 What's been stated, I've been chiming into a lot of the charter change committee meetings and I just want to express my support for Councillor Freeman's draft. I think it's really important that going forward we create a fully independent police oversight body that is headed by the community members, specifically our most marginalized community members, that being people with lived experience, BIPOC residents, members of the LGBTQA community, homeless and houseless folks, and people who have experienced with mental health issues and I think that it's crucial that this body be fully independent of the Burlington Police Department as it doesn't make sense for there to be the police department policing themselves and I also wanted to reiterate that I think it's really, really important that we, and I know we've made a lot of progress in having police, most of our police officers wear body cams, but I think it's really important that this footage be made publicly available and accessible to all members of the public and that it be done in a way that protects the anonymity of citizens and that this community board that we create be allocated the proper funding that it needs to be able to operate and then it be fully representative of people with lived experience. But yeah, I just want to offer my support to what's been said tonight and I'm sure what will be said after me. So thank you. I yield my time. Thank you. Okay, next up is Lydia Kern followed by Meg Tragolo. Yes, we can. Absolutely. My name is Lydia and I'm a white woman living in Ward 1. I just wanted to call and just repeat some of the requests that have been made already and just echo my support for an independent public body that can hold the police accountable. I really care about care being fostered in our community. And like just before it said earlier, I would hope that the police BPD would be enthusiastic about pushing what they've outlined even further because that's just what we need right now. I would hope that this independent body would be resourced effectively with people and funding and would pull from a diverse population of folks in our community. And also just repeating the ask that the body cam footage be released for free to the public. I think that's the only way that any sort of trust that can be built can happen. And I just, yeah, just want to echo these asks. Thank you. I yield my time. Thank you. Okay, egg followed by Julia Pupko. Meg, I am unable to identify you, Julia. Try that again. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. Um, so my name is Julia Pupko. I lived in Burlington for five years and am currently living in Norwich, but plan on moving back to Burlington in the future. And COVID allowing I still spend a great deal of time in Burlington. And I'm very actively involved in many community movements there. So therefore, I still have a strong interest in both police reform and ensuring the safety of the community that I'm still a very large part of. So there are two points that I would speak on tonight. The first is I reviewed the police misconduct and misconduct investigations information release policy document that was posted. And while reading that, I noticed in the section discussing reviewing police misconduct misconduct, that it was stated that body worn camera footage would be reviewed. And this is the key part if available to be included in a report. And I do not understand why body cam footage would not exist in every scenario and push the council to make it mandatory for all police officers to always be wearing and utilizing body cams while on duty. So full footage of their interactions with community members is available. And in when I've been reviewing various police misconduct cases, I've noticed specifically with the incident with Maby or jock that the footage leading up to him getting slammed into the pavement was very short. And it was very difficult to see what was happening. And so I believe that in order to hold police accountable, and for everyone to fully understand what is happening, the footage needs to be made publicly available. And full footage needs to be available. And then my second point, I'll just speak briefly on that is that I want to just echo what everyone else has said about the importance of having an independent public body that conducts police oversight, having a body that is still connected to the police department defeats the purpose, in my opinion, as there is a conflict of interest. So I just want to again state that I believe that it is very important for an independent body of community members to conduct police oversight. I yield my time. Thank you very much. Okay, next up is Andrew, followed by Oscar Andrew. Hello, can you hear me? As we can. I would like to yield my time to see if there are any other BIPOC individuals waiting in the queue. Oscar, are you there? Yeah, I am. I'd like to do the same. And I'm fairly certain there are BIPOC individuals in the queue. Person before we circle around. Alexandra. I see Justin Alex. Alexandra is this you? Oh, there you are. Where did you go? Okay, so Alexandra was there and not so I will I'm seeing sorry, I'm seeing Alex is the hand raised currently. Yep, perfect. There we go. Hi, can you hear me? Hi, my name is Alex Sturgis. I'm a cisgendered white woman. I use she her pronouns and I'm a lifelong resident of this area. I was paralegal at Montreal Bacchus Nottinger in my fourth year of the Vermont law study program. And I'll be sitting for the July 2021 bar exam. I take issue, particularly with the definition of incident as it pertains to the retention and public availability of the body cam footage. Because it's really just another way of skirting responsibility for every day run of the mill racial profiling by police. We know that thanks to mountains of data that BIPOC Vermonters are more than twice as likely to be stopped by the police and white Vermonters. And just because some of those encounters do not turn into incidents of police brutality, doesn't mean they're any less insidious, because they really reinforce the fear and oppression that our BIPOC brothers, sisters and siblings live under day in and day out. Police and law enforcement are practiced in the art of this oppression. And I'd like to also address that police have to be left out of the civilian oversight of police. And to draw this parallel, I'd like to use an example from the tobacco industry. We're long past the days when we believe that tobacco industry, what they told us about their products being not being harmful. And that's because the tobacco industry was finally rigorously investigated and disciplined by group groups independent from the tobacco industry. And through the master settlement agreement, the tobacco industry was required to fund the tobacco control and prevention programming throughout the US, including Vermont. And Vermont has received funding to support its statewide tobacco control and prevention programming since 2000. Vermont's model includes local community efforts specifically designed and implemented by community members at the local level. And that program and its funding is accountable on a yearly basis to oversight organizations, including the CDC. And we've seen this work. It's not unprecedented. So it's if we can work on an international scale of the tobacco industry, we can certainly make it work here in Vermont by using funding from BPD to fund this oversight board, which, you know, ultimately has to have full investigatory disciplinary power. Otherwise, it is just another sort of cosmetic performative change in the wake of, you know, this, the wave of reckoning that our country is having. Black Lives Matter, I'll yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Before we circle back around, Hannah, I see your hand. Hi, yeah, this is specifically for Murat and Shannon. I just don't understand what's with the faces and signs when folks want to make space for the BIPOC residents to talk first. This is a job that you chose and making your contempt so clearly known is just such a bad look. Think the least that you can do is pretend to keep it together and that you don't have a disdain for the folks who actually want to make this community a better and safer place. I yield my time. Thank you. Okay, circling back around to Dana. Hi there, my name is Dana. I moved to Burlington last summer after graduating college, and I've been working as a healthcare worker at a local clinic ever since. And I'm just calling in as others have to advocate for a civilian oversight board that's independent from the police completely as that would be a clear issue of bias and conflict of interest. And I also think what other people have brought up today about body camera footage is really important that all footage is released to the public, not just what the police define as an incident. And I also think that we need to work on allowing police to define what is considered misconduct and just make sure that this independent board has all the support it needs to do investigations and discipline if necessary, in order to address systemic racism in policing along with other systemic injustices. Thank you. You'll the rest of my time. My apologies. Thank you. Okay, Zoe. Hi, my name is Zoe Kenninger and I'm a resident of Ward 4. I'm white and I use they them pronouns. I've lived in Burlington since 2015 after I moved here from Ohio, and I attended Burlington High School all four years graduating in 2019. Throughout my time at BHS, I was active in the school community through multiple extracurriculars including theater and the scholars will team of which I was the captain my senior year. I returned to Burlington on a gap year from Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. And when I return, I plan on double majoring in Russian studies in theater. Like others who have talked tonight, I was also told about and look forward to seeing the progressive traditions of Vermont as a state when I moved. However, I have been disappointed. At the beginning of the summer, Mayor Miro Weinberger named racism as a public health crisis. However, since then the city has made very little action in order to uphold the promise of the statement despite the opportunity of the clear outline demands of the battery park movement. At the beginning of September, former head of the Burlington Police Commission, Mark Hughes stepped down from his position stating that the statutory authority delegated powers and design of the commission render it ineffective. Despite its appearances entitled the Burlington Police Commission has no real authority over disciplining hiring or firing officers is essentially a body composed only of words and platitudes without any real teeth. And as it stands now lacks the ability to create any significant change in our city, this needs to change in order to accomplish its mission to transform the role of police and communities. In order to accomplish the goal of restructuring public safety as outlined in the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance's Operation Phoenix rise initiative, it's necessary that this commission work to support the efforts of the Charter Change Commission to create a civilian oversight board for police and make sure nothing impedes it. This work includes remedying the aspects of the current police commission that renders it ineffective, in other words, giving this body full disciplinary and investigative powers independent of the police department, as well as the resources and funding it needs in order to accomplish its goals, and also a full divestment from the police department. The police cannot and have never been able to police themselves. The throughout this process, it is essential that the voices of BIPOC and other communities that have been historically marginalized by police are at the center of your work and solutions. Solutions. This includes putting a name to the issue we are facing, not hiding it. The issue of police brutality is an issue of racism and white supremacy. Only by taking these actions will the police commission be truly able to make a difference and remove the limitations that prevent this board from being anything other than symbolic. On the subject of body cams, it should be made mandatory for all law enforcement officers in the Chittenden County to be wearing body cams. The footage should be released to the public for free on a regular basis and not just in the instances of a quote incident. It should be done so in a way that protects the anonymity of civilians. Overall, the city must begin to prioritize the lives of its citizens over an outdated violent institution of white supremacy. Thank you. Thank you for that. Next up is Grace. Hi, my name is Grace Vile. I was born in Vermont. I've lived here for six years. I work at a bakery in the Old North End and my job involves interacting with and building relationships with people every single day. And I care really, really deeply for this community. I've come to some of the other police commission meetings and I feel like you all on the police commission are a great team and I'm glad you exist. But what we are asking for is a fully independent police oversight body that has disciplinary and investigative power where there are no current or former police officers or any folks with family members in law enforcement. Page 43 of the police union contract outlines discipline and it's basically half a page long and it enrages me to no end that a police officer could be violent, could lie, could harass citizens and receive a written reprimand, which is the same punishment that I could receive at my job where I make lattes. Your draft report in response to resolution 4.2 concluded that the union contract quote provides significant hurdles to stronger disciplinary measures and police encounters involving brutal or excessive force. And I think you can work towards this goal of having stronger discipline by updating directives and changing wording in the union contract. But I think ultimately the police are still policing themselves and that hasn't worked for the past 380 years. So I'm not sure why we're still expecting it to. I think acknowledging the lack of oversight and the lack of accountability is important. But I think at this point what we're asking for is to move beyond just acknowledging that and to shift the power. I also want to address the draft of the body worn camera policy. We have been asking for all body cam footage to be released freely to the public and not just footage from specific incidents. I think there are interactions with police officers and civilians that might not qualify as incidents quote unquote whatever that means. However, that's defined and might not be under review. But I think those incidents people would still be interested in seeing the purpose of the demand that vast amounts of body cam footage be made public is so that we have an opportunity to monitor day to day interactions between officers and civilians where we know there is racism where we know there is white supremacy where we know there is violence even if it does not rise to the level of being an incident. We know officers still use excessive force even when they wear body cams. And I think part of the reason why is that much of that footage will never see the light of day unless there's a lawsuit. I just spent maybe 10 minutes trying to see if the police department had a YouTube page. If there was more body cam footage available than just the three videos I have seen and I couldn't find anything. We need a transparent fully independent civilian oversight board with disciplinary and investigatory powers. And I urge this commission to work towards that and to do what is in your power to make sure that this is on the ballot in March. Thank you. Thank you. Lila. I can hear you. OK. Great. Thank you. So my name is Lila. I use she her pronouns. I'm a white cis woman and I live in Ward 3. I went to high school at U 32 high school outside of Montpelier and then I went to UVM for undergrad and now I'm living in this community. I work as an educator and a nanny and love