any discussion in a group email. Okay. Just to read. That's fine, but if there's going to be any kind of change or discussion that needs to be done in a public meeting. Okay, so what I'm hearing you all say is Franklin and sorry I didn't 100% but I think your motion was to do what you had originally proposed but to have a send the final document and then if everyone is okay with it, then it would go ahead and pass. But if it's not we would have another meeting about it. Thank you. I think that that sounds a little too much like having a vote. Okay, now that I hear that out loud I think that's a little too far. So, no, that does not work. Well, I else try the second portion of it, given that I think that it's a good motion still and I would advocate for people to follow it because it sounds like none of the changes really are material. I think that although it's really important to get the language right at the end of the day. We're dealing with people who have, you know, in this particular RP on like the one before I feel like even more so people who do this for a living, you know, they've probably done it many times, and I'm sure we're going to get a big sort of like a deep talent pool. So I would support the motion without the opportunity for review. I think that obviously further to that you guys have shown that your goal is to incorporate what we say here so no, no, and I'm not going to be sleep. I don't have any reason to believe you guys would would change something material. Any other discussion on the motion that's currently on the table. Yeah, I, I mean the last RFP we only got three so I'm not, I guess I don't have the confidence or, or I guess the definition of a deep, you know, pool is we don't know what we're going to get until we actually get it. And I appreciate where people who would be submitting the RFPs that they will definitely have had a skills level where they've done this type of thing before but they haven't done this type of thing before in Burlington, Vermont. So that's definitely something that we have to consider. And just, I feel like we've added a lot of language and words are important and I, I preferably before voting and saying yes let's go along with it, I would like to see it completely typed up. Thank you. Any other discussion or can we move to a vote. And go ahead. And Councillor Plano can you just repeat it with just as it is without the second part struck so I can just rehear it. So I make sure I'm remembering correctly. Well, the motion was essentially to prepare the draft DPD RFP to dash one for final to be finalized with the input received at the 1026 joint committee meeting and to finalize to essentially put out to the public to receive RFPs. Okay. Thank you. Quick point of order question for my self joy if you could help me out. Is this for the vote we just need a majority of the people present right now we don't need a quorum of the committee to vote in any one direction. Correct. Great. Thank you. Given that I think people will vote differently. I'm just going to call you as appear on my screen. So, Milo. So we're voting on Franklin's motion. Okay, so I would vote no. Stephanie. Yes. Franklin. Yes. Karen. Yes. Perry. No. And. Sure. No. And then I'm also going to vote no. So that's four and I was in three. Yeses. The motion fails. I just want to say the reason I voted against it. I just. I'd like to have Milo in particular who just got this be able to look through it. So I have every faith in Zaria. She's done a great job on this, but I just, if we can, you know, two more weeks, I'd rather here get, get everyone's input. And without Randall and you all in Jabu as well. I agree. I tried to be even handed when I'm representing everyone, but given that, you know, there's two people who want to take a look at it again. I wouldn't want to take that away from them. So can we. We have to move to table or. Not really. I don't think, but we could if we wanted to. What was the question? I'm sorry. Oh, if we should move to table. If you don't mind. Do you want me to. Yeah. I moved to a table. Or post one of the discussion until. Or yeah. I just wanted to put it on the next meeting agenda to discuss for deliberation. At our next meeting, do we have a date yet for the next. Motion. Freeman seconded by commissioner heart. Discussion. I just have a quick question. Does that prevent you the fact that you've tabled an item. I don't know. I don't know what the meeting prevent you guys from doing the work is planning doing without being in the public meeting between now and then, as opposed to just. Either not finishing the item or not taking action and just recalling it like we would have. So it's more of a technical question. I, I support it. I don't know, Joy. I don't know. Whoever else you'd like. Make the changes and then bring it back next meeting for discussion. Are you okay with that? Harry and can you specify who you'd want to work on that? Yeah, I would move to. Have chair high tower and commissioner heart. Adopt the changes reviewed. I think that would be fine with me. Thank you. Okay. Great. So any further discussion on that? Great. Thanks, Audrey. Seeing nobody. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Great. Thanks, Audrey. Seeing nobody. All those in favor. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any. Any opposed. Great. So that passes unanimously. And we'll move on to our next item, which is three. Zero two. I was envisioning for this that we would hear. From. Chee. Murad on an update on what information he has or who thinks he can get us. And then based on that, we decide. What we want our next steps to be in terms of reporting back to the council. And if that makes sense to folks, then I would turn it over to. Thank you. Thank you. So I was able to get some information from the, from some federal partners. It's not information that they want. It's privileged. It's privileged information is their information, but I was able to look through it in ways that I think we'll address some of the questions that you were asking. And they include sort of. A set of data about the amounts. I think amounts were important. I think some of the idea of property of what kind of property we were talking about with regard to. Equitable sharing was at issue as well. So there was a sheet with 300 plus items in it. That cover. What Burlington has been awarded from federal cases. It was awarded in 2019 and it showed awards to Burlington of about 1.13 million during that time period. That's not all of the cases because some come from different federal partners. We've shared the information about how much we get per annum. Previously, but that works out about to what we're talking about at over 16 years. It's 1.13 and it's actually a little more than that. And the total amount I've shared in the past. And I'm happy to share again. If somebody wants me to and can get it now, but I'll just continue in this vein first. The value range to BPD of those. In other words, the amount of assets that were equitably shared with BPD based on BPD's participation in those cases. And that includes it's predicated on the hours that were worked, what the investigators or what, you know, the contribution that the assigned investigators made to the case. The value ranged from $87,600, which was BPD share of $130,000 of USC that was taken in a 2013 case to $42, which was BPD share of a bank account that was worth $653 from a 2012 case. And that wouldn't have been the entire amount from that case. That would have been just one asset from that case. Most of the amounts are much larger than that small amount. These are monetary seizures of $130,000 of $40,000 of $31,000, $35,000, $60,000, $85,000. And the smallest amount seized was 650 cash. Now that's not that $650 bank account. That's a smaller amount. There were a Mercedes-Benz SS550, a Lexus, Audis, a Range Rover, a Harley Davidson. There was cash or currency in lieu of an address. Lean was put on address. And there was cash currency taken in lieu of that, $39,000 of which went to BPD for a 2008 case. There was $220,000 payment in lieu of a $250,000 monetary judgment. And of that $24,400 went to BPD for a 2014 case. A case involving property in Underhill with several kilos of drugs and also kilos in cash taken both from Underhill and kilos in cash taken from a yurt in upstate New York. And that too was portions of that went to BPD. So those are examples of the kinds of disbursements that we're talking about. They're not disbursements of street level users, of people who are taken in the course of a regular arrest. These aren't assets that are seized from somebody who has not had any kind of due process. And then it's just taken because there's confidence that that person won't be able to navigate the system and avail him or herself of a way to get those assets back. That happens with asset forfeiture in other locations. It's not the case here nor in the data that I was able to look at. Right. So that was an overview of what information you had. Can you give us, is there any more information that we can expect to come or any like written version of this or anything of that sort? So, um, no, I mean, that's, that's the overview that I, that I have to present for the time being. I mean, I think that some of this might be achievable through, you know, freedom of information requests, for example, but I'm not at liberty to share it when it was presented to me by a partner. I can share the parts that I can share the information about things we took in simply because that's, that is public record in Burlington. And I have had those, um, the, the amounts that we've taken in that's part of, uh, the process for the mayoral recertification of it. I can point out that we believe currently that not recertifying not only prevents us from participating in the future, but could subject to what we currently have to, uh, being returned to the government. Um, and that is those are resources that we're currently using for, I just authorized the use of some of it in order to get into the cell phone of a, uh, of a suspect, excuse me, of a person who was, who died. Um, and we are looking into, into that death and the nature of that death. Um, I just, we're going to, we're probably going to use some of that to facilitate some of the training, uh, because the training budget was, uh, affected by the budgetary decisions made because of COVID, not, not going to the resolution, but, um, we took significant budgetary hits to our training to the order of 70% of training decrease at the same time as the resolution does want us to commit to training at a level beyond the rest of the city with regard to, um, to racial justice training, et cetera. So we're probably going to be using some of that, some of those funds for that kind of training. Um, and losing that, that kitty having to return it, having to return it would be a significant blow to operations that are already, uh, feeling the pinch of, of what COVID has wrought on our city's revenue. You folks, um, opening it up for questions directly to John or, um, if folks have just thoughts on next steps, go ahead. Sure. Uh, I have a couple of questions. Chief, can you, um, I have to write them down because I'll forget the second one when I say the first one. Um, okay. Does the money from these go into a general fund? I will, how, how did, do you handle