 evening, everyone. This is the Burlington Police Commission meeting for Tuesday, July 25th. We have quorum and we will get started. We are expecting at least one other commissioners, commissioners to join online. I don't know, Keaton, if you can get into Zoom and see if they are there, and we are expecting a commissioner online and see if we can, okay, okay, they're not there yet. Hold on, we do have, you will have an opportunity as I open it up for public forum. Okay, thanks. Yeah, sure, I'll give you, let's get it done. We don't even have a time limit. So, welcome, everyone. To begin with, we have a quorum and let's get started. A motion to adopt or amend the agenda. So moved. I'd like to make an amendment. Okay. Commissioner Cox, an amendment to the agenda. So I'd like to amend item 6-2 to raise, to read, discussion. I'd like item 6.2, 6.2 to say discussion of the issues raised by commission members in the presentation to the joint committee. So amended. Do people have any questions or, okay, moved. I'll second that. Okay, second from Commissioner Oskie. All those in favor of adapting, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. And I, wait, Keaton, are you taking minutes? Okay. So just make sure you write down what the change is. Okay, perfect. Okay, sorry. So it's now reads discussion of the issues raised by commission members in the presentation to the joint committee. Okay. A motion to table the approval of commission meetings from the June, from June 2023 until August 2023 meeting. We don't have the minutes prepared because we had a staff change. So that's the motion. Any seconds? Second. Commissioner Cox, seconds. Oh, so moved. I'm doing this for the first time. So please bear with me. This is my first time running this city. All in favor of adopting, say aye. Aye. Thank you. Okay, we are on three public forum. If people want to speak, please mention your name and, and go ahead when you have a few moments. I'm Bruce Wilson, the Vermont since 1989. You know what I'm saying? I've been in a lot of programs around the state of Vermont, with our youth programs and murals and all kinds of things we do. If you look up Bruce Wilson, you can see who I am. I'm also a commissioner for the state of Vermont, for the Human Rights Commissioner. I'm a commissioner for the city of Rwanduski. I'm a commissioner for Chittin County Regional Planning Commission. And I work with on the central level with our governors and senators and mayors and all things I've done for since 1989. And I work with primarily with the ambulance and I work with the chiefs around the state, all the chiefs around the state and Chittin County. I work with the, in other words, where I do serve the community. We have over 50 awards that we've done over 700 events. And we created a lot of events for the city of Burlington and we've done a lot of events for the state period. And so I'm here to talk about, continue to do, as a person of color, you know, there's not many, 0.1% of African Americans in the state of Vermont. And I'm here to talk about how can we make sure diversity, equity, inclusion is involved. I know I work with the director from Kim Carson and all around the state for what I do. I work on the Green Mountain Transit Justice Equity and Diversity and Inclusion. I work in the school district for anti-reversionism. I work for a lot of programs around the state. All right. And so, you know, it seemed like it's not enough, enough for people who look like me. You know, it's still, I work for the state police advisory board and now economic FIP for parts of the police and community. It's still in Vermont, from Burlington police, it's still 85% of people who look like me, 15, 85% of people look like me. We're 1.0%, we're 1.0% of people who look like me. I'm still taking it and stopped in whatever we are. You know what I'm saying? It's pitiful. It's pitiful around the state. It's so in the Vermont state police, it's only, it's 15, so we, 15, we, we are, what is it, is it a 1.1% of African Americans in the state of Vermont? And 85% of our still being stopped in the police, police around the state. What the, come on. That ain't make no shit to me. Listen, I'm pissed off about that. And I mean, I'm on all these boards. You know what I'm saying? You look at my name, you probably, y'all know how far you know me. You know what I'm saying? It's pitiful. Why is that? Why is that people who look like me, 85% and we're only 0.1% of people who look like me are being stopped in the state of Vermont for trafics and all these reasons. And I've been working on these issues since, God knows, 2001. I'm a founding member of the community justice centers around the state. I created community justice in 1998. I created community justice centers. And since that time, the same numbers are the same. You stop black people in the state of Vermont, 85% and we're only 0.1% in the state. Why is that? Why? Why? Why? I know it is, I came into the whitest state in the America. Now it's like the so-called second white state. I have ideas, why? Because I sell all these boards across the state. I don't have ideas because I live in Vermont since 1989. You know, I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off. Listen, I'm telling you, I ain't for that shit. You know what I'm saying? It's only me, seem like it. And I work with the people who look like me. Shit's got to change. I mean it. I mean it's got to change. Well, how is it going to change? How are we going to stop? Listen, listen, listen, listen, listen, listen. You know, I'm from Chicago. I've been in Vermont since 1989. Ain't bad nobody. I've been in trouble myself, you know what I'm saying? But I go out here from Northwestern University. I have a master's degree in psychology. That's just me. Master's degree in psychology. I have, I open up every youth center in the malls and across the state. You know what I'm saying? Y'all know me, Bruce. I have art center in the University of Vermont like I art so wonderful. You know what I'm saying? We work with youth and families and community free for them. You know, give them an opportunity to have healthy outlets, goals and aspirations, helping with the dreams. I work in all the jails, straight talk Vermont. You probably know about it. It's incredible program around the state of Vermont. We have, we have, we help them with their job, job selling, mentoring, tutoring. We help them with, we help them with re-entry into community successfully, successfully, since 1989. And so many people, you say straight talk Vermont people know the jails office, they know about straight talk Vermont. You know what I'm saying? But still, yeah, still, people are still, white people are still walking up to black people and saying, and harassing them and stopping them. Could they drop the bins and drop, it didn't get big in music or whatever. Why? Why? How we get better? Oh, I know how we got better. We're the second white state in America now. It's not the first. Listen, listen, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you, like I said, I'm a commissioner, I'm a commissioner for the Immigration Commission, I'm a commissioner, I work on a school district for Winnicki, Inter-Racist, Green Mountain Transit, Inter-justice, Equity, Diversity, I send all these boards. Listen, what, what we got to do, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Justice, Equity, Division, Inclusion, all our boards, racial, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging, it's bullshit. Sorry, it is. Because everybody said, oh, we got these policies. Even state police, state police of Vermont, got the fair parts of policing, you got an incredible website. I'm going to say one more thing, I'm going to go, they have a incredible website. It's right there. It says all the wonderful things they do. I work with all the chiefs around the state. They know me. You say Bruce Wilson, they know me. Say Bruce. I got your words. It's Bruce now, because look at me and I'm Bruce. But I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to tell you something. It's all bullshit. It's a policy. It's a procedure. It's just objective. It's all that. I might have to go over now, but I'm going to try to say how we can make this really work in Vermont. The white state, it's still the white state in Vermont. Listen, you talk to the mayor, you talk to the governor, they know me and they will tell you that I'm like this all day. I sit on the central level. I'm sorry, but I'm a little emotional. You know what I'm saying? And so, do you have any ideas? How are we going to change this stuff? Policy procedures? Do you know how we're going to do this? It feels like, oh, there's a black and he's talking. Listen, you know Bruce Wilson for years, how are we going to make sure it's just changed? Come on, man. You know what? Come out the back room. Get people like me, roam me in the room, talk about how we can do this, get all the constituents, and let's figure it out. I am pissed off. Listen, I know how to do it. I'm going to make it work because all my constituents who are commissioners, board, lawyers, we're going to change this stuff. We're going to change constituents. We're going to change people who are in charge. I have the power. I believe it. I am so powerful in this state. Guess what? We're going to change shit. We're going to change how the elected officials who's in charge, we're going to do it. He's not anything, oh, you're thinking I can't. Watch me. Mr. Wilson, thank you so much for your impassioned speech. Thank you so much. Anyone else? Please introduce yourself. Thank you, Bruce, for that passionate statement. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Your time is over. Let's hear somebody else. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Thank you for having me today. My name is Romeo. I am a resident here in Burlington, Vermont, towards Ward 8, soon to be Ward 6. I'm here today to address a matter of utmost importance, which is significant of public safety and growing concern for random attacks on innocent people in and around our city. Like what happened to Kelly Cousin. I hope I'm spelling her or saying her name right. May her soul rest in peace. I think you've heard that in the news of what happened to her at the park. In a world that is rapidly evolving, it is our responsibility to ensure that our communities remain secure and free from harm. Public safety of all forms are the bedrock of any thriving society. It is the assurance that we can walk the streets, travel, work and enjoy our lives without constant fear. It's the belief that children can play in the parks and the adults can take an evening stroll without having to face threat of violence. We can safeguard public safety and foster an environment of trust, harmony and progress. However, in recent times, we are witnessing random attacks on innocent people here in the city. These incidents are causing pain, trauma to the families. It is heartbreaking to learn what happened to Kelly and I keep bringing up her name because it's rather unfortunate what happened to her and it's really regretful. We must be clear in our stents that such actions are completely unacceptable. They not only violate the basic principles of humanity but also undermine the fabric of our society. Our strength lies in our unity, our ability to come together as one and our shared commitment to better, building better and safer world for everybody here in our city. To address this issue today, we need multi-phased approach. First and foremost, it is crucial to strengthen and support our law enforcement agencies to play, they play a rather vital role in maintaining law and order but they also need the necessary resources and training to handle emerging challenges in our city. This includes mental health and substance abuse disorder, how to deal with them, which I commend on our current leadership of the department, working extremely hard in addressing these issues and it's not easy for them but it takes a community to wrap around with our department members to make sure everything is done right. Secondly, we must promote a culture of inclusivity and tolerance, embrace diversity, which enriches our communities and breaks down barriers of misunderstanding and prejudice. By celebrating our differences and understanding one another, we can create a society where hate has no place in our city and I promise to be quick but furthermore community engagement is paramount. Together we can foster a sense of belonging and shared responsibility for the safety of our neighborhoods. Neighbors looking out for each other reporting suspicious activities, working hand in hand with law enforcement can be powerful deterrence for potential threats in our city. Education also plays a vital, vital rather and a crucial role in combating violence and fostering empathy. We must educate our youth about the importance of tolerance, understanding and conflict resolution before they begin. By nurturing compassionate and responsible individuals so we can create a safer and more compassionate society. Lastly, it is essential to address the root causes of violence, mental health, by investing in mental health services, providing support for those who need. We can prevent potential harms and offer help to those struggling with their inner demons. In conclusion, the importance of public safety cannot be overstated. Random attacks on innocent people are not just isolated incidents in our city. They are a threat to every essence of humanity. Let us stand united against violence and work together to build a world where every individual can live without a fear. Together, we can create a safer, more compassionate and harmonious society for ourselves and generations to come in our city. Thank you for giving me the time to speak. Thank you so much. Is anybody else? Go ahead. It's Dave Maher. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening and thank you all of you for all the hard, just coming over with, okay, all the hard work you do day in and day out. But there is a perception of some people living in the city that the police department isn't doing enough to investigate and arrest drug dealers. Now, I'm on the fence in this matter, but I have done little research, and I looked online. I can only find evidence of one drug bust in Burlington in the last year, and that was a few months ago on North Avenue in the trailer park. There's also the one in Manhattan Pizza where the guy who got shot, I guess he ditched a bag of crack cocaine, got arrested for that on the way to the hospital, but that's, I guess, a different matter. But I think I'll all agree that drugs are the root cause or at least a factor in many of the crimes we have in the city, assaults, robberies, and homicides. I believe there are also a number of residences in town that are known to harbor drug dealers. So I'd like to know if drug arrests just aren't being publicized or if not enough is being done to arrest drug dealers. Because I think if there's not enough being done, it should be raised in terms of the priority. Because the last thing we want is for Burlington to be a safe haven for drug dealers. Thank you. Thank you so much. I don't know if, Keaton, anybody is online, anybody who wants to speak? The public forum is online? Is there any way for you to check that? It doesn't look like it, right? If not, we can move to the chief's report if there's nobody online. Chief Murad, welcome. Thank you so much. And I hope that it was sent to you. Are you able to pull that up, the chief's report? No. So generally, we pull it up and then do a screen share. And I would not want to be in your shoes. Excuse me, Chief Murad. I am supporting Keaton. Oh, hi, sorry, Catherine. I'm here from home tonight. I'm supporting Keaton, and I can make that happen. Awesome. And just give me one second. Thank you. Thank you. Not at all. It was supposed to, I only sent it this morning. Wonderful. Thank you, Catherine. So, yeah, I only was able to send this this morning. I apologize for that. Normally, I send this on the Thursday or Friday prior. I was out of town. I was on a vacation. I had both my parents and my parents-in-law had 55th wedding anniversaries this summer, and I ended up having to go on two vacations. And that was a little too much. But nevertheless, it was nice to be away, but I was unable to get this in time, and I apologize for that. So, we can go through this together now. That's a nice picture of the 4th of July, or the 3rd of July, rather, as we do it here. Thanks, Catherine. The 3rd of July is a big event for us. So, it is an all-hands-on-deck sort of event. You can see all hands in that lower corner on the bottom there. That is as full a roll call as we currently can do. And so that was basically every officer that we had. We cover the Oakledge Park. We cover the Waterfront. We cover North Beach. And then we move officers away from those posts to traffic posts after the fireworks are done in order to facilitate movement. And we had a couple adventures, for example. The folks who did the really cool drone show had not informed us that we had to have, I believe, a 150 or 200-foot alley under which no people were sitting. And so we had to move a bunch of people who had already established themselves for quite some time, hours in some cases, on a little peninsula down near the treatment plant that is south of Perkins Pier. Had to sort of emergency move those folks and say, we promise you can go back to your spaces. We obviously had traffic incidents, of course. And kids separated from parents who come and look for officers. But all in all, it was a terrific event. It's a really great night for the city and even the officers there were able to enjoy themselves. Next, please. So this is a much less enjoyable fact. We experienced our first murder of 2023. On the beginning of July, people reported that an unresponsive female was seen in Champlain Street Park, which is just a little bit south and west of us here in City Hall. Officers responded and discovered that woman to be deceased. We treated it initially as what we call a suspicious untimely. The cause of death was not immediately certain. It has still not yet been officially determined by the medical examiner. But we are confident that it was a murder in order for a number of reasons that are spelled out in the affidavit, which is publicly available. A press conference was held last week to that effect. Detectives did yet again exemplary work. Our detectives have solved every single murder that has happened in the city in the past more than 11 years. Since 2012, since we started keeping records in Valcor. And the fact of the matter is, I don't believe that there's an unsolved murder for the past three decades. I think we have to go back to the 80s to find one. The officers and detectives did really terrific work and identified a suspect, arrested that suspect, and hopefully have been able to find some degree of resolution for the family of our victim, Kelly Cousin. And terrible crime. We still have a long way to go, obviously. An arrest is only the beginning. And now those detectives continue to work hard on further developing this case, working with the state's attorney's office and ultimately taking this to trial. But it will be some time. We have associated that suspect, Claude Moumbair, with another crime. We released that information yesterday. There was a pretty vicious attack, a random attack of a woman about a year ago with a snowshoe. A person basically followed her around the downtown and then assaulted her with a discarded snowshoe and the iron cleats on that or the metal cleats on that. We have associated the suspect in this murder with that crime as well. Next, please. Our headcount, this is as of July 1st. We pegged each of these to the 1st of the month, that's 64. Since July 1st, we have lost two officers to retirement, but we brought five aboard. And so we're doing a little better if we were to show this today. And I'm hopeful that the chart that we show you in the August chief's report will be a little bit more positive than this one. But 64 is where we've been for a while. You can see those dots have sort of been the same in the last couple months. Next, please. This is another breakdown of those numbers. This is as of the 15th of the month. Again, that previous chart shows the 1st of each month. This is as of the 15th. It was the same at that point. Neither of the two officers who retired had officially retired as of the 15th. One went on the 27th and one, excuse me, the 17th and one went on the 21st. Nor had we brought aboard the five officers that we just brought on for the next police academy which begins in August. We're doing pre-basic work at the police department. But so this is the middle of the month, July 15th. That's the cutoff we use for all the data in the chief's reports. It was 64 with 57 available. And this shows the breakdown of where those officers are. Detectives, the airport, unavailable includes we have four officers who graduated from the police academy in June. They are still on field training. We do not consider them to be available officers because they have to be with another officer at all times, et cetera. Next please. Thank you. Public safety roles unique to the Burlington Police Department. We have six CSOs and five CSLs. Unfortunately, both those numbers are lower today on July 25th than they were on July 15th because one of those CSOs is among our five new police recruits. I think that's a great thing. I think it's great that we are able to bring people on board, put them in roles within the department, allow them to see the culture of the department, see the city understand the role of the department and its various positions including police officer and still say, yes, I want to join this police department and I want to stay here as part of this team and part of this family. I think that speaks highly of the agency and the culture that we've got inside I think it's great that we have a CSL who is transitioning to the police role. I think that too speaks highly of what we have with regard to police officers who have a social service and a social work mindset. Next please. Our priority response plan revised in May of 2021 originally introduced, excuse me, introduced in May of 2021 revised in May of 2021 introduced in May of 2021 revised in May of 2022. This is still the system that controls how we use the resources we've got, whether we're talking about those half dozen CSOs, whether we're talking about the 60 some police officers, etc. Next please. Thank you. Year to date incident volume. Our incident volume is barely lower than it was five years ago. We have all but caught up to where we were in 2018 and that is challenging when we are down on officers. We have 50% fewer patrol resources and they are addressing a mere 3% fewer incidents. So something has to give there. What gives is the priority response plan and the use of stacking calls. We stack about 12% of calls so far this year and we also divert a lot of calls to online reporting about 13% and that's 25% but again we're 50% lower with regard to patrol resources. The use of other roles like CSOs and CSLs also helps address that gap but it's pretty pronounced and we are definitely looking at a challenging picture with regard to priority one calls for service as well although I unfortunately don't have the graphic for that in this month's chief's report. Next slide please. This is a much larger table. You can see those overdose numbers. Horrifically I believe that we have now surpassed last year's annual total. So here we are just a few weeks into the second half of the year but we have already surpassed the entirety of what 2022 was and 2022 was a really horrible year for overdose compared to where we had been in previous years. We're increasingly seeing that some of these overdoses are welfare checks for people who have not technically overdosed but have used substances but nevertheless the number would still be completely out of keeping with last year's numbers and it's pretty terrific and not terrific in a good way. Pretty horrific. Some of those other categories you see are still higher but others are moving in the right direction. Aggravated assault thankfully is a good deal lower. Gunfire is a great deal lower than it was last year or the year prior and that's a very good thing. It contributes to those aggravated assault numbers as well. Simple assaults up a little bit but we are forging forward. Traffic is a little bit up that