 Hi, my name is Sandy Barrett and I'm here with the Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement to at least do a little bit of response from last week when Jean Bergman presented on Proposal 5. Jean Bergman, City Councilor from Ward 2, was the proponent of Proposal 7. Correct. I'm sorry. It's Proposal 7, which would create a citizen's body, which would be over the police. In other words, this body of citizens would have the right to punish the police and perhaps fire the police chief with other people. It's a community board and that's the kind of the summation of what people are being asked to approve on Proposal 7 when they go to vote on Town Meeting Day. But tonight we have with us the City Councilor from Ward 5, who is Ben Traverse, who is an opponent of Proposal 7. And he's going to present the opposite view for all of our education and for our enlightenment about how to vote in his view, as Jean did last week. And here we are. Here's Ben Traverse from Ward 5. Take it away, City Councilor. And Ben is also an attorney in Town, right? Yes. I work as an attorney here in Town. My family and I live in the South End. City Councilor from Ward 5 joined the City Council last April, filling some big shoes that were left by my predecessor, Chip Mason. I serve as the chair of the Council's Ordinance Committee. I also serve on the Charter Change Committee. But unfortunately, Proposal 7 did not come through either the Ordinance Committee or the Charter Change Committee. This is a matter that has come on the ballot via a method that Burlington voters are not historically used to, which is that Vermont law allows for citizens to put questions on the ballot if they secure the signatures of 5% of voters. When that happens, the City Council has no role in deciding whether or not it ends up on the ballot. We can't say yes or no. We can't tweak it. We can't amend it. We can't change it. So the question is on the ballot exactly as voters presented it and exactly as it was presented to folks on the petition. As you laid out, I have a number of serious concerns about it, not the least of which is the method by which it's come to the ballot and the fact that it has not gone through the deliberative process that nearly every other Charter Change question has gone through before the Council would certainly be happy to run through my various issues with the measure. But I could also go on for quite some time. So happy to start there. I don't know if you have any immediate questions, Sandy, or just happy to jump into it. Well, let's ask our, I think what would be helpful is if you describe the elements of this proposal and then ask for questions from the audience. And we don't see the audience right now. Great. Yeah, thank you, Sandy. So maybe where we should start is just very briefly with what the current landscape is right now. So Vermont State Law says that in every municipality in the state, including Burlington, it is the police chief that is supposed to control a discipline of the police force, not a mayor, not a select board, not a city or town manager. State law says that it's supposed to be the police chief. So in Burlington, just like every other municipality in the state that has a police department, that's the way it is right now. The police chief has has the role of issuing discipline within the department. Now in Burlington, we also have a volunteer police commission. It's like many other boards and commissions here in the city. We have a parks commission, we have a public works commission, we have a planning commission, and we also have a police commission made up of volunteers who are appointed by the city council. They have a role where if a police officer wants to appeal any discipline that's issued by the police chief, they can appeal it to the police commission. And in recent years, Mayor Weinberger has expanded the authority of the police commission somewhat. They have more of a role now in investigating use of force incidents within the police department. They have more investigatory authority and more of a role in issuing their own recommendations. It's not controlling, but in issuing recommendations with respect to disciplinary matters within the police department. So that's the status quo right now. The mayor doesn't have any real power either over the police chief. The mayor's only role is is over the police chief, as you say. The mayor appoints the police chief and may terminate the police chief, but the mayor has no authority right now over terminating individual members of the police force other than the chief. Okay, so what and what would this proposal do? So this proposal would first of all completely strike out the police chief's existing role over discipline in the department. Yes, so there's language in our charter right now that lays out what the police chief's authority is in discipline. If you look at the proposal at length, the first thing you see is a strike through of the chief's current role in discipline over the department. And what it does is it stands up two different bodies. First of all, it stands up an entirely new city department with a director with staff and the right to hire legal counsel with the role to investigate police officers. I have some issue with this because I mean right now we have a police force of approximately 65 officers with the cap where it is right now. We could go up to and I hope to get up to 85 officers. I have some questions around whether or not we need an entirely independent city department with its own director and staff and attorney with the sole role of investigating a department of 65 officers. But that is one thing it would do. It would stand up an entirely new. How big would this department be? Or does anyone know yet? Yeah, so the way the charter change is written is that we would have to hire a director for that department. The department could hire its own staff and the department could hire its own outside legal counsel. So I think at a minimum we're talking two or three employees who would be added to the city payroll and city staff for the purposes of standing up this new department. The other thing that it would