the money when it comes in? The amount of money that is ultimately distributed to us by the government, according to their own rubrics, uh, that have to do with our participation with the total amount taken, uh, et cetera, et cetera, whether or not they've distributed sums to, to victims, whether, which they're required to do by law first, whether they've taken in, um, the amount that comes to us is put into a singular fund, uh, our, it is our, our equitable sharing fund. And that has to be used for specific kinds of law enforcement purposes. It can't be used for, it can't, it can't be used to paper over other expenses. It can't be used for recurring costs. It can't be used for, uh, for personnel, for example. Um, and it's, it's gotta, it's, there's a sense of, I've had, I mean, I can't remember the exact phrasing and I could find it for you. I believe I shared it in previous presentations on this, about specific law enforcement purpose. And so I'm sorry, I don't want to, I have just a followup on that. And one other question. And how easy is it for you to determine how that has been expended over the last few years? Um, easy, easily. That those are records we have to keep. We have to be able to demonstrate how it is that we're using it. And we have to be able to, to meet audits on it, um, which we do. Again, I, I, the, the biggest bulk of it most recently was, uh, the, the creation of the emergency responsive vehicle. Um, and the tools that went on that, uh, that platform. Um, some of the training development costs of it also were underwritten by this. Um, I believe that some of the funds were used for a, I have to confirm this, but I believe they were used for a very large symposium that was called about the opioid epidemic, uh, two years ago. And so is that something, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is that something that can be shared with us easily? Like these, these, this, this information. Yes. I can get that for you. Okay. That would be great. And my last question is when you started, you said, uh, if I, if I understood it correctly, that we may, the department may have to return funds. So the unspent portions that we are current, that we currently have, if we do not get recertified, there are a, we would not be allowed to participate in the equitable sharing anymore going forward. We believe that we would be subject to returning that money as well. Anything you have that you haven't expended by. Okay. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Franklin, is that a hand up? And then I think I saw Karen. Yeah, I guess. And I hate to do this, but I was thinking because people express so much interest in this. I was hoping two things. If a small letter, even an email. Detailing the update. And we could table this for the next meeting. I know. Commissioner Harve. Express interest in this. Um, Professor Saguino's. Also. Newish to this subject. Although probably had been tracking it and probably very aware of it, but. I guess I don't feel comfortable taking action tonight. I don't think there is, but I, I would feel more comfortable with more members who had. Way in. Yeah. Given that we, it looked like we were going to have a contested sort of vote on it. So all I was hoping to get to today was an understanding of what we wanted to do next. So what our goal was for the next meeting. And go ahead, Karen. I was going to ask that question that you just said. So. Thank you for reading my mind. Well, as I understand, if we do nothing. Nothing happens, right? So I think it's more. People wanted to know more about it. I think we, with this memo for the people who aren't here. We'll have that. And I guess with that information, they can. I will require to, I think actually we're required to report back, right? Yeah. So I think we have to take a vote. And I'm asking what we need, what we want to do to be ready to move in that direction for the next meeting. So like, is there more information that we need? Are we. Asking for someone to do it. Like just what, what are our next steps? What are we doing at the next meeting to help make that. Report back happen. Well, I have a quick question. One of the. Questions that I had was. We had, I believe the last meeting we had confirmed that. We only get funds related to cases where there were actual. Convictions. Or some plea agreement that was in process. Is that correct? Chief. That is correct. Okay. And then out of that pool of funds, I had a question even though I knew that we don't get that funds, but does that pool have money. That is taken. That is not the result of a conviction or plea bargain. Were you able to confirm that? Again, I'm not a. I think, I mean, the funds that go into, they go into equitable sharing are all. All have to come from the same, I mean, they're, they're separated on a case by case basis. So they don't go into a pool and that they're, they're in those cases. And the cases are. By, by a, I mean, almost. I think they leave open the possibility that some cases may, some tiny fraction of cases may not have a conviction or maybe in a plea bargain, which is why they can't unilaterally say that every single one follows a conviction. But they, the vast majority do certainly the ones that I've just discussed are because that's why we're talking about them because they're post, they're post conclusion, whether that was a conviction with a jury or a plea bargain or, or what, but those are. Not there, each one is separate. So the, you know, you don't, you don't take the money from this case and then pull it with this from this case. It's shared out based on this case only. That's also how the sharing is determined. So, you know, the total