that I get to call Burlington my home. I want to just state that I support and echo everyone who's spoken so far and all their points. Also just state my extreme desire that the police should no longer police themselves in any form. The notion that police in the United States including Vermont are meant to protect and serve their communities and the people in the communities has been proven completely false and in fact does not is not considered constitutional just based on Supreme Court cases that have allowed police officers to get away with instances where they were not protecting and serving the citizens. The police are here to protect and serve the state's interests and the city's interests and those interests are often if not always ones of white supremacy. And so I absolutely support what other folks have been saying and Perry Freeman's Councilor Perry Freeman's proposal for this independent oversight and control board of the police that would have full disciplinary and investigatory powers over any police activity I also just want to strongly voice my support for keeping disciplinary records for officers indefinitely. I was reading some of the documents that have been created by this commission and saw that right now police officers records are not kept beyond a year. I believe that's correct. I'm outraged that these records are being not kept. I think that's completely unacceptable. And I also think that the records of the police officers should be available to the public. I also just want to echo what folks are saying about the body cam footage. I think that even if it technically is available it must be easily available and it must be free of charge to the public. I would suggest that officers after having had an interaction with a citizen should tell them how and where they can access this footage. The footage is hugely important for anyone who has ever interacted with a police officer because as we know has has been documented many times police officers are known to gaslight lie and manipulate those they interact with. And as Grace mentioned or maybe others have mentioned we need to be able to have access so that people can confirm what they think had happened with the police and the idea that someone could lie and manipulate someone they interact with. And then that just be disciplined through a written warning is ludicrous to me. So I think we need to have a completely different way of disciplining the police and it needs to be an independent citizen run board. Thank you. Thank you. Is Lee Morgan. Lee are you there. I am here. Can you hear me. Yes we can. All right. Thank you. Good. Good evening commissioners Shannon Chief Mirad and everyone else on this call. My name is more again. My pronouns are they them and I am a white white non-binary resident of Ward 7. I am a medical courier in a forensic psychology student. First off I will repeat my ongoing request to make the names and pictures of all BPD officers and staff public and available on the BPD website. There cannot be trust between the community and police if we don't know who they are. I've been thinking a lot about the use of force and what that looks like in different situations. Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that the level of force is up to the discretion of the officer. Are there any written standards or suggestions of appropriate use of force in specific situations solely relying on an officer's discretion can be dangerous. As officers are human and therefore fallible an officer's assessment of use of force can be affected by variables such as excuse me years of service experience hunger caffeine medications eyesight sleep deficit temperatures length of shift over time bladder and bowel urgency personal biases both conscious and unconscious allergies and illness etc. I have a specific question about the use of force that affects me personally. I have Tourette syndrome most of the time my symptoms are well managed. Although at periods of prolonged intense stress I have self injurious ticks. These ticks can include punching my body and face pulling my hair out in chunks smashing my head against hard hard objects ripping my clothes apart and screaming very loudly. These ticks are completely involuntarily involuntary and I am not able to respond to commands. I want to know what to expect from an officer in the circumstance. Will I be tased shot or restrained for not following commands to stop? Will I be shot or punched three times in the head for inadvertently striking an officer that physically intervenes? I believe that people with difficulties like mine deserve to know what risks of physical force by police they stand a likelihood of enduring. Please consider the infinite variables that humans possess when making decisions of use of force and the policies about them. I deserve so much more than discretion and so do all Burlington residents. Black lives matter. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is Meg. I'm unable to identify you. Andrew. Hello can you hear me? Yes we can. Hello my name is Andrew Giggler. I am a cisgender white man you see him pronouns and a resident of Ward one in Burlington. I'm a student at the University of Vermont and I've lived in Burlington for over the past three years. At the University of Vermont I've worked as a resident advisor and I currently work as a peer mentor for students with intellectual disabilities. I'd like to take some of my time to remind all of us a major reason or maybe the top reason of why we're all here. Just to remember some names of some folks that lived in Burlington that have been assaulted by violent police officers in the past. Just since I moved here in the past three years BPD officers Jason Bellavance Corey Campbell and Joseph Coro have displayed patterns of violence without just cause. Particularly against people of color. I know we all know these names and we know these stories but if these stories don't get repeated I can only assume that no action will be done specifically by chief Murad and the Burlington Police Department. Joseph Coro assaulted Malbir Jock by knocking him to the ground unconscious and bleeding without announcement or instructions. Corey Campbell is responsible for the homicide of Douglas Kilburn when he punched repeatedly to the ground resulting in skull fractures that contribute to his death three days later. Jason Bellavance assaulted Jeremy Mele without engaging or addressing him without cause. Bellavance pushed Mele into a wall where he fell unconscious to the pavement and he still struggles with his vision and balance as well as comprehension difficulties as a result of this. None of these officers were fired after committing these actions. Two of these officers, Corey Campbell and Joseph Coro, still were made employed by the BPD. The BPD has clearly shown that they are unable to hold violent police officers accountable and fire officers that commit violent acts against innocent and unarmed people that just cause. BPD chiefs and the police union have a history of protecting their violent and racist co-workers. They have proven that they cannot be trusted to serve and protect the city of Burlington, especially the most marginalized community members. For all of these reasons, for all of the reasons of people who have said, people before me have said, I believe that there must be a civilian oversight board to hold the BPD officers accountable for their actions. I support the proposal by Councillor Freeman and this oversight board would need to be an independent public body that acts without bias and have diverse representation. As I said, I am a white cis man living in Burlington. So I am using this platform to amplify the voices of countless community members that have been saying the same word and same commands to the city and the police commission for years and especially since this summer with the rise of a new movement. Please listen to them. Please listen to the most marginalized in our community. They have already been speaking up about this and you have not been listening. Thank you. Black Lives Matter. Thank you. Councillor. Before I speak, I want to add a warning that my content comment contains a graphic description of police violence against BIPOC in your community. My name is Oscar and I'm a life long resident of Burlington. And I've come to speak to ask you all to push forward a community oversight model of the BPD that gives investigatory and disciplinary powers to a truly civilian controlled review board. Councilor Freeman's draft comes closest, in my opinion. But the further you can get away from the traditional police policing police model, the better. It's truly the most important work. I say this while I'm speaking to a panel containing the acting police chief who has already called instances of police brutality against BIPOC and our community good police work. I remember I spoke to you once this past summer, Chief Mirad. And after reminding you of this incident where Officer Derek Hodges smashes knee down on an already subdued black suspect's face, breaking his jaw, he stood by her statement and used the fact that the abused parties withdrew from litigation as proof that any potential for misconduct had been erased. You saw the same body camp footage I did of officers screaming at unaffiliated black bystanders to get the fuck back and Hodges screaming at the victim to stop fucking spitting, referring to the blood that was coming from his mouth. Taking such things into consideration, it's ridiculous that Mirad is here and has any influence over this process at all. For this reason, in addition to an entire history of harrowing police violence against black, indigenous, and other POC and an endless history of zero accountability, the community of Burlington, if it had its true choice, would never leave a BPD administrator in charge of deciding what constitutes an incident that is worthy of releasing body camera footage over or defining and disciplining misconduct in general. I hope the commission can at least see this community-wide wish and will work towards a model of police accountability that takes power away from the Chief Mirad's of the world and gives it back to the community, where it should have been all along with the utmost emphasis on black, indigenous, and other people of color. Please take this opportunity to do the necessary work and not just the bare minimum. Thanks for the time, Black Lives Matter. Sorry, thank you for that. Just take a quick look at the email to make sure no one else and those are... Sorry, I'm seeing one hand raised. Sorry, we can barely hear you. Can you speak up or maybe get close to your microphone? Hello. A little bit better. Okay, we can hear you now. There you go. My name's Zanavia. As I stated before, me, my family, I've lived in Mord, for the majority of my life. I was struggling with coming onto this call today and I think I want to bring that to the overall idea that was presented in one of our last meetings about the policing of language and knowledge that comes into this conversation. We know our experiences as black people here and black folks within this area and BIPOC folks within all of Vermont. And it doesn't surprise me there's this continuous gaslighting within that. But to be able to say that we don't get a voice or oversight in the oppression that affects us daily is mind-boggling. Going back more into our request for body cam footage, this is important and it's important to us is all in terms of BIPOC oppression and again, folks in general but collectively for houses folks, there is continuous interactions amongst houses folks and BPD downtown Burlington and the amount of lack or ability to request for that footage comes from the discriminatory actions amongst the police commission. That can be changed with just public oversight and collective thinking. I think it's very interesting as well going back to piggybacking with what Lee was saying, great points made in terms of speaking and knowing exactly who we are dealing with and being able to access footage or not footage, sorry, pictures and names to the people within the police department. I think Murad, me and you have had many interactions but one I remember very clearly is you asking for my name and me saying I'm not giving it to you and one of the main things you said was how am I supposed to have a conversation with someone I don't know? And I think it speaks to this entire fight here that we're having. How are we supposed to have a base of conversation of collective liberation and our hopes and dreams for this future community if we don't know just basically the people that we're dealing with in our community and the folks who we know are targeting the most marginalized? I yield my time. Thank you. That's all that I had unless there's others that are gonna raise their hand. Awesome, are there anybody in attendance that I'd like to speak right now? I'm not seeing any hand raised. So I wanna thank everyone that I joined in and not commented in public comments. I really appreciate it. All right, moving on to agenda item 4.01, the Chief's report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for having me. I do wanna express thanks. I don't know that it's clear from what many of the folks calling in stated, but I am not a member of this police commission. I am here at your invitation in order to provide information when appropriate in order to provide a report that begins each of these meetings and in order to be able to share information that is perhaps internals of the department in the course of executive session. But I am not a voting member of your body. I, none of you is beholden to me and I thank you for allowing me to be here. And I also wanna say that I know how much work I put into these meetings. I know how much work I put into working with this police department on behalf of the people in this city. And I know how much you do as well, all of you as commissioners who are longtime residents who live in the city, who are people who give tremendous amounts of time and passion and effort to this community and share your lived experience as you make determinations about this department and the input that you have on it, including reviewing policy, including looking at disciplinary rules, including talking about internal issues, including all of the things that were spelled out in the new role of the police commission in internal discipline that we agreed to in August, but which the practices of predate that document. And I just wanted to say thank you. This month has been shorter than the previous period. It's only been 20 days since our last, sorry about that, that's the, there we go, that's the city of Burlington making certain that the lights go on and off. It's been 20 days since our last meeting. There have been, I shared this for the first time, I think on time. I believe that if Shannon sent it out, that it was ready a little earlier than it has been before. 