set up is what the charter change refers to as a community control board. So you would have this office with the right to investigate discipline and then you would have this community control board which again would be made up of volunteers. But unlike other city boards and commissions there would be an entirely new process by which the members of this control board are selected. They would not be selected by the same city council process that members of the police commission and parks commission are selected by rather. We would have to select a group of I believe it's seven community organizations. So we don't know who those. Correct. So we don't know who those community organizations are but we would have to select seven community organizations. How would you do that? I'm not sure. It's a system unlike any other system we've used for any other board or commission in the city. This group of organizations would decide who is on the control board and that control board either on its own initiative or in response to a community complaint would have the right to itself investigate and ultimately decide on any police misconduct whether it be in their official life or in their private life. They would have the right to issue binding discipline. And the police chief would have no right to overrule the control board. It is the control board on those issues they decide to weigh in on that would effectively take over discipline of the members of our police force. What are these community organizations like the Y or something like that? It's unknown. So the charter changes is not layout specifically what these community organizations would be. It does say that these community organizations need to be organizations that have been committed to and I don't have the exact wording right in front of me but sort of committed to advocacy efforts in the public safety community. For example, organizations dedicated to immigrant rights, organizations dedicated to our public safety fabric here in Burlington, organizations dedicated to diversity, equity, inclusion, organizations dedicated to disability rights and so on. I don't have the exact list in front of me but those would be the organizations. Yes, it lays out in the charter change the type of organization that you would have to be in order to be a part of this group that selects the members of the control board but we don't know yet who those organizations would be. And there aren't really any other parameters around it. So for example, it does not say that you have to be a nonprofit organization. You could be the way it's written, a more sort of loosely based, not necessarily formally organized but if you can establish that you're I suppose a community organization whatever that means, you could be on the list of those groups that select members of the control board. Does it also have to have certain leadership of these organizations or something else about that? Who the leaders of these organizations are? There's requirements for some of them? Yes, so there are requirements around some of them with respect to these organizations to the extent possible need to be organizations that are run by members of BIPOC communities and other communities that are laid out. They all have to be part of the BIPOC community, is that right? BIPOC by the way for the people in our audience who may not know what that means is what? Black, Indigenous and people of color. And so to the extent possible the organizations that are selecting members of the control board would need to be organizations that are run by folks from that community. I think three of them. Yes, but not all of them but a certain minimum number of organizations, thank you Steve, need to be among that group of organizations. I think to me though the biggest concern around this is not necessarily the makeup of the organizations and who's a part of the selection process, it's that this is a selection process unlike any we do for any other board or commission. The way it's set up for every other commission is if a city council say selects a member for the police commission or the parks commission and for one reason or another a member of the commission needs to be removed. Well the city council has the authority to remove someone from the commission no differently than they have the authority to appoint someone to the commission. The way this charter changes set up with this different process with non-profit organizations, there's no process by which to remove a member of the control board and in fact members of this control board who will serve up to three-year terms. The charter changes set up such that even if you move out of Burlington you can continue to serve on the Burlington Police Control Board up until the end of your three-year term. So to me that's problematic to me, you know this this board that is according to its proponents supposed to be dedicated to police accountability is not really accountable itself to anybody, to voters, to the city council or to the mayor and that's unlike any other city board or commission and to me that's problematic. I will be other questions but what how did this arise? I mean it's sort of out of the blue for most Burlingtonians. What's the problem? Well I think it was before I joined the city council in 2022 so this is before I joined the council but I think in the wake of the murder of George Floyd a number of communities around the country, Burlington included, were taking a close look at the state of public safety and trying to figure out you know what if anything we needed to do to change that dynamic. It was during that period of time that Burlington took action to cap the number of police officers we can have. It was also around this time that the Burlington City Council on the council level passed a proposed charter change that looks a lot like the charter change that's now on the ballot as question seven. The mayor vetoed it at the time again I was not on the council my preference would have been to if folks remained interested in changing the dynamic of police oversight and accountability let's take this issue back to the council and maybe find some more