has to do in part with the fact that we have four new officers on field training. Really the only people who do traffic these days are newer officers just to learn the mechanism of it and then they move away from it. Despite what was mentioned in some of the public comment there is not a racial disparity in Burlington's traffic stops last year this year and thus far this year we're not seeing that happen either but the last two years that disparity has been eliminated from the perspective of the population of drivers measured by crash data. My monthly plug you'll see that the starting pay went up and that's because we're in the second year of this contract now and so that starting pay is a good deal higher. As I mentioned I was on vacation I was in Gatlinburg on a day that happened to also be there was some convention of police cadets from a number of different agencies around the country that were all there. Cadets are younger people generally in high school who larger police departments are able to field cadet programs where they bring people in and sort of teach them police drill and they get to be familiarized with certain kinds of police activities and so these young people were marching and doing cadence throughout Gatlinburg, Tennessee and I mortified my poor son by when they were stopped and were quiet I shouted out to them that I was the chief of police here in Burlington and we were offering $74,000 to start and we would love to have eager young folks join us. My son wouldn't talk to me for the rest of the day but maybe we got one or two of those young cadets from Nassau County in New York State to be interested in thinking about Burlington as a possibility and that is the presentation for the chief's report. I just have a question about the doubt. It's my recollection. And thank you Catherine. It's my recollection that there's like a primary reason for the call and then a secondary reason for the call and so on your statistics is that all primary reasons? That is all primary. The secondary call category is very rarely used. It's just not something that officers do by habit or by practice and as a result it's not one that we can really rely on. Officers generally rather than nobody really understands the protocol for the use of the secondary so is it renaming the incident so that the primary is what it was initially but the secondary is what it became? Is it the opposite? Is it saying that this was a welfare check call but then it turned into a domestic violence call and I'm going to put both of those in there? It's unclear and as a result we stick with the primary category. The primary category as it says on that page can be changed. It can be changed by the first responding officer who may tell dispatch, hey this is not an overdose. This is a welfare check or this is an agency assist or it's a potential suicide but not an overdose for example. It can be changed by detectives. So an example would be the case with our murder. That was an untimely. Untimely is the term that we use for all deaths whether a person is 103 which God bless somebody who makes it to 103 but that passing is not an untimely passing per se but we nevertheless call every single passing untimely. This was an untimely and we investigated it as a suspicious untimely which isn't a different category. It's just untimely. We changed it to a homicide when additional information came in during that investigation but that took time to develop and so now that's carried in that way. So if I ran my untimely numbers they would be one higher the day before that distinction was made and then one lower the day after. Similarly homicide, we carry an attempted murder would be carried as a homicide. So certain felonious assaults are carried as homicides but they're not because the person survived but the attempt and that is where you can get into a little bit of sort of the slurry of data. Thank you. Hi, thank you. I'm wondering if you can talk to us about how often or why you might evaluate the priority response plan and specifically I look and I see that there are 66 crashes and I know that you've told us in the past that there's not a lot of enforcement right now of traffic violations. So when you see this number as 66 do you go back and look at your priority response plan and definitely with overdoses too and there's no drug enforcement. Are you sitting around and talking about that and deciding maybe we should adjust our priority response plan and make some changes? Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, thanks for the chance to do that. So the priority response plan is, you know, both overdoses are priority ones so we go to those. Crashes, the chart there shows, again a little feedback, the chart there shows crashes with injury or crashes with fatality only so it doesn't show other kinds of crashes, property or leaving the scene of an accident crashes. The fact that it's 66 and that it's higher than previous years does concern me a little bit. Traffic, however, is not a priority one because traffic is always going to be something that is discretionary to officers see it and take action on it when they have time to do so. We certainly expect officers to take action if they witness egregious driving behaviors, somebody doing 70 miles an hour down North Avenue. That is still something that an officer is going to attempt to interdict. What we don't look for anymore is, you know, turning signal violations. We don't look for pretextual stops in order to try for drug interdiction. I don't believe that that's a valuable way of getting at the drug problem. That said, again, any egregious driving behavior that has a safety component should be and I believe is being addressed by officers. I think as a city we have come to the realization that driving with regard to crashes and with regard to fatal crashes, crashes with injury and fatal crashes, is best mitigated and changed by engineering design. That is what the city has sort of leaned towards over the past several years. The use of speed tables, for example, that you do see on North Avenue there, the use of different kinds of lighting systems or bump-outs on curbs. Do I think that we have reached a point where our diminished traffic enforcement is now causing crashes to nudge up? It would appear to be so. That said, I still don't know that there is an appetite in the community for us to resume a posture of more vigorous traffic enforcement. I think that parts of the community that are quite, you know, expecting of that. But I don't know that that's where we want to go as an agency. So we do talk about it a little bit, but not in that sense. Now with regard to other evaluations, you know, part of the issue with the priority response plan is that we have now, we now use this as data and we have been using it as data for the past three years since we implemented a version of this after the pandemic, during the pandemic. And so, you know, if I were to move one category out, it's going to have data implications for comparison from year to year. If we, for example, said overdoses are no longer a priority one for the police department, they are a medical call. We should not be going to them. It should be a fire department response. That would change, right? Especially this year when we've had as many as we've had. There would be a statistically significant change to our priority one call volume data. Now, I'm not making determinations that have to do with people's safety based on whether or not our data is going to be skewed next year. That's not my priority. But it's a component of decision making, especially once you've sort of established something that you're using. I think that for us, you know, drugs also, like traffic, are going to remain priority threes, not because we think of them as unimportant, but because when we have limited resources, that's what the priority response plan is. It is when there's limited resources, what are we going to do or not going to do? And, you know, responding to a call for a person using drugs in the alley here at City Hall Park, which happened to me today. I'd been here for City Hall for a meeting. I was about to pull out from the space that is a police marked space at the corner of church in Maine. And a person came up to me and said, what do we do if we see somebody using drugs? And I said, it can be reported, but I may not get a response. Is the person doing that right now? Is there a safety issue that you need me to come respond? And she said, no. But what do we do? We do want that reported. We want to know what's happening in the city from a data perspective, if nothing else. But are we going to turn that into something that we go to? No. The route to addressing drug use is to have presence in our public spaces, which we have had a greater amount of. Even over the last couple of weeks, we've had some of our patrol postures to focus on the downtown core. But more importantly, it's to do a little bit of what we do. I'm gesturing to one of the persons who made public comment. We don't make press releases about every single one of those, but we have had far more than just that one drug introduction and operation in the North Avenue co-op. We've had quite a few over the past several years. And what we consider those to be is effective means of addressing, frankly, neighborhood quality of life. I don't believe that any of these are actually effective at addressing the totality of the drug situation. There are too many drugs out there. And even when we make an arrest that has a significant recovery amount where a lot of contraband is recovered, it's not making a dent in the amount of drugs that are out there being used. What it is doing, and it is a useful and valid use of police resources is addressing what has become a locus of disorder and problem for a given neighborhood if a drug house exists. That certainly was the case in the North Avenue co-operative. They're still experiencing problems, but we do what we can do with regard to interrupting the sale. So those operations don't follow the priority response plan. What the detectives are doing or the drug detectives are doing has nothing to do with the priority response and that is merely for how we marshal and husband resources available to us on patrol. And so I don't see changing, for example, a drug call to being a higher priority because if I only have three officers available and by sending one officer to a call that's going to put us into a place where we're now in the priority response, that one call is not going to be like, you know, I think somebody's selling drugs. That's a call for our detectives so that they can begin to work on that in a way that will have the potential of actually having a prosecutorial outcome. A street level drug arrest in Vermont does not have a prosecutorial outcome. Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Cox. I just have one more quick one. I was wondering when the BTV CARES positions were going to, like when that program was going to get everything. Yeah, thanks for asking. They were approved last night by the city council. The city council approved the job descriptions after thankful input from all of you. That input was incorporated. And we are the memo describing the program and sort of its current concept and the job descriptions were approved. I met with the mayor this afternoon. He said, get on that. He wants them posted hopefully by the end of the week. I'm hopeful that we will be able to meet that. That's just the clinician parts. So the clinical supervisor and the two clinicians. And then we need to work with the university in order to identify some registered nurses to fill out the medical component of the team. And you know, it's possible that initially we're going to go for one clinician and one RN and have a limited number of hours just as we get our feet under us. It's also possible that we'll go for both clinicians and both RNs. That part is a little bit up in the air. But posting the positions is going to happen. I'm hopeful by the end of the week. Certainly very, very early in next week. And then we will see what we get with regard to applications. Both Lacey Smith, who is our community support supervisor and Jackie Corbilly, who was the opioid prevention coordinator for the city and now is in practice, but she is consulting with us and doing some part-time work in order to get this program down. Both Jackie and Lacey believe that we're going to have a lot of applicants for these positions. I think the salary is strong. I think that the stability and regularity of a city job is appealing to folks, especially those who've otherwise worked in the NGO field. And I think that we will have some strong candidates and hopefully we'll have a surfeit of excellent candidates to wade through. Thank you. That's really good news. Any other commissioners have any questions for the chief? None. Thank you. Thank you so much. So we get to our next agenda item, which is 6.1 Use of Force Bodycam Review by the commission. Oh, sorry. Did I miss the commendation? I'm sorry. I stand corrected. There is five officer commendations and Commissioner Cox is going to read it. So I just have one. Okay. Perfect. So this is written somewhere to the last month where it's kind of a long explanation, but I like everything to go in the officer's file if possible. So on Friday, July 7, 2023, an unresponsive woman later identified as Kelly Cousin was discovered in a secluded portion of South Champlain Street Park. The Burlington Police and Fire Departments responded and determined that she was deceased. The BPD's ID unit responded to collect evidence and the decedent was removed to the medical examiner's office. The case was preliminarily assigned to the BPD's Detective Bureau. As of July 12, toxicology results and a determination of cause of death were still pending. On July 17, just 10 days after the initial report, a suspect was arrested, charged, and arraigned for the second degree aggravated murder of Ms. Cousin. In those 10 days, the police department as a whole in its Detective Services Bureau headed by acting Lieutenant Mike Bellevue jumped into action. It was an all-hands effort. Detective Corporal Crystal Nguyen, assigned to the DSB, was the lead detective. The team included General Detectives Eric, let's see if we're in this town, Cradaville, thank you. Erica Schaller and Nicky Moyer. Also on the team were drug detectives diverted from their normal assignments for the duration, Derwin Ellerman and Patrick Hartnick. According to acting Lieutenant Bellevue at a press conference on July 18, the team of detectives discovered evidence including the suspect's fingerprints, a shoe sole later determined to belong to one of the suspect's shoes and video evidence showing the suspect walking with Ms. Cousin. The work of the team is ongoing. We cannot prevent all crime in our neighborhoods. When a crime like this occurs, we look to the police department to do their very best to find and apprehend the perpetrator. Here the entire police department contributed to identify and arrest the suspect. The work of the DSB was particularly noteworthy. We know that these detectives still have a lot of hard work ahead of them and we expect that it will do just as well. The exemplary work of the Burlington Police Department, the Detective Services Bureau and the team assigned to this case are in keeping with the highest standards of good police and detective work. You've done good. Thank you, Commissioner Cox. Just for the future, this month we did not receive any commendations from the BPD chief. In the future, if you can sort of make sure that this forwarded to me or Commissioner Cox, we would like to read them. I think there's been a staff change so we're trying to figure the process out. So thank you very much. Okay, having said that, we can now move to commission business. 6.1 use a force body cam review by the commission. Commissioner Cox has a PowerPoint slide, which hopefully maybe Catherine or Keaton, if you can have that up on the screen, that would be great for the public. We do have copies for ourselves commissioners on your email to look at. So see if we can pull that up on the screen. So Commissioner Cox, you may want to speak to that. So if you could move to slide 3, that's for the topic that we're on now. Okay, very good, thank you. So just, I put these together because I was really trying to understand how all of the authorities work in this city. I practiced law for 17 years, but it was, you know, maritime law. So I don't know anything about municipal law. And so I'm just trying to understand how the different layers work together. And so beginning on the upper left corner, city charter is the governing document really for the whole city and then everything flows from there. And the city charter provides that the city council shall make rules and regulations for government of the entire police force and that the Burlington Police Commission has the authority and responsibility relating to the management of the Burlington Police Department as delegated by resolution of the city council. So we don't have any authority other than what's delegated to us by the city council. There is a couple other very specific provisions that we have authority to do this or that with respect to the police. And I guess there's animal control and a couple things, but mostly we look to the city council to give us authority to do what we're going to do. The city council has passed a number of resolutions giving powers and authorities and responsibilities to the Burlington Police Commission. And among those is Regulation 7.09 where they said the Burlington, so this is the city council resolved, that the Burlington Police Commission is empowered to initiate audits, reviews, and evaluations of policies, directives, or data in regard to discipline, racial disparities, or other commission priorities. And so that's our city council resolution level. And then from there, there may be a Burlington Police Commission policy. And at the policy level, there is no policy regarding the commission review of body-worn camera footage. There is a policy regarding publication to the public of carefully redacted body cam footage. And there is a department directive, DD 14.1, which was approved in 2018. Also about the use of body-worn camera footage and the release to the public and so on. But each month, for a while, we've been reviewing the body-worn camera videos that relate to use of force incidents. And that was just something that was being done when I joined and the people that I talked to said that it was being done when they joined for the most part. And so it's been going on for some time. And there's an issue now, just recently come to our attention, that the Burlington Police Officer Association contract, the BPOA contract, provides that, so this is on the next slide, the BPOA contract provides that body-worn cameras, body-worn camera recordings shall not be audited to monitor officer or personnel performance without cause. And so they've objected to our viewing, our monthly viewing of the use of force videos. And so the question is, is there a conflict? And so that's why I have a question mark above the conflict sign, because it may or may not be a conflict. And I think that our lawyer thinks that there's not a conflict, the commission lawyer, but other lawyers disagree. And so I think probably at a lot of an abundance of caution, we were framed from looking at the body-worn camera footage this month. We didn't want to do an act that would cause litigation directly. And then we decided to put it on pause. And then what we'd like to do... Commissioner Cicmino. I think it's a commission decision as to whether to put it on pause or not. Many issues are resolved through litigation. So when there is a difference of opinion, one does not retreat, one moves forward, and one resolves it legally. So I would very much disagree with what you're proposing, and I do think it's a commission decision, not one of the co-chairs. Yes, if I may offer just a point of clarification or of information. I think that what happened was a move from looking at specific body camera when the use of force policy, when the use of force reports were published each month, saying this one is interesting, this one or this one or this one, to a blanket, we just want all of them. And we're going to divvy all of them up. And I believe that is what changed and why the BPOA issued what it said. But that is a difference then, you mentioned that this had been happening for some time. The routine viewing of body camera only began well after the pandemic because we couldn't meet in person anymore. And prior to that it was really only very specific incidents that would cause a review of any kind. And that review would be done together in executive session of the police commission at one police, excuse me, at One North Avenue. And we would go through it as a group and be able to sort of say to pause at any given moment or ask for clarifications. Sometimes it would be viewed in whole and then we'd go back and view it and step all together. It was a very collaborative, very sort of group endeavor. That was no longer possible owing to the pandemic and to the change in how the meetings were being conducted to facilitate the ability for the commission to view these. We gave the commission axon accounts. And then we also began to publish narratives of each and every single use of force. And initially the viewing was only specific uses of force that amounted to, in the BPOA's opinion, and I am here sort of explaining their position, which is not mine, but is theirs. Their position was that was not random. That was driven by specifics. Now to say all of them is random. Commissioner. So the reason we started reviewing all of them was because it had been represented to the mayor and others in the public that we approved all use of force incidents based on the very small narrative that we've got, that we've seen in many, in some cases, did not conform to the video. So the decision was made that if we are going to be perceived as having, if you will, condoned these uses of force incidents, that we should be looking at the videos associated with them as well. So there has been an evolution in a variety of ways forward. And again, I would reiterate that if this is to be litigated, so be it. We have our own legal counsel, which has advised us, which is independent of the city's attorneys who have a conflict of interest. That's the reason we have conflict counsel. And so I would propose that we continue to do this and that if it results in litigation to clarify this, as many things are in our world today, that's what we should do. But to back off from our oversight role is, in my view, is inappropriate and is not what the community wants. Thanks. Can I just respond? I was just trying to lay the groundwork about what the situation is now. I was not recommending any particular course of action. I was just explaining what's been done up into this minute. And I certainly would like to see if we can come to some consensus agreement on how to move forward. So thank you. And just to respond, I understood you were saying that we should hold off, but if you weren't reflecting that as a decision of the commission, I would appreciate that. And happy for us to all discuss that ourselves. So from a procedural perspective, I'm sorry, Hailey, I cannot say your last name. Just like my first name, so I'm very sensitive to that. If you can, if you can sell it, say it for me, so I don't... It's McLenahan and it's okay. You are not the first, you will not be the last. What I'm very sensitive, it's the same like Shakuntula. So McLenahan, I know you want to say a few words. I mean, I think that sort of where we are in the process at this point is to get an understanding perhaps of what the commission's desire, what the commission's desire is to do as it relates to use of force policies. I, as it relates to this particular issue, I would defer to Acting City Attorney Sturtevant as I've assessed this situation. I don't believe there is a conflict of interest for our office to provide general legal advice and opinions to the commission as we move through this process. But generally what I would say is, what I would suggest as a course of action is to get an understanding of what the commission is seeking to do as it relates to body work, camera use of force for our office to provide an assessment of that proposed path as it relates to both the commission's