value of assets for your participation or your agencies participation in case X and case X. The total value of assets forfeited during case X. And then those are distributed according to, as I said, I mean, it's the, the federal partners are making those distribution determinations and they, they are required by law to make victims whole first, if there are victims to be, they can be determined. And then they share out. Their participation with regulatory agencies. Famicom participatory entities that have based on their amount of participation. The level of participation. I do understand that. But I just, um, I guess I would feel better knowing. If anywhere in that pool. Although I understand what you're saying that Burlington. It doesn't get those type of dollars. Take money from people that haven't been convicted or have a plea pardon. Each case has been finalized, that's how the money can then be distributed. So sorry to jump and maybe, but because on the federal, like at the federal level, the whole program, like any of the cases involving Burlington or any of the cases in Vermont have to involve a conviction or a plea, right? But the federally, that's not true. So those could be administrative or other forms of. So if Milo is thinking about it as a big pool that the federal government like collect and then redistributes, that pool would be, would have all kinds of cases in it, but all the things that Vermont would be. But the pools don't commingle. The pools are based on the case. I mean, it's each case is its own, is its own amount. Right. I can't, I don't believe that you can commingle those any more than an attorney and an attorney can commingle escrow A with escrow B. It's, it's right. Any of the months that Burlington is getting are from Vermont for Burlington cases that they contributed to that are not involved with the program. The federal program as a whole does deal with cases that aren't. I, they can't sell people's assets until the case is done. The federal government doesn't do what other places have done. I mean, there are instant state levels, states operate in different ways. And there can be asset forfeiture done in different ways prior to conviction in states. That's not how the federal program operates. And I can try to get a statement to that effect to confirm it or dispel it from someone in the state's attorney's office. And I would ask, actually, Commissioner Hart Hart, can you help me sort of articulate this and then together we can write to the same person to whom I wrote before with the UCC. But if you can articulate this question that Commissioner Grant is asking in a way that we can get as clear an answer as possible from the U.S. Attorney. Sure. Sorry, so I've not been looking at hands. I see Harry's hand up and I think that's it. Thank you. I just. I guess I'm confused because I sort of as long lines of what Commissioner Grant and Chair Hightower are saying, I was under the impression that we this allows us to participate in the federal program, which does rely on a pool and doesn't. Not a pool. It's the amount of money from specific case to specific case to specific case. And those those don't commingle into a single pool. They they're they're based on. Concrete assets or currency seized as part of a concrete case and then distributed to participants according to the amount of participation in that case. OK. I kind of think I mean, I think there's a belief that if if if some of the water is dirty and the water all goes into the same pool, then it's a dirty pool. That's not the case here. I can't change if people think that this entire practice is problematic or dirty. I understand that some people do. But what we are talking about are cases that are, as I've said before, they are are long term cases followed through with multiple layers of judicial review and prosecutorial review, and they are followed through to a conclusion against individuals who are high level drug traffickers, sex traffickers, people who who work in violence and cause violence on others. These are the victimizers. These are not victims. And the money that is derived from that is kept separate from other monies and it is seized and then distributed according to these these rules. Are there victims that need to have monies distributed to them? Are there people who need to be recompensated rather compensated and then who has participated as I gave with some of those, you know, figures of of amounts that are, you know, if if one hundred and thirty seven thousand, excuse me, one hundred thirty thousand in United States currency was taken in one particular case. Our share of that one was was a big one. That was in twenty thirteen of eighty seven thousand six hundred ninety five dollars. But that was that was the largest of all of our participatory amounts. We don't that's not the whole thing because there are other people and entities that would have participated in that. I don't have the details of that specific case, but that's indicative of how how it works in no instance was the total amount seized, the total amount that the Burlington received. We receive a portion. We are is equitably shared among the participants. Audrey, just checking in to see if you had thoughts on confusion or. Oh, yeah, I was I'm just under the impression, Commissioner Grant, that the equitable showing that Vermont participates in and that BPD participates in isn't doing what you're concerned about so much as like generally when like people think of, you know, loopholes in equitable sharing, it's more about the percent of the funds that the police department can receive. And so like if they participate in equitable sharing, you can receive up to 