common ground on a compromise approach that can gain broader support but that's not what happened instead after the mayor vetoed the measure there was an advocacy group that started the petition process. The name of the group is I believe People for Police Accountability. So they started that initiative they've had the support of some of my colleagues on the city council who have been following this other path of collecting enough signatures to put this measure on the ballot to voters and instead of going through the more typical deliberative process that you would see before the city council. Okay did you have a question? It's a question from the audience so we're going to middle grant. I'm going to mute her. Yeah okay Melo, can you go? Thank you very much. Thank you very much new point of clarification. It is not just what happened to George Floyd and the many many other incidents that have occurred nationally it is what has happened in the city of Burlington. Now I think the reason we've had these where some people feel this has come out of nowhere where in fact many many people have been continued to discuss and work on these issues is that if you aren't in a part of Burlington where people who have been hurt live if you don't interact with people if your family hasn't had the problem if you don't try to supply community support for certain individuals this just may not be part of your life experience and unfortunately one of the things that has upset me over these last few years especially serving as a police commissioner and having to look at these issues some of which are indeed public right we have recent issues not not just what happened to the Millie brothers in 2018 and the other incident in 2018 that has still to this day not been resolved by the city that in itself is a statement about how the city feels about black bodies so I would just like to say we do as a city have to do a better job of listening to each other and being aware of what is happening the Kathy Ostring case and what happened to her child thank you very yeah and and uh also the um the incident that happened on Main Street in in August those are two public things but there are other things that I see as a police commissioner that I'm not allowed to talk about but do show a pattern of behavior of great concern and they are not uh it's not being dealt with with uh the individuals that are supposed to be overseeing that and people know this and that is why the work continued and I will just finally say that it's really important for you know this discussion that was had at the city council on February 6 that I hope that for some of the city counselors who disagree with this ballot item that they are well and truly sincere about moving forward should this not pass because what will happen is that the people in the community who are for this and want to see equity and policing they will continue to work they will work on something else um as I believe it's s75 it's just introduced in the um legislature and that's going to be worked on as a way to make it easier for communities to create these type of oversight boards so the work is going to continue and the city council uh part of the city council has not been active it's almost exactly what happened leading up to the vote um to adjust police office the number of police officers because one part of the community was really engaged because they were trying to address important issues and then the other part of the community including the administration decided not to be engaged and then was shocked when people voted the way that they did so thank you very much thank you um Chris did you have a question sure thank you sandy uh thank you ben I um I too share your concerns about um this new committee being unaccountable to the council and to our government and to the people um I have those concerns are shared thanks um those concerns expand further when it's when it starts to sound like the breadth and scope of this potential committee can really start probing into the personal lives of officers in their off duty time um I have two questions that go along with this and one is uh how does an officer and appeal a community control of policing and ruling do they have to go to court and have a judge rule to actually overturn a ccp um uh discipline matter and then does this open the city up to liability in case an unaccountable community control board abuses its authority yes ben yeah thanks chris for the question I think if you don't mind I think first of all I'd like to go back and thank commissioner grant for um for her comments there I think um commissioner grant is absolutely right that um burlington has had its its own reckoning with police misconduct and a number of these initiatives have uh arisen from that as well I think I also want to take an opportunity to acknowledge that um there are a number of communities here that historically have uh felt uh more hurt and and and bias um uh on a systemic basis including through law enforcement um in other communities and you know I can't sit here and and and and I could look oversight recording stopped recording in progress recording stopped recording in progress here uh here right would be after the control board to uh file an action in court yeah go ahead okay um am I being heard yes okay so um I'm just curious I don't know if anybody can you hear me can you hear me this the sound on zoom for those of us on zoom the sound keeps cutting out so I don't know if people can hear me or not we missed about half of what was just said am I yes we can hear you thank you for answering my question um so I'm just curious if anybody else heard the national public radio story the other night on the city of austin's community police review commission and personally I am a hundred percent supportive of milo's candidacy but I do have reservations about the way this um proposal is structured I think the city of austin offers us a model that um I haven't had a time to take a deep dive into I'm wondering if anyone else has taken a deep dive into the city of austin's community police review commission which achieves many of the outcomes that are