charge under the various authorities that Chair Cox has kindly summarized for all of us this evening. And then to also reconcile that with the city's obligations under the collective bargaining agreement with the police union. And from there we can advise the path forward and try to liaise between the commission's desires and also our obligations under the contract. So I think we're at a very preliminary place as we sort of move forward with establishing what the process will be moving forward. I received some really interesting questions from Chair Cox as well today that I'm trying to get to the bottom of as it relates to the last square on her PowerPoint. I think on the first slide as to sort of how that policy that regulates the commission's role in reviewing complaints, how that sort of originated, it's very clear that it was clarified in 2020 pursuant to a resolution of the city council, but actually back in, as early as what I can find in 2017, 2018 it looks like there were initial sort of rumblings of the policy within committee, within council committee. So really just trying to get a good understanding of how that policy started so we can get a better understanding of how to move it along. But in summary I would say we're very, I would say we're at the beginning of the discussion and I think really the first step is to get an understanding of how the commission wants to be able to review what the process has been, what the commission's desire is and if we can find a path forward that will meet that while also complying and respecting the agreement that we have with the police union. Thank you so much. Do any of the commissioners, just one other thing? In August of 2021 with the input of the then city attorney, the commission passed a body warrant camera footage release policy and I'll just read the first line for you. The Burlington Police Department will proactively release to the public primary or representative body warrant camera footage within 30 days of an incident unless a criminal inquiry would prevent release related blah, blah, blah. So my point being is that there's already a policy for these body warrant camera videos to be made public anyhow. Didn't see it, sorry, can't see that far away. Just pointing that out, thank you. Point of additional clarification, it's very specific uses of force that are in that policy, not all and that too is a function of what is only something that's happened in the last three or four sessions of going to every single use of force and requesting body camera for it. The policy as written with regard to public release involves only instances in which there is injury, the use of a tool, or if it occasions significant public concern. Do any of the commissioners want to weigh in what? So if I understand correctly it does not impact complaints. If there's a specific complaint we request axon, there's no barrier. That's absolutely correct. A complaint is by definition not a random audit. And if we were to review the use of force reports and identify specific videos and give some reason for wishing to access that video, that seems to be in compliance. Yes, with the caveat I would say a reason that's sort of rationally related to a concern that perhaps the use of force did not comply with the city's use of force policy. But yes, generally, yes. So I just think part of the problem is that it's really difficult to know what occurred from just reading the summary. And so that's why I felt like there was a utility in being able to watch the videos. In the summary it said we probably hit them harder than we'd want to see the video, but it doesn't ever say that. And so it's a little bit tricky, I would say. And I'm not just rolling over on this. It's my understanding that these body cam videos are kept. We can look at them next month instead of this month. But my preference after being a litigator for 17 years and knowing what it's like to litigate things, my preference is to work it out if we can. And so I'm of a position that I prefer to have discussion between our attorney and the city attorney see if some common ground can be found, see if a path can be found going forward. And just to make very clear, our office does not represent the police union. They have their own representation in council and are raising this independently. So our role is really to represent the city and its interests, make sure that, you know, to represent the commission and its charge and oversight while also making sure that the city is complying with its obligations under the contract. Thank you. Do commissioners have any thought on this or should we take that to be the directive is that our attorney will be in touch commissioners attorney will be in touch with the city attorney on this matter commissioners. Oh, looking now. I think that that makes sense but however in the interim, I think we need to continue to review videos and that conversation can be ongoing at the same time. Is there a motion? I make a motion that we request that conflict council consult with the city attorney with regard to the POA grievance and that in the interim we continue reviewing videos as we have until this matter is resolved or in some way we've been given information that we shouldn't be reviewing those videos. So I have a question about process of the commission. It felt like that there was two different ideas and one of which I felt in favor of and one of which I may not feel in favor of and so I was wondering if we could split those into two separate motions. I'd like to do it as one motion. If you want to make a friendly amendment it's up to me to accept the amendment or not. There also needs to be a second to my motion and if my motion fails you can make a motion yourself. That would be a process that's typically followed. Very good, thank you. So we can vote on the motion that Commissioner Saguino just proposed. All in favor say aye. I think you need a second. Thank you so much. You can also make a motion once it's been seconded during debate to divide the question. That's also an option. I'll second Commissioner Saguino's motion. We have a second. Is there a motion to divide the two issues? I move to divide the issues. So we have two help me out here. It's typically a friendly strategy is a friendly amendment. So if you want to offer that well my amendment is really just wanting to divide the issues. So one issue being that the attorneys will talk together and the other issue being that we'll continue watching body footage. Can you say the reason for dividing the motion? Because I feel like I'm in favor of the attorneys talking to anybody and I'm not in favor of continuing to watch the videos because I feel like that we've just dangerously down a path that I don't think it's important enough to do given the fact that our attorney will be back in early August and they'll be able to have a conversation. And we can have a special meeting there after. We have a lot of ways of tackling this but I would prefer not to engage in conduct that might cause litigation when it may just be a couple weeks from now when everything's sorted out. Commissioner Oski. Would you object to a I don't know yet if Commissioner Seguino is agreeable to dividing the question but we have it sounded like from what the chief said I don't know what the exact language is but that we do have the authority to review body cam video when there's been an injury or or two other I don't know what they are but there were two other that we should at least retain that authority to view those videos in the interim while the lawyers are working it out. I think that's mixing issues. There's one policy on release public release of body cam footage and a separate issue is the commission's review so I think that's merging the two and mudding the water but there's a use of force report if as I understand correctly based on that report if you can articulate a reason why within the remit of the commission we wish to have that release to us and we review it then there's a reason for that request the release of body of warrant cam footage publicly is a separate issue so again if I understand correctly anything related to a complaint we have access to review those videos and we've thus far had unfettered access to those and I think very good news it will continue to go forward it's core to our mandate and absolutely indispensable to our work and I think it requires just to tack on to that what you're saying I think if I am correct it requires us to actually make a request a special request for those so it's not automatically that we all get so we have to all agree that we want to see these body cams and the chairs actually approach BPD for those so moving forward do we have a friendly amendment to separate the two I want to first of all I want to thank Commissioner Cox and I appreciate your effort and I am typically a person for compromise but perhaps I can explain a little bit more I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that this letter from the BPOA can have the impact of stopping our work based on an assumption of the appropriateness of it and in many cases when there is a concern about a particular behavior in an organization the organization doesn't just stop doing it Harvard did not stop affirmative admissions for example when they were sued it is resolved in the courts and I think that it's important that we continue our work and that and I am not meaning to cast any aspersion of the BPOA but that any concern about the activities that we conduct means that we stop until the lawyers get involved yes let's have the lawyers talk but in the interim we should continue the rhythm of our work and so for that reason sorry but I'm going to just reject the family memo okay so we just have one motion on the floor that is Commissioner Seguinos I don't have the exact wording in front of me but Keaton did you write that down and can you sort of read it out one more time for everybody before we vote or people sort of have an idea can we go ahead and vote I was just going to ask okay can you repeat one more time but you have the recording sorry you have the recording for the first time so the motion is to request that conflict council consult with the city attorneys regarding the BPOA grievance and in the interim until that is resolved the commission continues to request body cam videos related to the use of force reports that was better than the first time are you ready to vote all in favor say aye aye nay the motion fails is there another that Commissioner Cox wants to introduce so I would move that we would ask our attorneys to confer the city attorney with the council's retained attorney that they confer and in the interim that we not stop but that we pause watching videos until we get some sort of path going forward worked out if we can't get a path worked out going forward I was commentary at the end of my motion sorry Commissioner Robert's rules but I think if there is a video that we have a reason to see we should request it full stop we don't need to stop or pause we can continue with our work just give a reason for the video the lawyers can continue to discuss but if there is something we want to see particularly related to a complaint or otherwise we make the request I don't think those are an issue I think what I wrote down for myself is that I believe that I want to adhere to the directive given by the city attorney's office and comply with all city of Burlington, BPOA contractual elements as they pertain to body worn camera I want to respect that and get more clarification and then move forward thank you any other commissioners okay so do I accept Jack's friendly amendment is that how that's done oh yes it is a friendly amendment correct yes it is and I think we can vote on it now all in favor say aye aye any nays thank you Commissioner Cox for your presentation and PowerPoint the next is the discussion of the issues raised by members of the commission in the presentation to the joint committee of charter change and each of you received Commissioner Cox I want you to speak to it but I was just going to bring up a few points each commissioner received a long analysis and thoughts and mostly questions that you had posed for us and for chief mirad we don't expect to