80 percent of the funds back to a specific police department and which tends to be more than some states allow. And so that's usually the part that people are concerned about is accessible to Vermont because Vermont doesn't allow for asset forfeiture in anything other than criminal convictions. Does that make sense? Yes, that makes sense. I'm not sure it answers my greatest my greater question, but that makes sense. I will I will try and and think of a way to to summarize it because I hear all the things that the chief is saying. And I understand all the things that you're saying, but there is a greater issue when things are taken away from people where there are no convictions and there are no plea bargains and people go through a trial and they're found innocent and then they can't get their money or property back. And it sounds like we're definitely not participating in that. But if that pool that we pull from does at any point, I can find that problematic, but I can see how attractive all that money is. And in terms of coming in and enabling us to have resources that we might not have, but at the same time, there's the morality of the issue. So I would imagine a real concern. I'm hoping that the Commissioner Hart is hearing this as well to help me articulate it in an email. But I would imagine that it's only pooled in the sense that it becomes federal money. And if that's the case, then any federal money somehow is part of this. And if we get federal money for anything, whether it's a road or a library, it's it's all got that it's not. It's not individually that way. It's like Burlington in Vermont can't the money pool like the pool. It's not so much a pool as like it's money that is acquired from a particular case. And that case is handed off to the federal government as dense like or is shared with the federal government. And so then they take all of those funds and give some back to the state afterwards. So it's not pooled with other states that do allow for asset forfeiture that we wouldn't support here. Or like or to the extent that like the types that like do allow for forfeiture without convictions and that kind of thing. Just want to quickly check, Perry and then Franklin, I don't I can't tell if your hand is still raised from the previous time if you're raising your hand, but. So was I first in the queue, did you say? But so you say so they're taking it and then it's going to a federal program and then we're getting a percentage of it back. Is what you're saying? Is that we're saying, Audrey? Yes, sorry. And it's not pooled with other states is forfeitures either. It's like as if it would be as if like each has their own account almost in each department who participates in a in such an action with a federal agency has their own separate account that they pool their resources. There's agencies resources into like BPDs and a federal agency. They have received now the post liquidated assets after a conviction of something. And it's all now taken by generally the federal agency and the federal agency gives a certain amount back to whichever local agency participated in the activity. OK, thank you for the clarification. I had a question, which was do we have a policy around whether that's at the state level or it's the Burlington Police Department around, you know, I'm hearing you say we don't. We don't. And this is I think a question for fact and chief that we don't. We don't take money from these kinds of cases or we don't take money from, you know, like these low. Is that codified somewhere? Or is that just of like this is how we have tended to do things? We don't. It's not. We don't seize money. It's not. I don't know that it's codified and directed, for example. I would have to check on that and will. But it's also something that I think Council Member Paulino can speak to this. It would have to be done through his office. And it's it's not something for which we would generally receive cooperation from the state's attorney, unless we made a very, very specific case. Wait, sorry, you can't have a you can't have a policy on asset for for it's not it. So we see things that are evidence of crimes. And then if it's no longer evidence of a crime, it's returned to the person. If it is evidence that it stays in evidence. And I am not certain. You know, I'm not entirely certain what how else to explain that if. Well, I guess because is it sorry. I think I'm just not because you said we only use it for these kinds of cases, not for like petty cases. And I'm asking, is that just going to be true because you only do it through the federal program? Or is that just because you've never pursued it in petty cases? But you could. I don't understand, like. It's. I don't know if I was going to weigh in. Sorry, I have a barking dog here. I just got him out. So I think it's a little bit of both. I think that we talked about it at the one of the first meetings that Vermont law is so has such a high burden that I think that we don't use essentially like are and also in our courts. In a criminal case, the defendant has the ability to file a motion to get their property returned, and those are granted pretty liberally. So the fact that the law in Vermont is so requires convictions we talked about and second, judges before the conviction will return the property, we, I think, as a collective group, I don't think anybody really made this decision. It was just like more practice. It just doesn't get used much. It just doesn't get used much. So that answers your question about why why we don't do it for. I wouldn't call them petty crimes. I would just call them, you know, their state crimes and the only other option then is the state