that we many of us recording stopped many of us are seeking um I personally don't support the way the ballot question is worded but I think we have a problem we need a new approach we've tried the approach that was agreed upon kind of the compromise of the police commission having an independent attorney that's been tried it has not been successful so I'm just curious if anyone can talk about the city of austin's model thank you recording in progress recording stopped suggested even well it has been suggested um so the way our ordinance and charter set up right now there's really only one duty reserved to the police commission for certain and that's what we've been talking about here which is the right to hear appeals from officers who disagree with discipline issued by the police chief what's happened really by administrative order from the mayor working with the police commission as as we were talking about in the very beginning the the role of the police commission has been expanded they they have more of an investigatory authority they have more of an opportunity to weigh in on departmental policies they've been allowed in recent years to hire their own legal counsel they have a more formal role now in reviewing use of force incidents I think we should be looking at the ways in which the police commission's authority has been expanded but it's only been expanded by administrative order so it's not an ordinance it's not it's not on the books we have a mayoral election coming up in 2024 there's no guarantee necessarily because it's not on the books that that the expanded authority that's been put into place right now will remain in place so I think we should be looking closely about what's working right now what can we expand upon what can we put into ordinance what's working in other communities that would work for a community of our size here in Burlington there are other questions just not a question but I think for better or worse I think the intent here was to provide some type of body that would be able to provide some kind of discipline oversight of police it wasn't part of the police department they believed people who wrote this believed that the commission and the is part of the department they run the department and that they do they they have that oversight of the activities of the department and the thought was and I'm not saying I agree with it or not but the idea was to have an independent body to look at police misconduct that wasn't part of the department itself the idea that the department can't investigate itself maybe it can maybe it can't but they said we don't think it can so here's maybe awkward but another alternative to the police department investigating itself I think a lot of times we hear when groups investigate themselves there's often an outcry waiting when you can't investigate yourself I think that's what this was a reaction to the police department investigating itself through their own commission but as I understand it these people that are on this board are from nonprofits or something that's completely I mean that has nothing to do with the citizens the board that appoints would be have the nonprofits or some nonprofits the members of the commission as far as I understand they they would be citizens so they could they could not it turns out as Ben says maybe they could not even be a citizen of burlington anytime and be on the board but they would be regular citizens they are not the nonprofits themselves this isn't what gene said but anyway maybe you could address that who what is this new board and who comprises it and how are they who boards that's like that's what the church is so so uh to take us back what the if the chart change passes and I think there's another piece here that we should get to which is that even if burlington voters pass this charter change because it is a charter change ultimately it has to secure the approval of the legislature and the governor as well so I think we should come back to that um piece but let's assume for a moment burlington voters pass it let's assume for a moment that the legislature votes in favor of it let's assume for a moment that the governor ultimately agrees to change burlington's charter uh it would do two things first of all it would set up this new city department with a new department head um with the right paid correct uh with staff and the right to hire a legal counsel to conduct investigations and then separately it would stand up this um uh the control board uh made up of of residents they would also be paid mind you in the charter change uh the members of this board would be paid at least uh a livable wage a livable wage is what it says for their work charter change for their work yes um which is different than the city's other boards and commissions which you know I think is a is an issue that we could look at for all the boards and commissions the fact that they're all uh on a volunteer basis but uh this would be set up that way the members of the control board would be selected uh by a group um that largely consists of representatives from various community organizations so it wouldn't necessarily be those you're right Steve it wouldn't necessarily be those community organizations that would serve on the control board it's those community organizations that would select the individuals who would serve on the control board yes uh individual people who do have to be residents of Burlington uh however the way it's written is that if you move out of Burlington um you're not required to immediately step down from the board that as long as you are still in Chittenden County that you can can continue to serve out your three-year term even if you don't live in Burlington any longer okay and there are other questions Eric can we get some thank you um just a few points of clarification the police commission are uh Burlington citizens we are volunteers we are not not embedded with the police department um we don't manage the police department in any way and I think some of this confusion which has happened before I've definitely talked to people about this before but it was further complicated by the