discuss and for you to answer all the 92 questions there tonight that's something we have been discussing and thinking about but I think there are some points that I wanted to raise with the commission and get some feedback before we get to the next meeting of the joint committee the number one question that I think I want to ask the commissioner is your is your thoughts on the actual charter change and my own and this is I'm speaking for myself not for the commission my own position is that the charter change there's no required charter change I think the language is relatively clear what I am looking for is perhaps an ordinance change where the city council through resolution or changes in ordinance makes codify some of what we already are doing so I think that's where my position is however I can be influenced one way or the other that's number one number two is I was hoping that we at least briefly touch upon the complaint process and again that would require certain codification again we're doing a lot of the work already but I think it still requires a little bit more clarity I think those are the two general comments I had and if anybody else has any other thoughts thank you commissioner Sugrino for putting that document together and helping us guide the process okay we can ask commissioner Sugrino why don't you I'm just going to speak briefly to the issue of charter change and the ordinance those documents cannot be too specific they have to be more general so in terms of detailing the complaint process for example something we've been talking about for a long time it's not something that would go in a city ordinance so I think the recommendations have to be broader with regard to what we are given the authority to do on the commission in that document when I this came from all of the commissioners including recent past commissioners based on the experience of doing this work for the last several years and there are a variety of things in there but I think I'm just going to take the moment to emphasize what I think is critical to me in terms of our work a lot of the controversy around civilian oversight has involved the role of the chief in making final decisions with regard to discipline and my I'm just going to be just out there without too much pre preparation but I think I can do this from having thought about it a lot I've had numerous discussions with members of NACOL and others in civilian oversight and the argument that I've been most convinced by is that the ultimate decision with regard to discipline should remain with the chief that said there is a role for the community input and community values into policing community values have changed and I think those of us who've been on the commission for a while know that we've at least I don't know if the chief believes this but I think we believe that we have offered some important perspective on the issues so there is a fundamental role I believe for the commission and the community wants oversight there is no doubt about that 40% of the community voted for the failed ballot item with all of its flaws so what I see is a way going forward that acknowledges the role of the chief in making the final decision with regard to discipline has to be balanced against the community's desire for civilian oversight and for input into the process and so what I think is fundamental is a change is that complaints be made public appropriately anonymized as they are in Boulder, Colorado and other places in the country New Haven, Connecticut's civilian oversight body does this that if the commission disagrees with the chief's disposition of a complaint that the commission writes its findings that are made public and that the chief's findings be made public as well the community then can observe in many cases that's numerous complaints we get I think it's important for the community to know what the complaints are I think many of them are in fact not serious but there are some that are and they leaving the chief with the final decision but also explaining to the community the various perspectives on how we view this incident is a way to both to have the transparency that is needed leaves the structure of determining discipline with the chief and I want to attribute an additional idea to Commissioner compelling and that is to enshrine in some way the philosophy that this commission has embodied in the last three years we have made no decisions that have recommended punishment if you will or discipline of officers we've recommended training we've recommended policy changes and our stance has always been can we do better can the police department do better and can we support the police department and doing better and so having a process whereby in response to complaints that the department also acknowledges where it could do better would do tremendous amount for healing in this community and for voting transparency so I see that for me those are the there are many items on that list I see that is central and I hope it's a middle way to addressing the concerns on all of the various sides of this and the second is the request for a monitor the I've made my case to you all about that and to the joint committee I think it's fundamentally important that we do that and I won't rehearse those reasons now but I'll leave those two issues out there Commissioner Keith Commissioner Roscoe I would agree with Commissioner Seguino stated I do however feel that there was value in the proposal from Senator Dick Sears during the last legislative session that didn't make it to crossover which was really establishing a quasi-judicial body to take final determination on discipline but that would require resourcing staffing a budget it would have to be a quasi-judicial body with due process right of independent judicial review and all of those things are not what the commission currently is. The commission is an advisory body and it is made of civilian volunteers so I think I'm still a little unclear exactly what the Charter Change committee is working on because if we're working within the parameters of an advisory body and again I fully agree with what Commissioner Seguino stated which is providing some more transparency around some of these complaints in a way that doesn't compromise confidentiality animized summaries of what goes on and bringing the community into a dialogue so that there is creating better partnerships between police and the community to improve public safety we're all working in the same vein so the question I think is there a need for a Charter Change no I don't see that whether to what extent procedures of how complaints are handled and processed would be in an ordinance or not I think that could be further discussed the level of specificity but I think the discussion should be centered around what work can an advisory body do that creates more transparency and accountability and creating stronger partnerships between police and the community so I agree and I feel like that should be the focus and maybe we could spend less energy on debating a Charter Change and get on with the task at hand Commissioner Oskie Thank you I also agree with Commissioner Seguino I do not believe that the commission should have a role in disciplining officers I I'm just going through the notes here I think that an ordinance can be specific when it comes to the process of complaint resolution and I think it would be helpful for the there could be a policy that this commission adopts that's consistent that provides more detail to the process but the ordinance could certainly spell out in more detail how the complaint process is going to work and it would be helpful for the city council to be clear in how they want the complaint process to work it's generally the Charter that is more broad and more authority given but the ordinance can be quite specific when it comes to the timeline and the process of the complaint resolution I think more specificity would be helpful and I think that the chief's role in that process should be in writing throughout could be verbal and in writing but it needs to be we need to have the clarity of things in writing I again I don't think that the commission should be involved in officer discipline and I think we should make that clear to the council and I think they're looking for some clarity from us on that I think the combination of some more transparency and the complaint process with appropriate anonymity as you recommended Commissioner Seguino makes sense and it would allow for the community to have some provide feedback to the mayor and the chief who are responsible for running the department let me just go through a couple more things I also would love to have it be formalized in the complaint process that the that the chief with input from the department looks at these complaints as an opportunity for growth and learning and so what could have been done differently or how could we learn from this without it being as Commissioner Seguino said most of the time these complaints are not they don't rise to the level of requiring discipline but they are an indication to us that the public wasn't happy with the way things went down and a lot of that is a communication issue or lack of transparency whether it's in dispatch or in training there's lots of different reasons why things don't go down well and there's always an opportunity to learn from that and if that is the culture of the police department where we're going to learn and get better all the time I think that would go a long way to building more trust in the community I don't think that officer grievances should be heard by the commission I think it creates weird conflicts for us I do think that the commission should be consulted on policy but I do not think that the commission should be imposing policies on the department there was a recommendation by commissioners to go in I think that the commission should sit in on hiring and promotions I'm not sure that I support that I'm not sure I completely understand or have thought about that enough but I'm not ready to go there those are my comments thank you Commissioner Cox I agree with commissioners Seguino and Commissioner Keefe and Commissioner Oski thank you I was going to say Jessica I think that there's definitely I think that there's so many great things in the presentation that was given to the Joint Commission there are process challenges because like in trying to figure out the governing documents and how those fit together in some cases they just simply don't fit together or they they weren't really well thought out to begin with and so they're definitely I think could use some updating and change for the better but I don't think a charter change is needed I think that as you can like in policies change what you can in policies and then kind of building your way up seems to me to be a smarter way of doing it I totally agree with this issue of do we as commission listen to grievances or appeals as they're defined in the charter and that is a charter provision that we are to listen to appeals of officers that are appealing a decision of being fired of being suspended for more than 14 days without pay or demoted and so if any of those three things occur then we are supposed to hear that appeal since that is the case then it would be inappropriate for us to give input on the case to tell the Chief what we think the Chief should do on that because after all we might one day be hearing the appeal so one or the other needs to be the thing either we have a conversation and we can tell you what we think or we hear the appeal one or the other but not both and right now it's a little bit uncomfortable because I think in the one case I'm familiar with we recused ourselves from giving input we listened to a circumstance recused ourselves from giving input in the event that we heard grievance or appeal from whatever the decision was going to be and that same comfortable to me but it should be I think one way or the other way so I'm really skeptical about the monitor idea only because I think that creating a new position when we don't have any full time Commission members to supervise a person same as tricky to me and so I just don't know how that would work as a practical matter but I