1,171 calls for service. We had an attempted homicide. We had nine assaults, one of them an aggravated assault. We had one sex assault, three robberies, two of them in the last week, 108 suspicious events, 73 noise complaints, 48 vehicle crashes, 19 of which were leaving the scenes of an accident and three of them had injury, 47 disturbances, 53 traffic incidents, 27 foot patrols, 38 incidents of threats or harassment, 15 domestic incidents, 14 of which were domestic disturbances and one of which was a domestic violence misdemeanor, two overdoses and three untimely deaths. And actually that only goes through, this is through yesterday, through October, through, excuse me, through the 16th, not the 17th. Today, just today, we had two additional untimely deaths which won't be counted until our next police commission meeting, but nevertheless work that the officers are out there doing. And it has that volume in the past 20 days is lesser than normally when I report because as I said, normally we have a little bit more time in between reports. We've been doing a lot of work, we have been working on a report with the attorney general's office and other entities, including the Chittenden County State's attorney and the mayor's office on the orphanage. And that is a process that has been ongoing for quite some time, more than two years now and is sort of at a stage where I think that we may be presenting something, but it has been a lot of work for detectives in this department, a huge amount of work by Lieutenant Detective Commander Trebe who reviewed a lot of survivors notes and interviews, et cetera over the last couple of weeks. I spent all weekend reviewing those same interviews. Just repetitive horrible awfulness from that story. And I think that hopefully we will be able to provide something that these survivors deserve most of all, which is a recognition of their truths and their stories. We had an 0300 shooting on Wednesday in the very early hours, an incident that had an initially uncooperative suspect, excuse me, victim, a victim who however also had a firearm of his own. That was tremendous detective work for that incident. Huge amount of resources, a lot of officers coming in, being able to secure the scene on the midnight shift when we are thin staffed, we had to call in assistance from the University of Vermont in order to help secure one of those scenes. And had we not, had we merely used crime scene tape, we would have lost key evidence, but we brought in somebody from University of Vermont police to assist, securing that scene. Other officers went and did work at the actual location of the shooting incident. Detectives came in, did additional evidence collection, began interviews, began to get cooperation from the victim, but were simultaneously developing their own leads, were able to identify a suspect and apprehend that suspect all within 18 hours. There's not another police department in the state that could have made that happen in the city based on the amount of information that we had going in. And I am very proud of the work of the detective bureau and the road did on that. That was a real team effort. And on that same day, we were searching for a missing college student for whom we had been looking for several days already. We found the missing college student and while that was a very sad outcome, it was nevertheless a resolution. That too, a huge amount of work going into that in order to find someone and not have a happy outcome but have an outcome for the sake of family, for the sake of friends in the UVM community, for the sake of people here. We then had a big crash two nights, a few nights ago. A pursuit from outside our city came into the city, ended up shearing off the porch of a building on North Avenue, caused a lot of traffic delay, had a fugitive in the wind who actually spent the night outside. We believe ultimately he was discovered and somebody shed the following day. We, I'll use that as an opportunity to discuss Burlington's pursuit policy, which is online. Most of our directives are online. We have a lot of transparency at the Burlington page and so far as the directives that guide what we do, how we do it, including use of force, including our pursuit policy. Our new photo policy was used in this. And I know that you are all on the email lists for local media distributions. And I hope that you did see that I pointed out specifically that we released a photograph because we were looking for an individual. When we are not, we no longer will. And that's something that this body has brought up before. And that is in an instance, an example of a change in this department's posture because of input from this body, because of the clear expectations that this body expresses on behalf of the citizens that you all represent. And then we had another robbery. We had another robbery at the mart on the corner of Winooski in Maine. Two individuals robbed the store at gunpoint and then we had another one last night at another location in town, not related. We do not believe that the individual is either of the two individuals from the Champlain Farms robbery, but we are still searching for this one. And it's indicative of some upticks in crime. And those upticks are concerning to us right now owing to where we are with staffing. And I've told you before and expressed in our last meeting my concerns about where we are with staffing. We've lost seven officers over the course of the past few months. That plus one on long-term sick and plus one who has been called up for a 400 day military deployment, that puts us at 83 of our officers effective. And that is down from a normal average headcount of 95.5. That is a significant drop with regard to what we can do, how we can do it. It's indicative of why we had to call in mutual aid from UVM for crime scene work. And actually, if I may with your permission commissioner, I'll share the screen for a picture of where we are with... So this is that I'm sharing shows our 42 officers that are currently available for calls. And the reason it's 42 is obviously we have other roles that we still have to do. We still have to cover the airport. We still have to have a detective bureau. We still have to have three officers that we contribute to CUSY. They are about, that includes the supervisor of CUSY. That's the Chittenden unit for special investigations. It deals with sex crimes. It deals with crimes against children. We do have officers who are in roles that are necessary. That for example, among those 83 officers that I said are effective, that includes myself and Deputy Chief LeBreck and Deputy Chief Sullivan. That includes our administrative lieutenant. The 83 does not translate to 83 police officers who are out on the streets at any given time. It translates to what we see here. We have when we are fully staffed, there are eight officers on any given day on the street. There are eight officers on any given evening shift on the street. There are four or five officers on any given midnight on the street. And that is all that we now have. In the past, what we would normally have in this situation of 83 is the knowledge that we have some officers in field training, that we have some officers at the academy, that we have some officers who are in the process of being hired as lateral officers from either other agencies within the state or other agencies around the country. And that there's a coming buffer. There is no buffer at this point. 80 was the number that I spoke of repeatedly in presentations to the city council and to other bodies in June as we were discussing the budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. And we are getting very, very close to 80. In fact, I think that what we will see is that by February, we will have had additional departures beyond those 83. We are expecting one officer to go to the Vermont State Police. We're expecting one officer to move to another profession. We are expecting one officer to be on a long-term FMLA with regard to children. We're expecting one to three additional officers on long-term military deployments of the kind that the other officer I already mentioned is on. That puts us at potentially 75 effective, assuming no other departures that we don't currently know about and people who have other plans, they haven't currently announced. It's not a safe assumption. By February, we'll have four supervisors fully eligible for retirement with two more ready to go by September. And we will have four officers who will be ready for retirement by February and another ready by September. And any of those officers could also depart at that retirement point. And this is all to say that by the end of the fiscal year, we would very conceivably be in the low 60s. So we worked on this presentation a little bit. This is a way of visualizing staffing because I think that it puts it in a perspective that's a little bit stronger. It shows, this is what we have on the street in a given day. And that is, so when an incident occurs like the crash that followed that pursuit, you have a complicated crash scene on North Avenue and you have a vehicle that is literally collided with a porch, sheared it right off a building. You have a person who was in that vehicle as a passenger who is now not in custody, but is being treated and is being interviewed. You have witnesses that have to be interviewed. You have to have a crash scene, a crash tech or a crash reconstructionist come and begin to plot out where that crash occurred. When did the car start skidding? When did it leave the road? What measurements need to be taken in order for all sorts of things to happen down the road, including insurance claims, et cetera. We are incredibly fortunate that no one was seriously injured in that crash. One of the passenger of the vehicle had some minor injuries. There were people in that home, children in that home who were not injured. There were people in front of besseries who were not injured when the vehicle left the road and went straight in front of besseries, poor besseries that had been almost demolished two years ago by a crash was almost struck again. That all had to happen. And simultaneous to that, we had a fugitive in the wind that who needed to be officers were in the new North end. That individual went to Hunt Middle School and attempted to enter Hunt Middle School and had our school resource officers not locked down the facility, that individual would have entered that school. That would have been a very, very difficult situation had we had an individual in a school with children present. Officers were needed to go and locate that individual, do what they could to try to track. We had two canine officers for other agencies assisting with that, trying to find that individual. This is an example of what you need with regard to resource. And on one level we were fortunate that that incident occurred as two shifts were, one shift was ending and another was coming in because it allowed us to sort of maximize presence and get some work done. But as we get thinner, that kind of response becomes more difficult. We see here again, the staffing picture, I've shown this before, it's a visualization of when call volume is happening. And I do wanna point out that gap between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. that gap is a gap that we may find ourselves having to exploit with significantly decreased officer presence. But even as we contemplate that, we also find ourselves recognizing that we just had a shooting at three in the morning and we just had a gunpoint robbery of a store at three in the morning. And the idea of diminishing response or capability at that time, while overall call volume decidedly diminishes during those periods, the big incidents happen in those time periods as well. And frankly, insurance, police during those hours are a form of insurance. We have them for the times when we do need them, even when there are times when we don't. That brings me to an emergency staffing picture, which I wanted to give all of you a picture of because when we get to 80, we are in a position of potentially activating this staffing model. And it was discussed frequently during the budget discussions in June. We talked about 80 being a trigger for this. This is a graphic representation of what it is. It's in the contract, it's public record that contract is available for the public. And this is described in appendix, I believe appendix D off the top of my head. It's a rotational schedule. Basically, an officer would be in position one for a week and then move to position two for a week and then position three for a week and then position four for a week, et cetera, et cetera until rotating back to position one based on the day shift. But even this is not a shift that we can manage based on the headcount that we are approaching. We're going to lose, we wouldn't be able to feel that swing shift in the middle. We would not be able to feel the second part of that midnight shift and potentially even less depending on where we get with regard to headcount. And I wanted to point out that as we contemplate this and we think about what we can do, if we get to, as I said it wouldn't be impossible for us to be at 75 by at some point in the early part of next year, very early part of next year, just based on effective officers. At that point we would be allowed to begin to think about hiring. The problem is that our hiring processes are remarkably thorough and that's a good thing. We want thorough hiring processes. We want to be sure that we are getting candidates who go through rigorous background checks who not only meet the requirements that the state lays out at the level of the Vermont Police Academy with regard to the written test that that entity provides with regard to the physical training test, the PT test with regard to the psychological assessment that it gives through the MMPI, but also with regard to our own standards for background checks and our personal history questionnaire which is incredibly thorough. And we do a polygraph as every entity in the state is required to do that takes time and additionally, oftentimes reveals other things that need to be, that lengthens the background check. Overall, what we have is a process that, as it shows here can take as much as essentially 14 months from an officer's coming in as an applicant to being able to get through the police academy and then get through our very long field training program 14 months, that is a best case scenario. So our best case scenario right now is that we would be able to get officers into the August academy not this coming academy and they would be solo officers on the road in March or April of 2022. I'm not certain where we will be with the rest of our headcount by then and it does give me concern. I am incredibly happy with the amount of work that is being done by the officers who are with us. The things that happened this past week are indicative of that, but there are concerns. Again, just to drive home the applicant process, it's not as simple as just having people come in and say, I wanna be a police officer and okay, here you go. We had 260 applicants for the last time we were able to hire. And we knew we weren't going to be able to hire for the class that is currently at the Vermont police academy right now. Actually, they're graduating or they may have just graduated they may be in post basic. We knew we weren't going to be able to put applicants in that class because of the budget issues with regard to COVID. We had already known that having those hires wasn't going to be possible but we had anticipated being able to hire and put officers into the class that will begin in January, February. That is, it takes a long time to get those out of 260 applicants, six were hired and sent to the Vermont police academy. And then only three made it through. It's a challenging environment and it can be hard. There are plans at the Vermont state level to explore new ways of looking at the academy experience alternatives to the academy experience things that other states do. Those plans are all in quit. And while I'm very supportive of them and was exploring many with representatives at local colleges and universities was part of talks with the Vermont police academy about how to do this and very enthusiastic about the state exploring it and changes to the Vermont police academy under the new commissioner of public safety position. That's all going to take time. And for the time being the academy model is what we have. And it because of the model it only meets in February and August it only has classes in February and August and that too limits how we are able to actually bring in groups of people. And I find myself right now in a position where we are in this matrix. We either think that there is no problem and that we're not going to do anything about it. We think that there's a problem but it's not that serious and there are other things that are more serious and we're not going to do anything about it. We think that it's a problem. And even though it's not as serious as I think other people may think it may be I'm willing to do something about it because it's prudent. And then I think there's a problem and