mayor's comments at the september 19th city council meeting um I was not an individual that was for this ballot item I did go to meetings I did sit with the group as they were making plans to continue their signature gathering process and what type of community outreach they were doing I answered questions to the point that I could because there's a lot of confidential stuff I once again cannot talk about publicly but I mentioned things like hey we've got a lawyer now and that's been great and and the benefits of that and then some other things that we were working on what changed very dramatically was the mayor's comments on september 19th it was a public meeting city council meeting anyone can watch it on uh town meeting tv on their youtube channel was that the commission was attacked we uh our annual report was criticized uh things were said like we were out of step with the people of burlington that we did not discuss issues related to public safety and many other things that were false um we have also uh had the acting chief of police say that because of the work of the commission officers don't want to come here to burlington uh which begs the question of what type of people are we trying to recruit now this is when I changed my mind because for me this represented um I haven't found anyone who's who's been uh in city government uh at any point or has watched city government that has ever seen something like this where department head and the head of the administration haven't attacked a commission of private citizens who stepped up to serve it's really quite astounding um I'm sorry I'm getting really upset I um so that's why I changed my mind because there was this wall put up and I just asked that you know city counselors think about that some city counselors sat there and let that happen and that was not okay because that was that was to me a threat it was it was intimidating because you're trying to tell the public that you have to blame come the commission so thank you thank you are there any other questions okay if we can that would be great Lee's I can't I can't see who's got their hands raised so Lee's anyone else oh is there anyone else okay Steve again I it's a question I asked Gene Bergman is this if this goes into effect is it override the police unions collective bargaining agreement as far as they have a disciplinary uh mechanism set out already yep that could change but until it changes does this override that if it were to pass yes so uh there's a contract that was actually just recently renewed um with uh brovington police officers association yeah your right Steve it does lay out its own disciplinary process in there including by referencing the the police commission's role in in it's uh in the appellate process because this is a charter change that would effectively be the same as any state statute it would override to the extent it conflicts with it would override provisions that were agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement that was you and I hope that was Gene's answer that was his answer also okay good we can agree on that other questions or comments I can respond briefly again to um I did hear what she said and I'm going to ask the question is there a deep distrust then between the commission and the mayor between the commission and city council I mean is all are all these is this proposal arising from the nationwide distrust of the police and uh city governments um so uh first of all I appreciate commissioner grand's comments again um yes completely agree that the police commission is not a body that is um embedded with the department at least not in its current form not sure of what its past history has always been but in its current form it's it's it's an independent body made up of residents that are uh appoint volunteers appointed by um the city council uh there was a meeting back in september where uh the commission's former chair came before the council to provide their report um there there was some back and forth discussion with respect to the contents of the report some of the concerns that were raised about the commission were uh not concerns that I shared um personally uh I think the volunteer members of the commission have done excellent work commissioner grant and our colleagues have been incredibly dedicated to this process really going above and beyond uh really any almost any of the other boards and commissions in the city with respect to the amount of time and dedication they've put into this process um and it's a diverse group of folks who are on the commission who don't necessarily all share the same viewpoint and you know I've been mindful of the fact that almost all of the decisions or recommendations that come from the police commission um come with the unanimous support of that commission regardless of uh uh the different viewpoints that folks bring to the table so you know of course on any issue there's going to be disagreements but I think commissioner grant or colleagues on the commission have done really excellent work to me the biggest problem with the police commission taking on a broader role in actually investigating and recommending discipline is as we've been talking about they're also the body that's set up to rule on an appeal right so if we don't we don't change that imagine that they are the body that is uh initially investigating and making a recommendation with respect to this plan that recommendation is then taken on by the chief and then a police officer is uh appealing that recommendation it would the way it's currently set up is it would come back before the police commission that had already issued its recommendation and made its investigation and to me um that's a problem that that needs to be worked out and maybe we do need to look into um setting up some sort of second body either a second body to uh to do these investigations and make these recommendations or a second body to hear the appeals mm-hmm yeah right so any further thoughts or questions anything so I don't know if you know this do you want to have a internal affairs division in police so brungton does not have an internal affairs division