totally have an open mind to learning more on that issue and how it would work not so much what their duties are or responsibilities would be but how would it actually work to have this employee of the Commission and so those are my comments I was just going to quickly I just want to take a few notes as well and I took a few notes so Commissioner Aske I just have a question follow up question to your comments does that mean that you would want a charter change I don't think we need a charter change but it is in the charter that correct me from wrong fellow commissioners that the hearing process is we don't have disciplinary power but we have the ability to listen to and any kind of hearing that if any of the officers have against any discipline that the Chief imposes it may be authorized but it doesn't mean that it has to be implemented so maybe I mean if the City Council wants to have that role then they can decide to not amend the charter or to I don't have the charter language in front of me but no I fully agree with you I fully agree with you I'm fundamentally opposed to this commission taking on any disciplinary role whatsoever I think where I am a little bit I would agree with you that you know we can even the hearing seems kind of sketchy using I'm skeptical of that too but if it isn't the charter we can't back away from fulfilling that role so that's my I'm willing to at least as long as the charter dictates that and we don't make any recommendations to change in charter I'm willing to I'm willing to accept that as one of our responsibilities and if anything if that's the case and City Council chooses to keep that give that to us then I would say if anything we may want to fine tune that hearing process right now there is no document that actually says what is the hearing process if a police officer ever wants to appeal the chief's decision so maybe that's something I would support but I would not I'm completely against any disciplinary process whatsoever that this commission engages in just to follow up a few things about before we move on could I just jump in very quickly to add some clarity so you're right that function is in the charter and actually it's not delegated by the City Council the legislature has delegated that directly to you folks so it is in the charter it is you know statutorily you are that's your charge under state law and as far as the process for the hearing there is a process that's outlined in our contract with the police union so it's not a perfect process but there is sort of a procedure for how that should go there are actually timelines in there for how long they have to file the appeal and things like that so if there's interest on that I can get more information yes we're interested thank you I'm looking around and I know there are a few commissioners on the commission who have been through that process at least once but at least for there are a lot of new faces since we've formally gone through that process commissioner garrison is not here but he has yes but we would like that document very much so and I am with I agree with commissioner oski that the complaint process and I agree with commissioner saguino the complaint process definitely needs codifying and revisions and more clarity I am skeptical generally I'm not in favor of hiring a monitor but I do think that the the complaint process can be codified more clearly I don't know if I have anything else to add to what commissioner oski said oh as far as commission role in policy making I believe it should be done in a collaborative way and in fact I think many of these things that are mentioned here in the document can be done collaboratively the only exception I take are I don't see the commission as participating in any role as far as hiring or promotion is concerned I don't see at least speaking for myself I'm not qualified to be in a hiring as a hiring authority for brollington police department I think that's about the one issue that I fully support is securing funding I think the commission needs to be given a staff person a staff person is very important for even sort of day to day activities and I would support the continuing support for funding for our conflict council as well it's here commissioners thank you I think it's just important to understand that we live in a negotiated world I mean that's when relations are the best but we are separate entities and that arm's length relationship needs to be maintained doesn't mean that we don't communicate that we don't sit down and share ideas and so I think that the newer members of the commission perhaps aren't aware that we do we do in fact consult with each other on these things and in fact the process that exists is that if the department changes to policy the commission must approve those and in addition when the commission has developed policy it consults with the police department about that it gets input it doesn't mean that we therefore split down the middle but we do get input as is appropriate with regard to grievances this is again speaking to the newer commissioners this is the one area in which all commissioners that previous commissioners and commissioners before the three of you agreed on that we should not have a role in the grievance process that should be done under a separate entity whether it's the public safety committee or the city council and so let me speak to the issue of discipline and I'm going to speak a little bit philosophically about this a lot of what happened in 2020 was and actually began in earlier than that with the events with regard to Mabillard joke and Jeremy Melee and that was the what was perceived as the failure of the police department to hold these officers accountable and so the argument was that the discipline that was recommended was entirely insufficient and it was a major factor in fueling the protests of 2020 so I don't think it's important to understand that community members want the commission to have a role in discipline to have input into it not perhaps the final say but to speak about it and if you can think of a and this is not at all in reference to Chief Murad and not speaking personally but just as an example imagine that a case comes to us that seems to be very egregious behavior on the part of the officer and the then chief whoever that might be recommends little or no discipline then the commission is escaping me in English our hands are tied maybe that was the expression I'm looking for so I don't think that avenue should be closed off to us we might decide that we don't want to participate in a decision with regard to discipline but again I'm going to remind you all of what both commissioners Keith and Oskie have said we have very few cases if any that are so egregious that they have even resulted in discipline but the chief has consulted us about whether that discipline is appropriate he has given us reasons and prior cases to justify that and there is a role there's a role for the community to know that we have some oversight over that that we at least have been consulted on that and can provide that input so again I don't think it's a significant part of what we do with regard to complaints but I do think it fills the function of what the community is asking for with regard to the issue of the monitor again this was universally amongst those who are previous commissioners and except for the newest commissioners we've had experience with learning about monitors through the general training we've consulted extensively with the Boulder Colorado monitor to learn about that position and we drafted a job description for such a monitor one of the concerns that I have heard in particular at the joint committee meeting but elsewhere as well is the concern that the commission is providing input when it's not a professional group a monitor has professional experience and as you can see by the turnover on the commission having new commissioners without historical memory or experience with some of these issues can be problematic at times so having a monitor who doesn't necessarily have to be full time but who has experience in investigations who can help us understand review investigations and a variety of who is knowledgeable overall can inform the work of the commission and as I just share my perspective on this and I don't know if it's shared by others but I feel like the work that we do is pretty extensive and we really struggle to invest the number of hours in the work of the commission and do it well a monitor would alleviate some of that burden I hope that it would reduce turnover on the commission and therefore improve the quality of our work and as I said provide us the professional expertise that I think the community at least some members of the community to express that they want to see in a commission my two cents, thank you Commissioner Cox Commissioner Keefe Commissioner Cox first Commissioner Keefe first No, just thank you Commissioner Seguin I think it's a very eloquent argument in favor of the monitor I wholly support it it is in addition to that level of professionalism and guidance it can provide as well as historical knowledge and continuity in the process the police department does the investigation but still we need to be tracking, we need to be responsive we need to be communicative there's a lot of data to manage to keep on track in terms of ourselves and our review and our caseload is quite high if you look at the Vermont State Police Commission I think they maybe had six summaries very cryptic, very short a few sentences we are vying of complaints and again they may not be serious but they do provide an opportunity for learning, it provides dialogue with the community, they need to be taken into consideration I think the police have done a really great job of giving time and effort to investigate these but keeping pace with that is difficult without someone who's really doing it day in and day out and I think it could be a part-time position I don't think it needs to be overly burdened on the city's budget but I do think it would increase professionalism in terms of what the commission is doing I think it would allow us to work more efficiently with the police to provide and reduce their transaction time in terms of providing information to us so I think there's great benefit to that and I wholly support considering funding a part-time monitor Thank you Commissioner Keith Commissioner Oskine Just a couple of follow-ups I just did read the charter and I do think that if we don't want to participate in grievances that there does need to be a charter change because it is pretty specific and with regard to discipline the way I see this is that the mayor and the city council hire the chief the chief is accountable to the mayor and the city council and the mayor and the city council are accountable to the voters if the voters don't believe that the chief is doing a good job with regard to officer discipline then they vote out the mayor or their city councilors I still don't I don't feel like that it makes sense for it to be our role with regard to a monitor I forgot to comment on that earlier and I I'm not sure that we it would be a pretty part-time position I'm just not sure that unless it was also included some other quality you know quality improvement work or I don't know what is needed but it seems like to hire somebody to create a position where there's really not I don't know if it's a full-time job for the Burlington police department I just I would need to understand that more kind of how it would work but I like the idea of whether it's in Burlington or it's statewide that there's a third party that's available to objectively review officer accountability and I don't know that it makes sense in this size community to have it be just one for Burlington I don't you know I would have to look at the numbers but I like the idea generally I'm just not sure that that it would could work here thank you commissioner oski and I I briefly want to report though there's not been any even that sort of requires a little bit more discussion is that the joint committee meeting there was a discussion of a part-time investigator who could help the commission and I thought that was an idea that I could fully support and I could