I think we need to do something about it. I do think that we have concerns right now about where our staffing is and I've raised them to you before. I am incredibly enthusiastic about having the opportunity to get that RFP that the joint committee on which all of you sit out and I'm so happy that it's out. I'm so happy that we're going to be able to hopefully see some really great candidates for that consultancy who can come in and begin that process in January but until that process begins we can't begin to really think about what kinds of resources and services begin to fill in the gaps that are going to be created as we lose more officers and can't answer the calls and services that currently come to us. And I do have concerns about that. So that is, that's my chief's report for this week and I thank you for your time on it. Thank you chief Mark for that. All right. Moving on to agenda item number 5.01 and this is, I'm sorry. Yeah, no worries. I was wondering if the chief could answer Jess Laporte's question about new hires, hiring officers that are already trained. Is that a possibility? Yes, we can and do hire laterals. The last hire that we currently have and that we will have for quite some time is a young woman from Colorado who came here with her wife and is a member of this department and is a great officer, brings experience from another place, brings a ready-made sort of officer. That's great. Laterals are sort of one-offs. We don't get lots of them at once. It's not the same as putting six or five people into the police academy and hoping that we get four or five of them back. But it is a way of bringing in new talent. I will express my deep doubts that we would get any laterals from inside the state at this time based on where the department is and the general appearance of the city. And that is the level of how the officers around the state feel about sort of what they're seeing in Burlington. But having laterals from other locations, other states is an option, especially as Vermont becomes more appealing than ever owing to the way in which the state has dealt with COVID, et cetera. That is a possibility, but we are not currently allowed to do that. So we can't do that until we reach 74. Okay, thank you. Chief House, we'll see. There's a question in here. Duane says, would it be possible to access to these slides of the chief support? Absolutely. We'll make those. Shannon, we'll make those public soon. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 5.01. Memo on the city council resolution asks from their meeting from 9 to 8. And I believe we've all had time to review what our screen wrote up. And yeah, open to four or two discussions on this. Commissioner Hart. Well, I share my screen where it has the two new paragraphs. I don't know if folks saw it before the meeting. I circulated redlining with two new paragraphs. They're pretty short, but I thought I'd give some background on for transparency, how this report came out or came to be, if that would be helpful. Because we're all trying to figure out how we can work on these things with open meeting. And so it changed, it was going to be a committee. And I'll try and share my screen to walk through the new items. But this came about. I put together a draft. I asked Commissioner Hart to take a look at my draft and he provided some feedback, including after he had time to think about it more, the two paragraphs that I'm going to show you tonight are based on additional feedback he gave me. So I added two paragraphs. And then Commissioner Seguino has looked at this as well in terms of communication with me. And I see that this city attorney just turned on his camera. So I don't know if I have already stepped in it by process I use. So I'm hoping not going to try to share my screen. OK, is that showing? No, it's showing nothing. OK, is that showing the report by any chance? OK, so thank you. I'm just going to scroll through it. And if you have any questions on any of it, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just going to go to the new paragraphs in case you haven't looked at them yet. So the new paragraphs have to do with staffing pressures, which I think follows up nicely to the chief's report. And it's that arguably one could see that staffing pressures could play into disciplinary decisions that's not been observed at least. I don't know anyone who has seen that as a factor, but that could potentially that could arguably be a factor going forward where staffing pressures could impact decision making on discipline. So we added a paragraph about that. And by all means, tell me to stop if you need to look at things. But I did send this to folks before the meeting. So you do have a copy. And then another one was just the notion of de-escalation. And that in a way, it's only as good as the policy about it and the enforcement of that policy. So that was pointing out that as a concern as well. And then finally, that's why I added in the very last sentence that directive DDO 5, which is use of force, must be properly enforced, which is having to do with the de-escalation in particular. So I don't know if folks have any discussion if this is technically due to the city council by November 30, but I am not interested in either way to week, for example, if folks had concerns or things where they weren't comfortable voting on it tonight. Happy to answer any questions. We're entertained a motion on it. Are there any questions or concerns right now that people have with this document? I have a question. Staffing pressures. So I'd like to kind of talk that out for a moment. Why are we saying that that should be a consideration? If I'm understanding your question, what we're not saying, it should be a consideration. We're saying that that should be a concern. So that that is something that we would want to make sure isn't a consideration in disciplinary decisions. Does that answer your question, Commissioner Grant? So we're trying to say that the concern should not be a consideration. It shouldn't play a role. So the very last sentence is, while staffing concerns are valid concerns, it shouldn't play a role in appropriate discipline. OK. Thank you. And it sounds like you might have other questions. I do, but I work right up until the meeting, and I just haven't had a chance to go through the whole. Yeah, the only thing new today was the redlining, the staffing, and the de-escalation. I'm just going to shut my door because, sorry, one moment. Can I just ask a question? So I don't think you can see me, Jibu. OK, can you show it to me? I can't see you, but go on. Sorry. That's OK. Commissioner Grant, do you want to read through this de-escalation paragraph? Since you said you wanted to just read through it for a minute, like together? Sure, if people have time to do that. I just want to make sure we're not talking about something that we haven't, it's just a paragraph. We can read it together. I know, I just have an ongoing frustration, even if it's just a couple of paragraphs, getting something brand new right before a meeting. I got you. Because when we have public forums, I really try to listen to what the community is saying. So I might try and go through to see what is new that I need to see, but then I don't want to miss what people are saying. So I just, once again, want to really emphasize whatever we can do to get anything that we have to look at, discuss at a meeting. If we can get it before the weekend, that is just so, so crucial. And just be really appreciated. Thank you. You want to go through the de-escalation. Do you want to talk about it, Commissioner Grant? It should be showing on the screen. Can everyone see it? Yeah, thank you. Yes, I'm sorry. I know you can't see anything but your screen. I can see it. I don't know what other folks think. Javu, do you want to just read through this? Or if that's not helpful, Commissioner Grant, we can move on. I'm OK for right now. Thank you. And so are there any other questions or concerns about this that folks want to talk about? Chair Gommash, I'll defer to you on whether you think it's ready for a motion. Well, if I'm understanding it correctly, Commissioner Grant, would you want some time to review it before we vote on this? Just so I'm clear, this is our response to what the Charter Change Committee is working on. No, actually, yeah, I'll explain. I'll be happy to explain. There is a resolution from September that assigns something to the Charter Committee and something to the Police Commission. Separate issues. Charter Change Committee, well, it's separate in the resolution. Let me be clear about that. Charter, it's in the first page. I have it on the screen. Talks about what the Charter Change Committee is directed to do. The Police Commission was directed to review and analyze impediments to stronger disciplinary measures in police encounters, evolve brutal or excessive force, and make recommendations for modifications back to city council by November 30th. So we specifically didn't get into what was being. We didn't want to work at cross purposes with the Charter Change Committee. So this doesn't talk about reviewing disciplinary decisions. Like, you know, the issue is signed to Charter Change. OK. So it is looking like to me. I mean, it doesn't seem like people are fully coupled in voting on this right now. Is that what I'm gathering? Respect, Chair. If people are willing to, I'm happy to vote on it now, or I'm happy to defer to commissions would like to take more time. I don't think it's fine with me. Sorry. Sorry, I can repeat that. I missed that. I'm sorry. You could call a roll call. But I'm comfortable either way. I really, I definitely hear what Commissioner Randt is saying. I've been in a couple of meetings where I felt like I didn't have enough chance to review. So I'm sensitive to that. And I myself, too, don't want to force a vote. If people haven't truly don't feel comfortable or haven't fully seen the entire new document then. If that's the case, yeah, I'm happy to push this back. Sorry, Commissioner Griffey. Jibu, you know, I know this is time sensitive. And, you know, I know that folks are jammed up with special meetings, but, you know, we could just have a conversation here, you know, publicly about maybe scheduling something with a quorum after Commissioner Grant is comfortable with the document. I was sorry. No, I apologize. Commissioner Hark. Thank you, Chair. I know I was just going to say, I mean, so I apologize. I had suggested a few, like I said, last minute comments to Commissioner Hark, just because I didn't want to kind of have my thoughts about them disappear. And I'd seen the draft document. I wanted to make sure that they kind of got expressed before I started doing other things for that day. I'd be happy and so, you know, so I wasn't necessarily intending that it appear in a document that would be given to people at the last minute. I didn't think for us to be able to talk about it at the meeting. So it might be if people would like to just have, you know, if people are more comfortable with something like a 10 minute recess, that people can look at those particular changes to the document that was distributed earlier and then have a discussion on that if necessary. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that as well. If people are just kind of concerned about the most recent additions, but if you're more concerned about the entire document, that might require longer than just a five or 10 minute recess. I agree with that as well. I've read the whole document. And I'm just, I've seen those new updates. So I'm happy to recess for 10 or 15 minutes. And if that's enough time for people to look over the new changes and then vote afterwards. Well, if everyone else has had an opportunity to read it and they're comfortable with it and they're saying that there isn't anything. Sorry, you broke up with me. No, I'm not breaking up. I'm just trying to string together some thoughts. So we're not really offering an opinion. Let me marinate with this for a moment. I mean, if other people are comfortable with what is stated here and are prepared to vote, then I would just abstain at this time. I am comfortable voting on this, though. I'm not comfortable personally holding about if you haven't had time to properly look at some way and weigh in on this. So I'd rather have us all be able to kind of give up yes or no vote on this. So with that, I propose that we either recess for 10, 15 minutes to look at this or I'm happy to continue on with this meeting as it goes through and recess to later date to what we call it, then vote on these things. Or just end the meeting at the end of this normal time and then just reschedule and add a meeting to fully go to then vote on this in the future. I think I saw one hand raised, Commissioner Durfee. Yeah, I'm trying to make a suggestion. I think what might be good is I just want to say this because I think it needs to be said. There are people who do not agree with this document. The entire public forum was based on that. And so we did talk a lot about this in public forum. So I would feel very comfortable with waiting to vote on this until you had time to fully understand what it is, Commissioner Grant. And I understand you work right up until the time this meeting happens. So because there was a lot of content and because you are always, I mean, you mentioned that you're focused on what people are saying, which is really appreciated. We should probably have you review the entire document and think about it and not have you feel any pressure to move this along. That's just my, you know what I'm saying? Because you could vote no. I mean, you might read it and say no. So, and let's be clear, the vote is to, but if we vote on it, it's just to move it along to the council. We're not adopting anything. We're just saying we're done with this work. You guys can take it. It was my impression that this memo was for them. It's not so much like a policy thing per se. It was like a report to them just stating the, you know, just the roadblocks and the hindrances to discipline. Right. So it just outlines, you know, what we see as roadblocks as it's not anything that is going to be adopted. I'm just trying to explain about doing a very good job and type it on Zoom all day, but just trying to provide more content. Understood. So, I guess to figure this out now, sorry, the next, I think they wanted this by the 30th, it's the 17th, the 30th is 13 days from now. What is the viability of us being able to put together a special meeting sometime early next week, Monday or Tuesday to, to vote these things through? Mr. Gamash, could I make a motion to recess for 15 minutes, come back and then see if we're ready to vote and if not decide what to do then? Second that motion, floor open for debate. All in favor for recessing for 15 minutes to go over the document. Raise your hand or say aye. Aye. Aye. I couldn't see everyone, but I believe that was unanimous. Aye. My camera has to be shut off right now. It's not working, but I. Quite all right. Time right now is 7.44, we'll take a 15 minute recess and we'll see you guys back here at 7.59. Thank you. Yeah, everyone back. Mila, are you back? Yep. I guess at this point we should just see if anyone has lingering questions on the policy or has any requests for what they want to do at this point. Concern that I have, and I'm really not sure how we can express this because something that I have found that's been an impediment to proper and fair discipline is attitudes within the department. And I'm not sure how that can be expressed or if it's appropriate to express here. And two examples that I would give were just statements that former Chief Morrison had said about number one, well, an officer responded to a call. Well, just because you respond to a call doesn't mean that an action involving a use of force should be justified in any way. It does state in here that the community should be taken into consideration. But also for me, there was a statement that said that had also been said something to the effect of, to me, there