within the police department uh the way it is set up is that um the attorney general's office is uh an entity to which um if folks wanted a third party to step in uh to investigate alleged misconduct within the police department there is a path to make those requests uh through the attorney general's office not internally here within burlington I think that's it almost looks like this this charter change is trying to set up almost like an internal affairs department for police maybe it's overkill but that's sort of what they're trying to do something independent of the normal uh change of command that's right and if you look to other communities around the country um there are a number of communities that do have an internal affairs bureau uh a near city for example has an internal affairs bureau madison wisconsin which is said sure is loosely based off of they have an office of an independent monitor um they also have a community control board but that that control board uh does not have its own disciplinary authority in a community like madison wisconsin um that board has oversight over the independent monitor uh who is a professional who's able to weigh in with respect to disciplinary matter so I think a model like that yeah is something that's worth taking um a closer look at I don't think um you know I I agree we need to take a closer look at police oversight and accountability I just think the measure that's on the table is q seven uh it goes a step too far in our city have been unaccountable sorry there's some uh noise in the background um you know is that is this measure coming because of some kind of a distrust of the police in our city I think personally I'm very proud of the police department we have here in burlington I think you have heard communities around the country over the last few years rightfully calling for uh many reforms I think a number of those reforms are um matters that burlington had actually already taken initiative on um but that doesn't mean we're done right I think there's always room for progress there's always room for us to continue to move forward I think that there is in policing as in as in really all governmental systems a history of racial bias that we continue to have to reckon with and so I do think that there's room for us to continue to make progress in this area Burlington is also community that not just with this police department but as you know sandy really in all aspects you know we are a lean in community where folks uh want to have um some say and and some uh a way to to lean into um the way our community is governed and so uh it's understandable and in fact I think most folks I talk to see some value in their being expanded police oversight and accountability I see value in the police commission's expanded roles here uh in the last couple years and them having more of a role to independently investigate and issue recommendations uh with respect to discipline I think we should continue to take a close look at that because I don't think there's any harm and I think there's actually uh some positives and value in uh folks being able to take a second look in a more independent way uh to provide recommendations here I just think this control board measure goes many steps way too far yeah Chris so I have a question let's presume that this community control of policing charter change fails you mentioned before that you're on the charter change committee is there any I know there's a process there is there anything in the pipes or in the works um to come forward as a charter change that is uh public safety oriented or reforming in this manner and if there isn't since you're on there what are um what are your top three ideas that you'd like to uh see vetted by the city attorney and roll it out yeah uh it's a great question so first of all but before I joined the council in late 2021 the council did pass a measure asking for the city attorney's office to draft up ordinance language so this would be ordinance not charter change but to draft up ordinance language that would provide the police commission a broader role in police oversight and accountability not anything like we see in the control board but along the lines of what we've been discussing here and an expanded role with respect to investigation and issuing recommendations and oversight of police department policies and practices so that we've not seen that draft language yet I think it's unfortunate I think because it turned over in the city council and turned over in the city attorney's office we haven't been able to move forward on that and and I regret that now I joined the council in April of last year I've had some expectation that there would be some movement on that I understand the frustration of those who wish that folks had moved faster but I don't think it's too late on this issue I think we need to continue to make progress on that and can continue to do so in the coming months that's one area with respect to the police commission I think as I look to other communities around the country with respect to their models and what are some ideas that I'm interested in there are some communities that have community boards that play a greater role in the in the recruitment and the hiring and oversight process of the police chief I think that is an area I'd be interested in exploring I think we talked about a community like Madison where they have a community board that has some role in in the hiring of an independent monitor over the police department I think that is a model that I would be interested in exploring I think there's some other communities that have bodies like what we've been talking about for the police commission where they have some right to investigate and issue recommendations with respect to discipline even some community boards where if the police chief ends up disagreeing the recommendation from the community board that the police chief has to provide a transparent open explanation in writing as to why they disagree with the recommendation from the community board so those are all ideas that I would be interested in exploring and working with my colleagues in the