is the federal government. And unlike the state, the attorney's office, the U.S. attorney's office has a greater amount of discretion in what kind of cases they deal with and prosecute. And so it's really just up to them and their agents and their capacity and their criteria, which I don't know anything about as to whether they decide to get involved. And I think part of their analysis, I'm sure, is whether, you know, the resources they're going after are beneficial for the program, their agency, you know, whether it's substantial enough funds. But it's it has not been something that we do at the state level. Unless it's voluntarily rare, rarely, you'll see somebody who will offer up voluntarily as a way to sort of, you know, and those are done rarely, where a defense attorney will suggest. How about we and they're not gone. We don't go through the police department even sometimes. Sometimes it's donated to charity, for example. And what I meant, if I may clear and thank you so much, Council Member Polino, for that. What I meant by petty is the level, the scope of it. If we arrest a person for public use of a substance and find on in that person's pockets to crumpled $10 bills, that is not being seized. That is not evidence of a crime. It's not we're not going to take it and hold it until there's a conviction down the road for that public use of a substance, which, by the way, there will not be a conviction for that crime. And it will will never get to that point with it. And we're not holding that money, that money belongs to the individual. And that's not what we're talking about, nor are we talking about saying found the same individual not in public, but in this front seat of his or her vehicle, nice or or or fancy or or old and decrepit and then seizing that vehicle. That's not something that we do by policy, by by tradition, by just a practice. And the bulk of the reason is that it, again, has to go to another level that has a whole bunch of hurdles and will be overseen through the state. So now that there are instances in which it may become something that is valid or or or something that we would consider and make a case to the state's attorney for if a if if property is the instrument of the person's alleged malfeasance, that can become something very important. We have an individual who has been committing a lot of of driving offenses, very dangerous driving offenses. And at some point, exploring whether or not to seize that vehicle in a permanent way, that could be a valid method of addressing this issue. But it's not already we've taken that vehicle a couple of times and it goes back to the individual. We don't we don't we do not seize things in that manner. Unless they're evidence of a crime and then they're kept until they're no longer evidence. So I think I'm still a little bit confused because I heard Franklin say, oh, you know, sometimes, you know, like, oh, or people are like, any time you ask for it back, it tends to we tend to be very like loose and give things back very easily. And I hear you say, oh, we've never done, but we may be able to do it here. I guess it's just I don't understand what the how you decide what the line is between like when you seize an asset and when you don't. And I'm and it doesn't sound like it's like it depends on if it's a federal case or not, it depends. It sounds like it's something else, but I don't know what it is. And I'm just suggesting or sorry enough here that if we can't articulate that, that may be something worth articulating to help the police department if asset forfeiture is something that is a practice that we want to continue, which I don't want to push that on push that opinion on this committee or on the council. But that is it is very loose to me as to when we say, yeah. I see I see what you're saying, Caster Hightower. I think what we're confusing a little bit is I was talking about seizure, which is what you're interested in seizure. So seizure goes the seizures we're talking about are through this federal program. To some extent, we do physically take property, right? If somebody gets booked and it's held overnight, but they can come back, you know, because because the jail has specific policies, let's say, which, by the way, you know, the number of people being held overnight has greatly reduced. So we're talking about us. We're talking about things that have changed dramatically, even just the last two years. So those people, the jail has policies about what you can bring in there. And they are usually available to be picked up. Those are the kinds of things that I think Chief Mirad was talking about, where somebody could come back and pick them up, except for, you know, he spoke about taking an individual's license. That seems to make sense if that individual has, like, you know, 10 or 20 court orders not to drive and has gotten an accident, that kind of thing. I haven't dealt with something like that, but I could see, I could see myself having to do that. Anyway, that's that. So we're talking about taking property doesn't mean seized is essentially the and from a practical perspective, essentially, the standards from the court are take pictures of it unless you really need it. Meaning like you can't pictures will not do it justice. That the problem starts when there's like a theft, right? And there's like a lot of property and you can't identify it. But generally, no, we don't usually return property. And I would just rely on the chief's opinion on that. But in my experience, it's not even something that we deal with that often because people just know they go to Burlington Police Evidence Locker and they pick it up. If the police officers have a