wasn't a balance, right? There wasn't a balance of saying, okay, here is the discipline that is going to be applied. It should be longer or more. There was a higher consideration of the officer as opposed to the person that was a victim of this inappropriate behavior or force used by an officer. So those are two concerns that I have. Now, people feel that that is sufficiently addressed here, but it's just certain attitudes that I'm not sure that we're making clear or maybe I'm just really sensitive to those things because those two statements, they've really stuck with me because I felt that they were reflective of deeper attitudes across the whole department. Thank you. Any additional thoughts? Commissioner Hark. Yeah, thank you. If I can just kind of like a synthesize for myself what it was that I heard Commissioner Grant saying. So I don't think, gosh, maybe skim it again, but I don't think that the current document indicates clearly that an issue, a potential issue might be the extent to which there is sufficient will to implement certain kinds of discipline. And so if the committee sees that as either an actual potential problem in how discipline gets administered right now, and I think that could be included in the documents, whether actual or potential. It is my impression, especially given the role that the police commission can play in that in the future and given the answerability of the chief to political in the second mayor, it does seem to me as though having enabling discipline by having concrete articulated policies according to which certain behavior goes against that policy is, has been a more serious impediment to will but I agree the doctor doesn't say anything about will right now. So if there are concerns about that that could be included I think. So then, are we saying that we want to put in a section in this report, specifying that? That was being asked. Yes. I as well don't know how that would. Oh, sorry. You can make it up. Christia Zewina. Well, by Christiana Derphee. I don't disagree with commissioner Grant or Hart. My problem is an evidentiary basis for making that claim. Right? What do we point to as evidence that there is resistance that? So that's my only concern, not that I disagree but I think that we it's incumbent upon us to identify point to evidence that supports that claim. I'm sorry. Christia Derphee, sorry. My apologies, Mr. Grant. I'm sorry, was someone ahead of me? I thought commissioner Derphee had something to say, but. I was, you can't see me, but. No, we cannot. It was similar to what commissioner Seguino said. So I'm good, all good. All right, question to Grant. Yes, I would like to discuss the term, like evidence for me was those statements. Those statements to me showed the lack of will. And quite frankly, I also interpreted as a lack of concern and certainly a lack of impact on the community. Commissioner Seguino. I mean, I think that's fine if that's the evidence. Then I think that that would be part of what we include in the document. Mr. Derphee. Councilor Hightower often edits documents in the committee. We need to put something in here now. Are we, because we're saying we're adding that. I think that for me, commissioner Grant would have to articulate it unless someone else wants to because I'm not quite there yet in terms of, I get the concept, but the, I didn't get both of the examples and that's on me. So I apologize, but I wasn't following well. No, I don't get the examples. I just know that we have to add it if we are going to add something. So we'd have to be able to articulate. There we go. I would just say another impediment is cultural resistance within the BPD leadership as evidenced by and then give these examples. How does that sound commissioner Grant? I'm just paraphrasing what you've said. No, I very much appreciate that. I think that's perfect. Entertain a motion where that can be put in that we approve this as written with that put in. I think it would be under, like it would be F probably or something like that. But I guess if we want to agree that there is, that we get that concept in here, I'll do whatever you all want. If you want to put this off for another meeting, it doesn't matter to me, but if do we, or do we want to agree to it? Someone added that language and approving it with that language. I'd be happy to entertain that motion for sure. That's what I motion to accept the document with the suggested changes. Mr. Grant and Mr. Seguino. I second that motion. Floor's open for discussion. But I can't decide. But I get a quick summary of the proposed language. Again, just an overview of what it would be. Professor Seguino, do you want me to read back what you said or do you have a, I've wrote it down. Don't call me professor. Commissioner Seguino, you want me to, well, I can't help it. I think it would be that way. Another impediment to cultural resistance. Is cultural resistance as evidenced by comments made by BPD leadership? These include, and then Commissioner Grant could give us that language. Thank you. Commissioner Grant, can you supply what you would want us to say there? Sure. So the statements that had concerned me in particular were statements saying that just because an officer responded to a call, there was an implicit justification of use of force or actions that would require discipline. I'm not putting this as well as it could be put, but just because an officer shows up at a call doesn't, not every call is going to, it needs to lead to a use of force or an action that may not be appropriate. Commissioner Hart. Thank you. Commissioner Grant, were these comments made during an open session of a meeting? If so, I would like us to be able to actually access the video of that and get an exact quote. I'm just concerned about making inferences about, yep. Yeah, no, yes. Yes, they were. It was either a meeting or a press conference. I can't remember which, but responding to, there was the feeling that the quote unquote discussion should move on, that the discipline that had already been applied, that was it? Can I go back? And we just need to move on. And why do people keep bringing the same thing up over and over again? And there was frustration on the part of the community because community's feeling like, well, we're bringing it up over and over again because community doesn't feel that the department understood the effect and how unsafe people felt in terms of having to do with the department that's supposed to be there to protect us. And on that pushback, there was the response that you have to take, something to the effect of having to take the officer's family into consideration. And I know that I publicly responded, I believe it when the public forums, I was like, because that statement really bothered me. I was like, well, what about the victim of the officer's improper behavior? That family has to be taken into consideration. So it was either one of the, an earlier police commission meeting or it was a police conference. And then just the response, well, they responded to a call as if responding to a call justified the behavior, which I thought was in, I thought that was just completely improper. Commissioner Harb. Thank you. Yes, so I guess, I think that I would want to see both the specific quote that we're appealing to and the inference that's drawn from that quote before knowing how to kind of decide whether or not to include it. My concern would just be that, so there, with those kinds of different issues involved. So I think that the question of what discipline is appropriate in a given instance is separate from a question of whether or not that discipline can be revisited at a later moment, right? And so I wouldn't want to take a statement to the effect of this disciplinary decision cannot be revisited at this time as evidence that a person thinks that the discipline was correct at the time that it was administered. And I would also just kind of be generally skeptical that a police chief would say that the mere fact that someone shows up to a call means that any behavior at that point is permissible. Now, I do understand, I'm sympathetic, I'm sorry, let me just finish real quick. I do understand I'm sympathetic to the statement that if it seems as though a police chief is kind of more concerned about the impacts on an officer's bill and the impacts in the community, that's something which I think would be kind of fine to include or something which is worth, I could see it kind of getting too strong from that, but I'd be more cost about the rest of them. Sorry, I'm done. No, thank you and I apologize for interrupting. To be fair, she did not say that whole statement, but just the statement to say that, oh, but they're responding to a call. Yeah, I definitely got that inference that she was trying to justify it. So that really bothered me because I just did not think that that was an appropriate thing to say. So if we leave it broad, we don't use those examples, but to say that they're going back to public statements from department leadership that indicate that there isn't a will or there is a lack of recognition of the pain caused in the community and how it affects the community and also how it damages the relationship between the department and the community because if people don't trust or are afraid of the department, they're not gonna work with the department. If the department needs to do investigations, people just won't work with them because they won't trust them and that will make us all unsafe. I think we have the screen sharing again. I don't mean to interrupt, but we've got some edits to make and I think that's why we've got our screen. I think just a personal work or just I think we should stay away from quotes. We've got something good here. So let's just, I think we can finish this if we aren't referencing specifics. The module is summarizing and finding some good language to summarize this. Am I showing that I'm sorry, I was trying to get a deaf dog to go for a walk. But is this showing the highlighting right now? It is. Okay, sorry. And I know that you had read the language before Commissioner Hart. Do you mind just reading that one more time so we can. Well, yeah, so what Commissioner Seguino had said is another impediment is cultural resistance as maybe as evidenced by BPD, by comments made by BPD leadership, these include. And so I changed that to another impediment as cultural resistance as maybe evidenced by BPD leadership because I don't think any of us are comfortably citing two statements without having them. I think the cultural reference is important, but we don't have any and we wanna go forward too. So I mean, I would be fine if the language were something like another potential impediment is blah, blah, blah or if it's that another impediment is possible cultural resistance or something like that. So if it makes it clear that although we're not citing any specific instance that this is something which could be a factor in the imposition of shoulder discipline in matters in the future, I would be more comfortable with that kind of language. Yeah, you said it, you said it. You said the sentence that I wanted and now I can't say it back to you. So I have this on the screen. Is there a recommendation that, and what we tried to do in this document was identify the impediments and where we could make suggestions, but maybe we're just leaving it as is. I'm open to thoughts. Cultural resistance is a potential impediment and you could say for example, but I just think I think the only thing that we can do right now as a group and folks can say whatever, but I think that's really what we can say is that cultural resistance can be an impediment, but I'd stay away from any specific examples if there's language that we can. Sure, and could you zoom in your screen a little bit? I sure can. Is that helping? Yes, thank you. I think it might be, I think that maybe it shouldn't be saying BPD leadership, but as may be evidenced by BPD, the examples that Commissioner Grant gave were leadership, but I think we would have a concern at any level, would we not? Yes. We also have the article in seven days that quoted, was it Officer Gilligan who was, I can't remember his exact position, represented officers on the union that the chief may want to correct me, but that article was really full of a lot of statements. Some are in quotes, some weren't, but he never came out and said, no, I didn't say these things, just to me, expressed an attitude within the rank and file of the department that was disturbing. I've come up with a draft statement here if that might be helpful. Sure, I'm typing, speaks slowly and I'll type it up. All right, I'm gonna say it fast so that we can understand all the words and then I'll say it slowly. So keep this sentence, another potential impediment is cultural resistance and then the new sentence is cultural resistance has been reflected in statements by BPD staff reflecting police unwillingness to entertain external scrutiny. I use reflected twice in the same sentence, so I have to change that, but I'll say it one more time. Okay, cultural resistance has been exhibited in statements by BPD staff that reflect police unwillingness to entertain external scrutiny. Okay, has been exhibited by BPD staff and has been exhibited. That reflects police unwillingness to entertain external scrutiny. I am so embarrassed to type in front of you all. Okay, to entertain external scrutiny. Yeah. Okay. So I'm thinking that might capture what everybody's been saying in a sort of more general way. Yeah, and it gets to everyone. So the staff is any BPD. So that's- Can I suggest an alternate sentence or a set of sentences? Yeah, hold on. I mean, can we show her? Professor, I mean- Okay. Sure. Here we go. That's the first slide I have seen. Thank you. I'm going to- I actually haven't kind of- I haven't quite for me, so I'm going to talk it through, but then I might change some words as I go through. Okay. I keep the first sentence. Another potential impediment is cultural, I actually add cultural and institutional resistance. And I have to say something like, to the extent that BPD leadership is grounded in the culture of policing, it's judgments about there, it's judgments about appropriate discipline might diverge from judgments held by community members. Judgments held by- Members of the community. Okay, bear with me, and then we can see them both. I mean, again, I don't know that I would agree that there's an unwillingness to entertain external scrutiny. Now, I mean, there are questions about kind of what sort of powers might be appropriate to yield to external bodies or external entities, but as far as kind of willingness to entertain external scrutiny. And I think that, I mean, one, again, the police commission is external and police commission has a lot of scrutiny over the department. So I'm not entirely sure that I agree with that part of that sentence. I'm not sure that this, ultimately matters a great deal, but my conversations and comments that I've heard publicly, in fact, explicitly reflects an unwillingness for external scrutiny. So I'm gonna stand by that. But I also think your other statement is good. So the second sentence to the extent that- Okay, what about if we did- I think that's a good outcome. I don't know, maybe entertain increased external scrutiny. Would that- To entertain increased external scrutiny? Yeah. Well, again, I saw, I mean- You don't still agree that's fine, but I just- Yeah, exactly. I don't wanna bog down on the point, but I think probably the question is, yeah, I'm good about what scrutiny entails, right? So one question is just kind of, making actions, decisions, justifications, et cetera, available to be observed. Another question is kind of what sort of, you know, how that information is going to be used. And so I mean, I saw, I think that, yeah. And so insofar as I think that the police commission is an external body right now to the police department, I think that there's a fair amount of scrutiny that we can perform, and that the department is not just kind of tolerant of, but