council and with the community in seeing you know which one of these models and practices are going to work here in Burlington so then what's to you the main problem with this proposal and you're here speaking against the proposal and I'm just wondering what is your basic reason for opposing it I would say one is I think it's broader than it needs to be in Burlington Burlington is a police force right now of 60 some officers and I don't think we need to stand up an entirely new city department with the director staff legal counsel to engage in this type of taxpayers to investigate a department of our size in our community I think two the process by which the members of this board are selected is a way where I don't think the members of this board will be accountable to voters it's unlike any other board commission in the city it's unlike any other and the appointing board is basically people from non-profit communities from the community organizations community organizations okay um like police accountability the one that was here last week yeah no the gene I mean I think an organization like that could be among the organizations that sits in the group that selects members but it's it's not a guarantee we don't we don't lay out the specific organizations um and I think just two other things I think one is I think the the breadth of authority that's given to this board where they can step in and effectively take over the police chief's current role the police chief has or neither the police chief nor the mayor has any role to push back on or disagree with or override the discipline that's issued by this board it's unlike any other similar board or commission I'm aware of in the country and I don't think we should be standing it up here in Burlington and I think the last thing I would say and I mentioned this earlier is that because this is a charter change it's ultimately something that if passed by Burlington voters is going to have to secure the support of the legislature and ultimately that of the governor and if you think about the fact that town meeting days in March you know oftentimes when we pass a charter change the legislature doesn't take it up this year they take it up next year in 2024 and when I think about a statewide legislature reviewing an item like this with the concerns that we've been talking about tonight I don't see a path forward for it in Montpelier so rather than wait a year for the legislature to take it up next year in all likelihood to disagree with it I think for certain our governor would oppose it of course I can't know that for sure but I think that he would oppose it you know let's not wait a year to see what what the outcome of this is going to be you know if this is important to folks which it is important to me as a general issue then let's take the time we have now to sit down at the table in a more collaborative deliberative way and and figure out a better path forward okay all right so if there are any last comments or questions I guess well yeah Grant can I just pick up on a detail that you mentioned earlier I read this proposal two nights ago I can't remember it for the community organizations that the members will be chosen from it doesn't even say nonprofit does it it could be a bank it says community organization yes what's an organization what's a community organization it's not defined you know I will say that you know we have lots of pieces in our charter and ordinances that could use better definitions so it's not unheard of for there to be a broad definitions but I have some concerns around the lack of clarity around that and yes it says community organizations I think we would need to figure that out if this were to move forward I'd like to you know ask the same question that I asked last time to Jean you know it looks like in this city or in the US in general this debate over policing the cities is about either the cops beat more people or you know the opposite but I don't see any discussion as to make this work or listen I I'm a little bit you know I would like to see discussions about how to prevent crime so that police isn't always about being you know sorry to you that word it's a little sex it's gut related or you know giving more or means to beat up citizens because how can you assure that the police officer can exerts exercise restraint when it goes to a neighborhood what in theory everybody has a gun can you talk about you know reforming policing without talking about you know getting rid of guns out there can you talk about reforming policies I mean police policing without talking about how you get the means to the communities to avoid that their kids get into crime I'd like to see that more you know even about that proposition or the counter proposition a discussion for honestly discussion about preventing crime yeah it's a great point it's a great question it's it's a huge issue I mean we talk for example about really needing to address the root root causes of of crime and you know violent behavior here in our community I think at the council level we've been focusing some specifically on the uptick of gun violence in our community and we've we've passed a measure here in the city also asking for the state legislature to take action on expanding educational programs in our schools and and working with kids to try to address some of the root causes behind gun violence as they grow older so I think that's one example but I also think to your point and looking at this more holistically here in Burlington and around the country but particularly here in Burlington where we've been dealing with such significant recruitment and retention challenges in our police department we are asking way too much of our police officers I've been undertaking here to help address that you know we we are transforming our police department so as we rebuild our our ranks and police officers we've also stood up new community service officer and community service liaison positions who are were better positioned to respond to matters where you don't need a police officer with a gun in bad showing up you need someone with a different skill set showing up I'm