problem because they think it might be evidence, they give me a call or an email and they come to come back within 72 hours and so forth. And they're pretty good about following up with me about if I don't respond to them right away. I don't know if that helps, but just some properties taken into custody because the person can't have it when he or she goes to if he or she is going to be held. But it's returned to them afterwards. Some properties taken into custody because or seized because it's going to be evidence and it's needed on a permanent basis. Asset forfeiture is property that has been forfeited after a much longer process. And it's not the same as things it had to be seized in the first place or at some point along the way. But sometimes it's not even seized during the initial investigation or the executions of the search warrants, etc. Sometimes it's found after the fact during the court case and it's found through forensics accounting and it says, this was you bought this using. This is how you laundered your money. You laundered your money by buying a Mercedes S550. So that belongs to the government now once you lose your case. Or if you take this plea deal and the person says, OK, or fights it and loses. And then the government does in fact have that and that asset is forfeit. Go ahead, Srin. Chief, would there ever be the ability based on a unique federal case to, how do I say this, to refuse the forfeiture funds? Could we refuse forfeiture funds? In a given case. I if for whatever reason we felt if we if post participation in the case, we came to have doubts about that case or something along those lines. I see no reason why we couldn't refuse the funds or. Although I'd have to check on that actually. I mean, once once we're once we certify that we're participating, I'd have to see. I can't imagine that they would say, no, you have to take this. I think they just say, if you don't want it, then you don't have to have it. But yeah. So along that along those lines, let's say you have a case where the assets are forfeited, but then later the conviction is overturned or whatever happens. But you already have it that you might have sold the vehicle. You might have sold the home. So I guess there could be cases where the funds can't be returned. Yes, I would guess I'd guess that that is the case. I'm not certain of not certain of it. That please let's incorporate that into our letter. Okay. Yeah, because that would that might go a long way to addressing some of this. If one knew that on a given case, if there hadn't been a conviction yet, or that there could be an escrow fund for lack of a better term where something is held, where the funds are held until there's a final conviction, sometimes that, I mean, we all know that can take years, right? But okay. Thank you. And the disbursement of these funds does take years. The monies that I was talking about are not monies from cases that have been conducted this year or even really in 2019. Right. The received monies are all from cases that predate that. Right. Commissioner Grant, I'm wondering if the best way to check in with you is through sell. What's the best way for me to be in contact with you on this? Is it by cell phone? Is it text, email? Sure. Sell is fine. Okay. Thank you. Other points of discussion or thoughts on next steps? It sounds like we've got at least one next step in terms of further questions. Just to add, if you're looking for more information about seizure or property of the state statute on forfeiture, does lay out when property can be seized and procedures for that? Well, the question for me is not, is what happens when those procedures are violated in some way? And someone who shouldn't have had property or funds taken away had that happen to them. So I hear all the good stuff, but I just still have that question that doesn't seem to have a, or we haven't given a clear answer on. Again, I think that we can incorporate that request into the letter and determine whether or not there are instances, for example, in which a person has been made whole from the regarding the assets forfeited at the end of a case. Even a conviction, assets forfeited, dispersed, they're gone. The person prevails on appeal and says, I want my funds back. We can determine whether or not that's done. I guess what remains for me is, even if the aspect of the forfeiture has more elements of sort of addressing the due process aspect, I guess the aspect that's still outstanding for me is that the agency being able to seize assets and then sort of gain revenue, I'm not sure if that's a good word through that, it's not a good system. If that item that ultimately is forfeited is not going to be destroyed and is and or has to be liquidated in some way, then that I suppose could go to a general state fund or some sort of, but to go directly back to the agency that is responsible for seizing those items makes absolutely no sense to me. So I guess that I hear that one aspect and one concern maybe is someone answered, but there are still outstanding concerns for me. I had, can I ask one more? And the question over, I'm trying to remember because I know we did get a presentation from you, Chief Merritt, about this, but was there an inventory of the seas, of everything seized in that, that ended up, was that, is that something that was available to us? No, I was able to give you examples. Sorry, I just was trailing on. I was able to give you some examples of materials, etc. An inventory, I don't have an inventory that I'm, that is mine to share. I have, I have amounts that are mine to share and figures and have, but the inventory, no. And why, is that just not public information or