happy to allow. Are we talking about a potential impediment, though? We're not, I don't know. Right, and there's just a potential item that we're calling out. I don't think we're canceling out, excuse the smooth jazz in the background. I guess, can you guys hear that? No. I've got kids in the house. Anyway, I think it, I just took it to mean a point of reference, and not so much that, I'm not reading that much into it, Randall. I'm just, because perhaps external scrutiny, you know, are we splitting hairs when we're saying, well, you know, the police do work well with the police commission, or are we just calling this out as something that may, thank you for highlighting that word, may reflect. That's how I'm reading it anyway. That's just how I'm, you know, because there are things that throughout the document that may. How is that with me? Are we, are folks feeling like this gets us to where we all feel comfortable with this addition? I'm happy with that addition personally. That works for me. Commissioner Hart. I am more comfortable with the addition. Yes. Okay. And commissioner Grant. I'm good. Okay. So, and of course. Hold on. Commissioner Jacques. Yeah. That's what I was going to ask. That is a thumbs up. Okay. All right. So let me just quickly take us through it to make sure that we're, or otherwise looking at this, you know, this is the document. We've got the two additions in red lining somewhere. Well, it's somewhere. I'll make sure that this paragraph we add gets added to the one with those two additions. I might hold up the wrong one, but this will get added to the last document. I circulate it. And I will send it to chair Gommosh to send to city council. That would be the motion that someone can bring if that sounds good. I did bring a motion and I'll bring it again. We are so far beyond that, right? Right. I think so. Well, I'm good. Now the motion is much cleaner. I make a motion to move this present this to the chair to present city council. I second that motion. Floor is open for deliberation. Hearing or seeing any. In that case, the motion is to, what was it? Sorry, voting on the motion to accept this document. Yeah. The motion is to give the document to you so that you can present to the city council. All right, seconded it. All in favor of that, say I raise your hand. Aye. Aye. That is unanimous. That passes. Thank you for everyone's time and work on that. Moving on to agenda item 5.02. Prove the memo and the mayor's press conference asks. And that is, he asked us to come up with a policy to let the public know about high-level misconduct and misconduct investigations. I wrote a draft out that I shared with people and I've gotten some feedback on that. This draft does not reflect that feedback because I wanted to go over that feedback and I wanted to go over that feedback and those concerns to everybody here in public. So I guess I will share my screen and do my best to, yeah, be able to edit this. I'm sorry, despite my young age, I'm not that good with technology, so I hope I can do this. Sheriff Amonge. Yeah, how do I share my screen? Sorry. It might be helpful for you if someone else does the typing so you can leave the discussion on this if you want. Okay, seeing how you just said that, would you like to be the type of this? I can, I just need to get my paragraph in the right document so I don't blow an hour of work that we all did, but I will be happy to do that in a second. I'm sorry. Not a problem. I just need to get that in writing. Okay, that's done. So am I pulling up the document that you circulated yesterday? Yes, or yes. Or is it on board, the board docs one, right? Board docs one, correct, yes. Okay. This is, sorry, wrong one. All right, I'm sorry, are we doing, we're doing the body worn footage, are we doing the- Please misconduct and misconduct investigation. Okay, so that was- So this is, Commissioner Durfeez, do you want this, do you want me to be following along and typing or how do you want to do this? I thought there was another draft. Okay, yeah, no, I would love it. Am I sharing this now or no? Wait, so no, right now, the mayor's ask was on the please misconduct and misconduct investigation of the Commissioner Durfeez policy and that is what we are doing right now. Okay, so do you want somebody to share that screen? Sherene, do you have that? Yeah, I think it's on the screen, right? Can you guys see it? Okay, yep. All right, so basically the mayor's ask was for high-level complaints only. I thought it'd be easier to kind of wrap in everything, low-level, mid-level complaints altogether and they're categorized by the Brooklyn Police Office Association contract and basically that is the guideline that we currently have for complaints. And I guess I should start off saying first that this document was by no means a ceiling for things. I kind of thought that it would be like the floor and we could build off of things like that. I know there was some feedback on releasing things on a quarterly basis. As it should be on a monthly basis, I agree with that. I just put in quarterly basis to start and kind of the move from there. But I guess I don't really how to best go about this. I guess what are some edits, complaints, concerns, feedback that people have on this document as it is right now? And so I couldn't see any hands. Now I can see hands. Commissioner Ceguino, my commissioner, Harp. Yeah, so this actually with regard to the lower and mid-level complaints, I would propose that that be on a monthly basis. And I also would propose adding a paragraph that I can post mine because I've typed it into the document. Okay, thank you. I'll let you take over. Do you need someone to give you permission or can you just share? I'm gonna call you professor until you turn your mic on. Okay. She needs permission to share. There we go. Beautiful. Did we get it? Does it have ready ink on it? Oh, it's not fully shared. It's only, you're currently sharing your browser window. Trying to shut all of my windows that are open. Sorry, I'm gonna stop sharing. And I'm gonna try one more time. Share my screen and it is. Okay. All right. There we go. So the additions were the, the monthly reports on lower and mid-level complaints and the addition of quarterly reports with the following information. The number of incidents per officer with the individual officer and identity, individual officer identity suppressed. That should be the number and nature of complaints against officers who have internal affairs complaints against them within that time period. IE the last quarter. Again, with individual officer identity suppressed and statistics on discipline taken in response to IA complaints. And below that higher level complaints on a monthly basis. And you can read this, but basically high level infractions with the exception of those that are under investigation since that would be precluded. I have more, but maybe we should just stop there because the other issue is more complex. Any questions, comments or objections to these edits are adding or adding this in? I might just add, I spoke to Chief Murad and he was supportive of the frequency of these reports. And I should let him speak for himself, but I did just want to add that. So yeah, any questions, comments, concerns, objections to these additions? Thank you for making this, Commissioner Seguino. The only edit that I had was 30 days. Great, great. Thank you for thinking this through. If we agree on this page, I have a couple of things on the next page. Let's move on. So, and this also stems from my conversation with Chief Murad yesterday. The issue about making public the results of a 10 day policy are if the department is unable to talk to the officer, and it could be because the officer is under military deployment or in the hospital. And so this caveat is to give some wiggle room in the case of those extenuating. I mean, given what we heard today on the chief's report, it makes sense. I would only pedantically correct the word there in line seven to T-H-E-I-R. This page? Yes, correct. And that's going to come with respect to that red highlighted section. Can you say that again? Sorry, I just said that's going to come with respect to the red highlighted section. I'm not sure if we're just discussing the additions or the entire documents. So I'm saying with respect to the addition, I have nothing further on this page. I guess we're going to go through additions, then go through it, then go from there, does that work? And this last issue is separate, I think, but I'll wait until we've worked through the rest of the document. I'm not seeing any questions or comments on the red editions. So I guess let's go through this with general questions, concerns, comments, objections, starting with the purpose. Not seeing or hearing anything. This is a question which is not about the purpose section, but I know that you were in contact with the city attorney's office, but since I have not been with respect to this document, could you either share any response that you got by them to this or could I have comments by counselors on the call, make comments? I'll jump in first and I'll let a counselor fill in any gaps that I leave. I got a response from city attorney today. They have not looked over this yet and once they will, they'll inform us. Thank you. All right then. Yeah, any questions or comments concerning the objections to purpose? I just have a question about Commissioner Harp's question. If the city attorney hasn't looked at these documents, are we just reviewing them together as a group then? And then they move on to the city attorney? It was my hope that if we get, if we have this document at a place where we do vote on it, that we vote on it pending the approval of the city attorney. Okay. Does that make sense? Thank you, yes. Commissioner Harp? Yeah, I mean, I'll just say it might just be me. I would be reluctant to, you make kind of conditional vote so that to city council, I mean, so it's possible that if or just something like a blanket sign off, then okay, but if there were more nuanced comments, I would certainly want to review those comments before making a vote. So, I mean, my preference would be to kind of discuss this document, have our revisions and then not take a vote on it, but simply forward it to, simply wait for comments by the city attorney and then take it back up again by this body. I'm happy with that. All right then. I was thinking about the purpose, anything in policy point one, categorization of complaints. I'm just gonna say that for myself, I thought the assignment was to, I've read the document and just, I didn't have any additions or edits to it. So I'm happy to go through the whole document, but I didn't have anything except for extending the go 30 days instead of quarterly. And commissioner Sguino has already done that, just saying for myself. All right then. If we are, I guess, happy with where this is at and obviously we're not gonna vote on this right now because we want approval from the city attorney first, are we happy with where the document is at right now to send to the city attorney for approval? Commissioner Sguino. You and I talked today about this additional paragraph. Did you want me to talk about that now or later? Yes, be my guest. Okay. I actually think it's, I think it would be important also to develop a policy that permits the city or the police department to release disciplinary records of officers. And so I just drafted this. And it would be disciplinary records that would be released in response to a public records request. And I will just say in preface of this that 26 states allow this. And although the Vermont Public Records Law keeps personnel, allows cities or agencies to keep personnel records private, the city could in fact instruct the police department to make these records available on request. New York state just was the most recent state to make these personnel prior disciplinary records public. And this is, I've actually used their language here for this, a couple of other things. Commissioner Gamash and I talked about this and as I understand it, it's his preference that we take this up as a separate policy and that would be fine with me, but I do think that this is also consistent with what the community is asking for with regard to accountability and transparency. I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Durfee. Yeah, my question. Commissioner Hart. This is exactly what I've heard from the community and we heard it on this call. I think it's important for me, just for me, A, I'm following the legislature on this. I do think Stephanie that we're gonna see this, we're gonna see that very clause implemented. We are gonna see body cam release footage law be handed down. So yeah, and for me, I think it belongs in this document because it does have to do with officer discipline and seeing it referenced on this call really helps to solidify that. And I do, I appreciate the chance to say that I've been really following the legislature and think that this is gonna happen anyway. So that's... Commissioner Hart. Thank you. Yeah, my understanding is that the New York state essentially is still working its way through the courts, but I think it's going to be upheld and I think it's, the language is fine. I support making those records available in response to public records request. Again, subject to it being something which is consistent with the current collective bargaining agreement. And if it's not currently permitted by the current collective bargaining agreement, certainly recommend that that be bargained for in the next contract. But I mean, I think it's a good idea to know with respect to whether or not it belongs in this document or another document. I can see the argument that this is not, I mean, it's not necessarily a neat fit in this document, but I think actually that it works fine. So I think that it could be either here as a separate policy either way. But again, but that's where I'd want to get some legal advice on whether that's consistent with the CPA, but I do support it. I guess to jump in, I'm more than happy to keep this in here. My thoughts as I bring it to is just to get this first document over the line, but I'm more than happy to include this in this version. Yeah, upon approval, upon review of other city attorneys. So yeah, I have no problem leaving this in here. Does it make sense for us to ask Chief Murad to comment? I knew so. Yeah, not. I was going to ask to do that as well when we discussed this. So I think, yes. Are you asking me to do so now? Yeah, I'm going to leave it to the Chair, but... Yes. Here it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there are some hurdles to these things that I think there are contractual hurdles and the terms under which officers are currently employed. There are issues with the release of transcripts of interviews and what's in interviews. That is an issue. And this will cause consternation and concern among officers. I think, however, that there is a pattern across the nation. And I think pending in Montpelier for some of these releases to move forward, my sense is that if that becomes a negotiation aspect of the next contract, then that is what it is. I think that if the law makes it what, if the law in Montpelier changes, then that is what it is. I think that when you have something like this, a change in policy, that it needs to be something that is discussed about going forward, where everybody's on the same page about it as opposed to something that retroactively goes back and frankly, if an officer has a disciplinary issue from seven years ago that is under our current system over, it has been adjudicated, there's been discipline issued, that discipline was issued in a way that was, that comported with the law and with the city's rules, et cetera, then having that somehow be dragged into the, into the public discussion is not fair. But with regard to other things, if the ground changes, then that ground changes moving forward. I do think, however, that when we talk about the other things we're talking about, the idea of the discipline, excuse me, of the complaints that are made, we provide all of that to the commission already. It's just in executive session, owing to existing privacy considerations. The notion of providing those complaints to the public is one of which I'm supportive. The notion of talking about anonymized identities suspended as Commissioner Saguino said, disciplinary results for internal investigations, et cetera, that too is something of which I am supportive in the sense of fostering transparency. But I balance that against what's fair for officers with regard to employment privacy and the fact that we don't make any other profession do these kinds of releases. There are ways to know about a, for example, a teacher's history or a physician's history. And then there are other things that are once disciplines issued, that is held to be a personnel matter that is not open to public scrutiny. And so I'm looking to find how this kind of decision making on your part balances that. Thank you, Chief. Just so I won't, if I may, if I may, Chair. Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, I certainly want to respond to all of those points, Chief. I'll just say briefly, so it does seem to me as though entities that work kind of in the public eye and have particular responsibility to the public also tend to have more clear reporting requirements for credentialing, et cetera, right? So complaints that are brought to an attorney before the bar, those tend to be public information, right? And as you say, there's information about doctors, which is also made public. So I think I would be somewhat resistant to the claim that there's no other profession has those kinds of transparency requirements with respect to work disciplinary issues. And I do think that it's a question of how extensive they are, how far they go, but also say obviously that officers have a unique job. And so that I think in some ways does license a certain degree of extra accountability to the public. I share Commissioner Harp's view on this, that there's a visceral day-to-day contact between the police and the public, and that's different than other public employees for whom we shield them, their personnel records. And I also think that in any policy there are costs and there are benefits. And I understand the chief's concern that maybe that this should be grandfathered in the sense that only going forward, but I think that's outweighed by the significant concerns that people have had around appropriate discipline. And I think that when people do look at past records, yes, some people might raise a ruckus about a small infraction 20 years ago, but it's more that people are concerned about a pattern of behavior and the hiring of officers or the continuation of officers with a pattern of behavior. I think within BPD, assuming that there's records would not reveal much, then I think it's a step towards rebuilding trust with the community. I have to agree with that. I strongly agree with that as well. Any other questions, comments, concerns, projections about anything in this document? I guess I just want to chime in and say one thing. This is more of a clarifying thing. There were some public comments that were questioned by more camera footage if available and asking why not always, I'd like to clarify that not all police misconduct happens when you're on duty. Some things happen when you're off duty and if you're off duty, you all have a camera involved whatsoever and so for that reason that is why it says in point four for the body work camera, if available, that is why it says if available. So moving on, are we comfortable with where this is at currently to send this current version of the draft to city training for review? You have any judgment about how those various ex days get filled in or is that subject to, I mean, actually it doesn't, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other right now about it. So I'm happy leaving it as it is right now. Again, especially since I hope that we will, I can take another crack at this once we get some other feedback. So I'm happy with leaving it as it is right now but I just didn't know if that was intentional or not. Yeah, I put an X just cause I, yeah, I didn't really know what the date would be. Oh, what the number would be. I'm happy to debate that now. I'll talk to you about it later. Oh, sorry, later in my phone. We could ask the chief's thoughts on that. So this section where it said the summary report will be published within X days from the final determination. Once there are already state reporting requirements for investigations once they're conducted and completed for internal investigations to be reported to the state. I would not be surprised if that state entity actually begins to take on some of these roles for itself. And to a certain extent obviates some of the discussions that we're having about a local body or local publication of these kinds of things. Because I think ultimately there are going to be some types of civilian oversight that are exercised at the state level. That is not to say that we should not be reinvigorating and further invigorating what it is that this police commission does. I think there's a lot of room for that. And so far as a timeline, once an investigation is complete, there is a timeline at the state level. I'd have to see what it is exactly. I want to say that it's 30 days, but it may be 15. And I don't see why information couldn't be shared more broadly than it is with the state already going forward for those things. But it's predicated on the completion of the investigation. And that is, the investigation has stages that have to be completed. So this says upon completion of the investigation of any appeals process, would it be just fair to say within five days? Because this is- I think five is, if five is pushing it, insofar as sometimes there's a lot of, there can be a lot of material that needs to be completed for something like that. But again, let me find, let me very quickly try to find what the state's requirement is. And I would use that as a guidance. Because there may be footage that needs to be redacted. There may be documents that need to be properly redacted because all of this predate is also talking about the identity of witnesses, et cetera. So we're not, I'm not talking about officer privacy while that is important to me. I understand that it's, that's not, the body's purpose is to talk about what is necessary for building community trust. There are aspects of redaction there as well with regard to victims, with regard to witnesses. So five days is tight for that. Let me find what the state says. And I'll just make a brief editorial comment while you're looking for that chief. So with deep and abiding respect, Shair, Kamash, for your work on this. I actually do hope that this is something which gets taken up at the state level because this is something which should be a statewide requirement rather than just a city-wide requirement. So I kind of hope, not that this becomes obsolete, but I hope that this work becomes kind of answered by work in Montpelier rather than just at the point in city level. But like, so that's a mere editorial comment. It is, it's 10 business days. 20VSA 204 requires it within 10 business days. 20403, excuse me, 20403, 20VSA 20403 or Act 56 requires it within 10 business days. Sounds good. So how are we feeling about this? I'm comfortable with requesting guidance from city attorney on this document as it stands right now. Is that a motion? Is that a motion? I second it if it is. I'm not sure whether a motion is needed for that, but if we need a motion in order to send this to the city attorney for guidance, then I move that we send this document to the city attorney for feedback. I second that. And deliberation. All in favor of the motion on the floor, say, raise your hand or say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And that was a look like that passes unanimously. So commissioner Sagina, if you want to email me this copy of the conclusion of the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it along to city attorney's office. Will do. All right. Moving on to agenda item 5.03. Why do our camera footage release policy? And I know this was sent out. I think yesterday, yesterday it was to us. Did everyone have a chance to look this over? I do have some questions. Absolutely. Is it possible to pull this up on someone's screen? I can't do it because my, I'm, my internet, I keep having to shut off my screen. So I don't want to, it is a document that I edited, but I can talk about it if somebody else wants to share it. Commissioner Hart, did you want to go with your questions? Sure. I have to confess that I wasn't sure what was meant by primary or representative body camera footage. So I just, I, I honestly, this is, this is a draft that came up from Morro's office. And we worked on this, well, we, we looked at this draft and my understanding of primary or representative is that the primary is what is on your body and representative is secondary, but I don't know. If I, if I'm actually, so my understanding of the language is that for any given incident, there might be multiple, you know, right? So any officer on scene is going to have a body cam, a body cam, they're all going to be recording. And so the idea is you don't need to release every single officer's body cam footage for every single incident, but that you would want to represent. I would say that you want to release, you would want to ensure that, that primary representative body cam footage is released. So, you know, footage which captures everything which is important, you know, just recognizing. You did a much better job explaining that than I did, but it's sort of what I meant. I think that that is going to need clarification because it's four. And also I think if I've been at this for this long and I don't know if I don't appreciate that, that doesn't say much because there are a lot of things I can't, but I think we do need to clarify that, but also I'm so primary or representative. How do we determine whether it's primary or the, so anyway, I, I, I, we don't have to do it right now, but that was one question and that's helpful to have that answer, so thank you. Do you think we could, do we want to elaborate on it here or just, we just don't want to? We can, if you want me to pull up a word version or someone wants to pull up a word version, we can do what we've been doing, which is edit as we go. I mean, to me, that needs a footnote. I mean, it's, I mean, is there, are there other folks that have language for that? I mean, I can, I know what it means, but only because, you know, it's probably from a crime show I watched or something, but like that to me, I can't think of other language to change it. And that, that goes to show that a lot of these documents that go out to the public, you know. I think that Chief Murad, I would be interested if he can better verbalize it. Well, not better than you, but just if he can maybe, you know, has thoughts on how we could do that. I agree. Chief Murad. There is going, there's going to be a certain amount of subjectivity to that, the notion of a primary representative body camera footage. It's certainly something that's going to be, it's going to be necessary if we're releasing multiple videos. We simply don't have the, as Deputy Chief Sullivan has pointed out, we don't have the capacity to do these redactions. And so that's the rationale for a representative piece of footage. It has to do with the, with redaction capacity. I'm not certain how selecting that can be done in a way that is seen by everyone as fair and as, you know, trusted. I think some of it may come down to the idea of some input from this body, having an ability to help make that determination. But that puts an extra step in the process and means that releasing it can become delayed. Chief Murad. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. I'll wait until you're done talking. No, no, I am done. Well, what I wanted to ask is would it, would it generally be primary except where representative is shows more? Like when would it be representative as opposed to primary footage? Absolutely. Examples where one shows more. There, you know, there were, one example would be that if you have an officer pursuing somebody on foot and another officer comes from a different angle, that officer coming from the different angle may be able to see for an example, a collision or an apprehension more clearly because of greater distance. Some of the callers in discussing the idea of body cameras found fault with what the body cameras capture. And that's simply a function of what they are. We can't make them capture more, they're not. These aren't cameras that are set up by a director and have the right angle and the right field of vision at all times. There are times where they don't, there are times where they fall off, there are times where they are jostled and move around and the images that they capture and there's lighting issues, there's a lot. There are a lot of issues that can come into play with a primary with any camera. And so therefore a primary officer's camera may very well be more subject to any of those conditions in a given encounter than another officer coming in from the side that may provide a better view. I know that in the past, I've sat with some of you back when we were still meeting in person and did sharing of camera footage during executive session in some specific instances where individuals among you have come to the department to see specific things that you wanted to see, there are differences between two different cameras. And so how we can make those determinations in order to minimize the burden on the redaction services while also ensuring that we're being trusted that what we're showing is complete is an open question. Interrupt anyone? I guess what I see to that point is when you talk about it, release the primary officers or representative officers, body, camera footage, if you put officers in there, I think it makes a little bit more, it's a little bit more clear what we're talking about for the layperson because we are talking about really, there is a primary officer and you could footnote it or you could define it, but when you look at the ABCD and I added D because that's what folks are really concerned about the citizen oversight and not to say that that clarifies it anymore, but it does discuss the access to unredacted footage by the police department. So we can see it and we have that ability to review it whether it's the primary officer or representative, I don't know, it made sense to me at the time when I was looking at it all together. And it's not my document, they're my edits, but what do we wanna say about this first sentence? Can I just ask a question and follow up with that Commissioner Durfee? So I mean, the question is just, so is the phrase primary body, camera, footage, is that unambiguous? And obviously representative body, camera, footage is gonna be something subjective, but is the statement primary body, camera, footage, Chief Murad, is that kind of an unambiguous phrase? Sorry, should I rephrase the question was, is the phrase primary body, camera, footage, is that unambiguous? It is to me, I understand what was meant by this. I don't know necessarily how others may interpret it. I think that it could perhaps be clarified by saying something to the effect of, we'll release footage from the primary officer or representative body, camera, footage within 30 days of an incident. I'm not certain what makes the most sense for it. Again, I mean, the rationale simply is that while releasing all of it would be optimal in so far as one goal, we simply can't. We don't have the resources with regard to the one person who currently understands how to do the redactions, we thankfully have just hired a new ID tech, but that individual is not yet doing these processes. We don't know yet what the volume will be either. I think that we'll discuss later in executive session some of the complaints and use of