excited that the city just received some funding from the state to help stand up what folks are familiar with it as what's called the cahoots model where again instead of having a police officer with a gun in a badge showing up to mental health or substance use issues or other behavioral health issues that you would have a trained healthcare provider team of mental health professionals and social workers responding to a call like that so I'm excited with the steps that we're taking I think it's going to take some time but I do think that we're taking steps forward and rebuilding a transform police department it's honestly it's one of the reasons I'm concerned about the proposal that's on the table right now in question seven because you do hear from really well-meaning folks in the public safety community who are concerned that Burlington votes in favor of this question that it could result in our taking a step backwards in our efforts to rebuild the transform police department and I think that's yet another reason why let's vote no on this and let's get back to the table on a matter that can gain some more consensus from our community I do have I guess a final question do you know if there are special requirements to be on either board I thought that there were certain people who could get on the board that's controlling the police um and that maybe all citizens would not be treated equally in that in those appointments was that correct for instance I've heard that people that are connected with law enforcement can't be on the board that would mean people like me because I served in the state's attorney's office for a million years ago what are the other requirements so uh there is some language that in this group of non-profit of community organizations that's selecting members that and I don't have the language verbatim in front of me folks should take a look at it but there is language in there around how the folks who ultimately end up on the control board should be to the extent possible folks who have some some lived experience in many respects with with police and law enforcement so there's language in there that folks who have been previously incarcerated folks who've been previously arrested there's there's some efforts people should be on the board correct yep it is the way it's written in there I think there's some other language in there that is language that you see from some other control boards in the community and I want to be careful here because I'm not I'm not trying to malign this language at all I think there's some significant value in it but there's some language around folks who are representing more diverse communities BIPOC communities again should be favored and to the extent possible provided positions on the control board so there's some language in there and I would suggest that voters need to take a look at the language and and read for themselves what it says with respect to who would be favored in appointments to the commission that you favor certain people over others in the appointment of public bodies doesn't seem to me it's it's meeting the equal protection clause it's it's unlike a process that we see from other boards and commissions to certain extents but you know in other respects I mean we have an ad hoc committee right now that is looking at the recent citywide reassessment and there's some language in there around how you need a renter you need a landlord you need a property or you need you know so there's there's language around that I think that is one of the issues that folks should be rightfully looking at is the language in there with respect to how members of the board are solicited follow up in other words there'd be certain people that would be automatically disqualified because of their position in life or well are there frankly are there race is that really the way it's going to work it's not the notes of inclusion that I object to it's the the specific notations that anybody who's had a past career in law enforcement is excluded I just find it I find it objectionable that no members of law enforcement past or have access to this position yeah but it's not just the law enforcement clause is it I do think the the only folks as I read it other than you do to be appointed to the board you have to be a Burlington resident right so so putting that matter aside the only folks who are automatically excluded from serving on the board are folks who have past experience working in law enforcement but that's not necessarily just police officers I mean I think there's a way to read that that lawyers for example who have who have worked in law enforcement may not be able to serve on it I like it so you know which for some people may be a good thing yeah which is fair but yes I mean I think I mean look a lot of the proponents for this board have likened it to like the board that we have for attorneys that that oversees attorneys or or doctors or teachers but I think a major difference is you know sandy as you know as lawyers here the board that oversees and issues our law licenses is made up of attorneys the the American Medical Association is made up of other physicians when teacher discipline is being reviewed and disciplined it's being reviewed by other education is being reviewed by other public bodies correct this this is a public body and should meet certain constitutional standards that all people are granted equal and that they are equal citizens and that they should be shouldn't they be appointed rather on merit maybe well and I think the point is that for many reasons this is unlike any other professional oversight body I'm familiar with I think it goes a step too far in many respects my my recommendation to Burlington voters is that we vote it down on town meeting day and allow the council to get back to work in a more collaborative way to come up with a model that can gain broader consensus that's not as as divisive and can and can serve our common goals I guess that's it for the evening then thank you very much Ben and we'll see what happens on town meeting day right that's right yeah lots of questions thank you thank you sandy thank you