is that not? It comes from, it comes from our, it's from a federal partner and is there. So I'm, I'm not, that's not my information to share. I can ask if it can be shared. We can certainly, it can be, it could probably be applied for, but. Okay. Yeah, if possible, that would be, I think that would be important to see as well. I don't know if that's to the same, the same source, but. It is, it's the, it's the source of the, what I told you tonight with regard to amounts and, and specific items like the Mercedes Benz or the Lexus or the Audi or the Range Rover, but that's something that the joint committee can certainly request of the US Attorney's Office. Any other questions or discussion? Can I just ask a question? Joy, I think it was Joy that said, gave a resource of where this could be information could be found, some information resource and I didn't quite get it. Yeah, so it's the states, I can give you a citation to the state statute. If you want, I can also email a link to that if that's easier. Yeah, if you can email it, that'd be great. Because I think most of what's being discussed here might be clarified by taking a look at that. Thanks for that resource. Sure. Yep, wasn't that around. But may I just add something? My understanding is what we're talking about though, isn't that statute that we're talking about forfeitures under federal law, not under the state forfeiture law. Is that correct, Chief Mirad? Okay, so Commissioner Durfee, you'll be looking at the state statute, but what we're talking about is the federal. Although I believe that both Joy and Franklin have indicated that the state statute does limit what we can do because we're beholden to those state laws as well. So putting a cap, for example, on certain things. Right, that's what I was under the impression. I know you're talking about federal, but go ahead. Accept that. And I don't, I'm not even going to pretend to understand this, but accept that the federal program is often used to not use state caps, but the somehow not the case in Vermont is my understanding. Is that in the paper that Audrey did for us? Sorry, Chief, is that, did Audrey's paper cover that? Audrey. So my paper did cover how it didn't cover like how Vermont or BVD delineates, like where it does indolencies, but it does have, along with the citations, like the statute citations, what Vermont law up to allows the state to do or any local agency to do. And so in that document are also this, like at the very end of the like we're excited. You'll have links to various titles under Vermont law, but I can work on updating that memo to address the questions brought up here. Great, seeing no more hands. I don't know if we have a true path forward, but I think we at least have some questions that we are hoping to get the answer to, which I will at least take as progress. And with that, I'm giving up on doodle polls. So we are going to set the meeting next meeting tonight. And the sense that I did get from the doodle polls that Mondays and Thursdays work best for folks. So clearly, Harry and Franklin and I can't do Council Mondays, but I know Franklin has a conflict on Thursday. So I would suggest that we either meet because of the RP. I was planning on suggesting we meet in three weeks, but given that we have to relook at the RP again, I wonder if we should meet a little sooner. I think potential dates that we have is we're not going to do election night. And so November 5th or November 16th, which is three weeks away. The fifth is hard for me, but that doesn't, I have no problem with this group meeting on that day. Either date would be fine with me. We could also do the fourth. I know Wednesdays haven't historically worked as well for people, but I have a charter change committee meeting on the fourth. Did you say I can, I can do the fifth Council. And what was the other day? The Monday, the 16th and off. I could do the fifth and or the 16th. Not do the fifth. I don't know. We haven't heard from do we still have a quorum? Do we lose people? We're good, right? Yeah, we've still got six. Yeah, no six. We gained Franklin and lost Stephanie. So, okay, can we tentatively schedule for the, the fifth then I'm hearing Sherene can't do it, but I'm hoping at least one person who's not here can. And that also gives them a chance to review it. And since Sherene and I will be working on that, I think it's less critical that I can do that. I think the sooner, the better, because by that time, we'll also have something from Commissioner Durfee, probably on the references, right? So we don't stall too long on that. Maybe we set the 16th as well. I don't know. Randall can do the fifth. I just texted him. Good, great. Please do practice. Great. Then let's set our next meeting for Thursday the fifth at 5.30. Is that time to still work for folks? Yep. Great. Even five. And so agenda items will include approving the BPDRP, hearing back, maybe potentially some answers from Chief Mirad, Commissioner Hart and Grant, and making the final selection on, or I guess we already approved it. So, but finishing the first RFP as well. I'm moving that into contracting stages. Great, great. Thank you all for a long meeting. I appreciate you working with us. And Sherene and I will try to get the RFP turned around a little faster. I had a great listening it to you all last Monday. That was my fault, the delay. So, thanks everyone. And we'll give you a little bit more leeway, a little bit more heads up next time. You need a motion? Do you need a motion? So moved. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Councillor Freeman. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned at 8.01. Thank you. Things are right.