actually support the idea of a part-time monitor but given a choice I'm more inclined to support a part-time investigator who could address some of these issues of independence, accountability and transparency so there I'm open to that idea I really like that idea but I'd like to see how it gets defined and how we are to even acquire somebody with that kind of expertise Commissioner Cox so my feeling in preparing these notes was that I just don't think that I I didn't feel like I was ready to make a decision definitively want to wear another on a lot of the issues but this needs work yes a decision needs to be made whether it were A or B on that issue but some I loved I'm going like yeah we should have some ability to work with police department on data analysis I don't think we need a separate data analyst but I would like to be able to cooperatively talk to the police department and say I'd be really interested in seeing data on this and so there are definitely issues that you raise like the lessons learned I love lessons learned I think any major operation anytime something goes really right as well as things that go wrong to sit down and write out our lessons learned and I know that just recently after that incident that was actually by someone from a different police department discharged their weapon but I felt really good and I believe the sense in the room was everybody felt pretty good about it Chief Murad when you came and you described what your department had learned from that experience and then steps that you had taken to try to be more careful that that didn't occur again even though it was not your department's person that did it and I thought that's just great because that shows us that you're really paying attention to all the ways that we can learn something from these experiences I love that idea and I love that Commissioner Seguino included that in her comments to the Joint Safety Committee I would suggest what I would like you know if people are agreeable what I'd like to do is maybe break down some of these issues into smaller work groups that we could focus on and then come back perhaps in a special meeting and say this is everything that you know we've looked at this more in depth we've sat down and had a conversation with Chief Murad about this and got his input and this is what a work group so that's just a way that we could approach this. Other commissioners have any thoughts on that? I support that I think it's a good idea I think I would encourage commissioners to look at some of the work that the monitor was doing in Boulder Colorado and have a better sense of what the workload is in processing these complaints even if the investigation is done wholly by the police department but that is something we could discuss as we go forward but I really do think it was very important Commissioner Seguino's statement regarding discipline I have seen I think there's you know that's become a sort of dirty word people want to be running away from it I think it's very clear that the Chief has final say on discipline and that's not going to change but I fully agree I think if there is a case in a hypothetical sense that we see some very inappropriate let's say discipline that was just not commensurate with what the the complaints or the egregious behavior was and the commission simply did not weigh in I think we would be aggregating our sworn duty as a commission and I would really hesitate having these very definitive statements that we will do nothing in regards to discipline I don't think that's why we're here So I'll speak to the discipline issue also I would encourage commissioners to go back and look at the NACOL training in particular the first one and civilian oversight bodies are there not only to represent the interests of the community but also is there for officers and there while we haven't had an example of this there may be a case in which a chief asks for a discipline that exceeds what the commission believes is appropriate I would hope that we I think that we would be fair-minded in that and that we would want to be there also in that particular case that there was excessive dis on to what we perceived as excessive discipline with regard to the monitor issue Burlington and Boulder Colorado actually have a similar number of complaints a year and they have a full-time monitor and I'll just say that in the early stages of me being co-chair of the commission and working on these issues I was on the phone to monitors a lot that we were we are still evolving as a body as a civilian oversight body and so having access to expertise like that is really fundamental to knowing how to move forward I mean literally every situation that came up we didn't have a practice for it and I was literally on the phone all the time to NACO or to a variety of monitors but you know I exhausted my welcome with some of them and I had a lot of jobs to do and so an investigator is simply too narrow although a person who is experienced in investigations can actually be very helpful they tend to be knowledgeable about this this sphere that can really expand our knowledge in a number of different areas just on investigations to say a few words about in smaller communities like ours they will for example monitor investigations they will find out what is the department done in terms of investigation have you spoken to this person have you spoken to that person have you considered that these are things we struggle with because we are still gaining experience so remember also that we want to be perceived as professional in the eyes of the community and to the extent that we are not perceived that way our efficacy is really undermined so I think that a way for us to frame this is that we propose that there is a monitor for the commission and that we work out the details we don't have to have the final details right now it could be part time there's a variety of approaches to this it would require a little bit more investigation but I don't think the joint committee is looking for a fully defined job description in details I would encourage you to look at the job description I think it's the job description that we drafted and I drafted it in consultation with the Human Rights Commission investigator as well as a couple of monitors and NACL also reviewed that job description and so it reflects their input as well thanks so I don't know if there is a motion to discuss this or we can table that idea of the monitor so can we just like agree I don't know what's appropriate to do like not making a formal motion just agreeing by consensus that we would split up these issues like in some reasonable manner and have people address them like in a small working group so so and so and so and so work together and let's see what we can bang out just to say that I'm not opposed to that idea but what has been raised in the past when I propose that is that the quorum issue and open meaning law so it would mean that if the small groups got together they would have to warn the meetings and so forth so you could consider there to be two people who develop a proposal and bring it back to the commission something like that but I guess I just want to be cognizant of open meeting law and what structure you have that promotes efficiency but not exclusion I believe even right and what we can do is have even both of us can bring up these issues as for vote if we want to put it as vote and go with that because unless and that could make things very simple so we would and whatever is voted we all agree on goes to the joint committee for as our recommendations I don't know how people feel about that we could do that just kind of a this is more of a bureaucratic point the joint committee is meeting I believe first week of August but I think they can wait for our recommendation they have their own work that they are doing as well so they don't have to hold up everything for us but we can tell them that we would have a set of recommendations that we all voted on for our next meeting August 25th including the monitor in one of those and I can list them and go from there if you have any suggestions I think that the council is moving ahead with or without us and I think the areas that we have consensus on we can let them know what those are and the areas that we don't we can let them know that we don't have consensus on those I the next month for me and I expect others I'm not sure about the small group idea and I'm not sure to what end if that's the consensus of this group I'm happy to do that but I feel like there's some clear areas where we agree and there's some clear areas where we're not in full agreement and ultimately it's going to be the council that decides just to say that we have two commissioners missing tonight and I think it would be well advised to have all commissioners so I if you don't mind I think the way to frame it to the commission the joint committee is that there are areas we don't have agreement on I think we want to work on those areas I think hopefully we can go forward with a full slate of recommendations that there's majority agreement on at least so the idea of articulating where there is agreement for the August meeting and precious vacations aside I think a small group approach to further discussing the areas in which we're not yet in agreement on would be helpful so can somebody mention some of the areas that we are in agreement of then we can go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 I don't know I'd like to move that we do this work offline and not in the meeting but in small groups and you can make the assignments and I think that it's a really valid point that there's going to be a lot of issues upon which we agree and so for those you can just put them out like a trial balloon to this small group and that small group and that small group they can discuss it internally in the small group and then decide yes that we agree on points 1 through 10 and then those are done and then what points remain could be further worked that was the long motion sorry motion to on the table as to work in subgroups and tackle the 16 points that we have there and come back with doesn't have to be exactly 16 recommendations but for vote I'm trying to figure out what is the best approach the most yeah the most inclusive and expedient so if people have any other ideas I will listen to them but for the time being that seems to be the motion on the table is there a second to that motion to work in subgroups and come together in August okay second all in favor is that the next step I'm sort of looking second all in favor say aye aye okay all right motion passes so we will do so me and commissioner Cox will get together and we will deviate up and people have a set of questions that you have circulated maybe that could be the point where quickly go over that and we'll come back with a list of proposals for the August meeting any other thoughts go ahead I was just going to mention to the chief that you'd be willing to talk to these little small groups on issues where we feel like your input would be super valuable right of course very good thank you thank you unless there's any other business oh commissioner Segmino so a couple of things first of all I just want to register concern that we have not made progress on the mental health policies that has been on our not only been on our plate since last year but we committed to having completed by March second is the commission is also required to submit an annual report and it would be due by July 31st and third in August as I understand it will be getting the data analysis from the city data analyst and I encourage commissioners to look at the previous reports on the previous reports as well as the commission comments so when we get those reports it's typical for the commission to comment in particular to highlight various aspects of the data that it considers important and to send that to the city council city council relies on our oversight and input on these issues to keep them informed about public safety issues thank you commissioner Segmino are there any other announcements or concerns if not is there a motion to adjourn okay everyone say aye second commissioner Segmino everyone in favor aye see you next month