force, things that I'm hopeful that we can discuss in open forum in the future, but for now in executive session. And it's a very small volume of things, but we don't yet know what that translates to with regard to body worn camera and requirements to get things out in 30 days for the public. That's a new lift for us and it's one that concerns us. Do you, commissioner Durfee, do you want me to put this up on the screen in words so we can edit as we go? Yeah, that's helpful for folks because we need to pass this on. I'm sorry, I feel that's okay. My, I know it's late. So one thing, yeah, okay, go ahead. So we were talking about, oh, good, thank you. It's sounding like it might be, it just might be me who's struggling with that and that it's a term of arch, but here's what chief URAD was saying, well proactively released footage from the primary officer or representative body camera footage from other officers, is that language? How do people feel about that? Or chief Murat, what do you think? Is that accurate? That's the way I'm reading it. That does seem to clarify it for me. I don't know if, for example, deputy chief Sullivan or deputy chief LeBreck who I both think are on, if that works for them as well. And I will say that this is definitely going, this is a hundred percent going to the legislature and by the first of the year, we will have a law. Right. As long as this is clear and we can agree on it, the framework. And I am so aware of the staffing, deputy chief Sullivan and chief Murad, I'm aware. But for the purposes of this document, I just wanted to stay on what can and cannot be done and I appreciate your patience with that process. Yes, at the state level, I think, I mean, there are other agencies have concerns about having to implement the body camera policy in the first place, just the actual startup costs of the technology and the hardware, even though the hardware is really not the cost, the cost is the service. And that's how all of these providers operate. That they're, it's a service and that's where they get the actual money as vendors. Other, I know that many agencies are concerned about those startup costs and those that actually already have it are also concerned about these ability to make things public. We're all waiting for better and cheaper redaction technologies to make this process fairer and easier for us. Krishna Hart. One other question is then one C, any incident for which the chief of police mayor and or the majority of the police commission determines that the release will address significant public attention or concern or will help enforce the law? I am not sure, can we have an example of that because I'm not sure I'm following what will help enforce the law? So the way I read that was that if we're reviewing footage where something incriminating is clear. I might note that the enforce, preserving the peace is enforcing the law. So those two things, they do feed into one another. And certainly that's a very clear example of where body camera footage can be released and be necessary. When there is an indication that one thing happened and there is proof via body camera footage that something else happened and that an opportunity exists to correct a narrative that is causing upset and consternation and maybe disrupting the peace of a community. That's certainly. I'm just getting caught up on this phrase will help enforce the law. Well, we can, from what I'm hearing, and that's why we bring this, where is it? I can highlight it for the language. Yeah, I know I see it. Preserve the peace is fine with me because preserve the peace, it is enforcing the law and it's kind of a double, it's kind of doubling down. So I would be fine with striking that. It's a short document, thank goodness, because I know I blew a bunch of, I was like asking a lot of questions about this and trying to do individual texting, but we'll be able to get through this. Does anyone feel otherwise about keeping it in? Oh, sorry, I don't know whether the terms are synonymous. It seems to me as though enforcing the law might preserve the peace, but it's not creating the preserving the peace necessarily entails enforcing the law. Is it enforcing the law? Is it, yeah, I'm struggling with this word. It, again, this could be my own internal struggle that I'm getting, it's just not clear to me what that is saying. I think if it's not clear what it's saying, we should just delete it. Yeah. I was gonna say just that, can we just strike that like everything after concern? I think when you say preserve the peace and or maintain public order, that's clear. That's what's going to happen. That's why it's going to be looked at, but I don't think enforce the law that needs to be in there because preserve the peace and or maintain public order. I don't think there should be, but I think I understand Shareen's issue is like, really, we don't often use anything recorded to make a final judgment on what enforcing legislature, we just, we don't. If you have a recording or a camera footage, that's often not the last, that's not the final say. You're a lawyer, Shareen. And I think it might be captured in this maintained public order, but if you think, I just am not finding, I almost find the term the law to be too broad. It's just, so, but I certainly, if there's a clear reason or meaning to it, I'm happy to leave it in, but. I don't, I think that, I think you need to put the word will back in order to preserve the peace and or maintain public order. But no, I don't think that the idea of enforcing the law needs to be carved out separately. Yeah, and I guess help, help preserve peace and, yeah. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Moving on to D, this is just my language, we can put different language. It's really important that we, Commissioner Harp helps me early on, understand that the police department can and does view unredacted body camera footage. And I thought this was missing. We thought this was missing. So that's why it's in here. But if anybody wants to work on language, I'm fine with that. Just to clarify, you said the police department, you meant the police commission. Police commission. Sorry, it does read the police commission. Did I say department? You did, but we know what you meant. It's 926 Randall. These volunteer hours are racking up. But I'm glad that everybody's here with me. I'm excited to get this done. So are we okay with D? And I think we could just move on. Shireen, did you have another question? You said you had a couple of questions. No, I'm good. Thank you. Those were the two where I just needed clarity. Thank you. I know what happened to that bullet point that's like way out there, the fully blurring the video footage of it. And then the big problem, I can't see my notes, but the big problem was, for me was that three was initially, there was a lot of language about the police department's capacity, for redacting footage. And I am good with saying, telling, I mean, I just wanna say what can be done, but if folks feel like three, we need to add work constraints in there. I'm fine to put it back in. I just hear the public and I understand that there's not very many cases where we would have to do this. So I just cleaned up the language to say, this is what happens. Yeah, I think this is the actual language. And I think this is what it said in my apologies. I think some of what you're seeing is changes I had made to that. Changes I made, yeah. You made, okay. So do you want me to go back to? No, I think this is perfect. So folks can see, this is the original language in three. And then my language is, it just doesn't refer to, actually this, I don't know if that's the original language. And it's not for bullet point four. That's not the original language. No. No, the language above that says three right now. Yeah. I think that's the original language is this here. Yep. Yep. That's fine. Oh, and for four, I think this is, I was talking about three. Okay. So I can remove this now, right? Right. Yes. Okay. That's not, yeah. So in three, and I really thought it was in here on markup that it really did say what's missing from here is that the police department does not have the capacity to redact footage. That's the language that's missing. And to be in compliance with the Vermont Public Records Act. And we discussed this, a number of us like one-on-one. And I think it's cleaner just to say in these cases, this is how it's done. Well, so I have some concerns with this, as it's written right now. Once I mean, I agree that the policy need not, and perhaps ought not kind of say that because the department is in such and such, faces such and such constraints, right? Because a policy should govern the department regardless of the particular constraints that it faces. That being said, I think that, when it's necessary in order to comply with Public Records Act requests, and comply both with the Public Records Act request, which is a legal request, and also with the timing requirements, which the policy imposes, then certain ways of making the video or audio available might be, are acceptable ways of doing so, if necessary in order to comply with those various constraints. So I think that is perfectly fine. And right now it kind of suggests that the only constraints, which justify, redacting footage, are to protect the privacy of individuals or defend its right to a fair trial. No, actually, you know what? Sorry, I'm gonna withdraw the comment. I'm gonna read this again. I mean, I'd say I do have concerns about four, but three actually, I'm gonna reread. I think I know what happened. And I think an extra number got added because I think three and four were together. So maybe just in my editing, no. Yeah, so it was three, and then, sorry, the four wasn't actually an item. It was just a continuation of the language. Yep, yep. Sorry, and I think I've identified my concern, the concerns I actually had with what is now three. Because I think if we're right, I don't know who's editing the document right now, but Sherina, can I talk? Yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Go ahead. No worries, no worries, no worries. Yeah, so I think my concern is this. So it seems to me as though, with respect to redactions, and I think there's general agreement that fewer redactions are better to more redactions. They kind of surgical redactions are preferable to more indiscriminate redactions. So when possible, when permissible by department resources, et cetera, maximally surgical redaction is the best thing. So only redact people who might not have given consent to have their images appear or juvenile or whatever it is, only redact that kind of information. But I think the idea is that circumstances might not always permit that level of surgical redaction of footage. I already took a moment to lie. Sorry, was that a comment to me? No, I'm yelling to the kids. Yeah, I understood, I understood. And I'm trying to. I just want to make sure. Yes, so, because you're mickey. You want some lasagna? I do actually, I've been here for a while. So, right, so I'm concerned right now that the language seems to suggest that the redactions are either full redaction or nothing. And I would not want that to be what the policy says. I would want the policy to indicate that when possible, more precise redactions are preferred, but it is not always possible for the constraints that we've discussed. Okay. So I'm proposing a language, but that's my concern. Can you propose some language, Commissioner Harb? Because you know I've been trying to get you to propose some language for a little while now, so. You didn't want to do it, but. No, I just, I've been busy. Okay, I'm just typing this just to repeat what you said, but we can move this to wherever you want. Is it okay if I talk while you type? Yeah, you want me to put that back in or just tell me where to put the cursor and I'll type. Yeah, so I'm gonna say something first and that people are fine with it, then I'll suggest, then I'll kind of say where to put it. But the thing that I was thinking was just to say something like this, you know, a statement that says, with respect to redactions, you know, the fewer redactions that are necessary in order to protect privacy rights and finance rights the better. So if, so that kind of statement, right? You know, that kind of statement when, you know, with respect to redactions, this is what's preferred. And then another statement, which kind of is what we have already saying, you know, when precise redactions are not possible, these kinds of redactions are permissible. That to me kind of indicates both that kind of what's from ought to be doing when possible and also what is permissible when that's not possible. I'm just putting this down and then you can just have it on paper. Instead of the better are preferred. I mean, I think just saying something like with respect to redactions, the department should redact as little as possible to protect X, Y and Z concerns. So that should statement establishes kind of what the department should do. And then the next statement can say, you know, what is permissible in order to meet additional desiderat or additional desire, you know, additional things that we want to see done, namely comply with timing goals, et cetera. Is the sentence after that good or do you want to add? Oh, I'm sorry, Sharina. No, that's okay. Go ahead. I'm just going to accept, show these without the markup just for ease. Right. Does that look good? Yeah. Commissioner Hart, does that say what you wanted to say? That seems fine to me right now. That seems fine to me right now. And this would be another document that would go to, for review by the city attorney and then move on to the council. And by the time it gets there, it's probably going to be law. So what, what do folks think about ending it here? Not because we're, but it just, right here there are redactions, no matter the reason. Right, Sharina. I think that's good. Yep. Yep. Agreed. Yeah. All right. Also, so, I mean, I guess saying the privacy and release timing goals does not make sense without having those already be articulated. And since we've kind of taken out, I think the discussion about what that refers to, I'm not going to talk about like, what about the privacy and release timing goals here, unless it really has been mentioned immediately above and I don't see it. So I would, instead of that, It is mentioned above though. No, go ahead. Please finish your thoughts. Sorry. No, I mean, if it's mentioned above, let's scroll up if we could. Is this said too? I'm sorry. Well, there's, there's so depending on circumstance and then that are mentioned up here. And then there's release goals mentioned throughout. So what does privacy goals refer to? If, I thought there was something up the top here that says to protect the individual privacy of a victim or witness. And then if you go up, can you scroll up, Sharon? Just, yeah. Maybe I've read this document. So many times that I think it does release footage for the primary. Well, let me put back in anything we've changed. So, no, don't, don't do that. Okay. I think I'm just read, I've read this over and over again. So do we, we can just restate it. We can just, we can just define it a little bit more in that paragraph possible in cases that were correct. So was it, there was a sentence, there was one sentence that was right before in cases. Is that what you're talking about on three? Because it did have some definition in here. Well, that's right. We deleted the sentence that said something like, basically one of the goals of redaction is to protect the privacy of ex-persons, right? Witnesses, victims, et cetera. So that was stated previously. And once that gets deleted, then now this discussion of privacy goals becomes, I think, unclear. So maybe we put this back in, we restore this part, right? Yeah. I think what we also need to embrace here in cases that require the department to redact footage could be, but this is only as a last resort that you would fully blur or fully redact audio. So one suggestion is to say in three, with respect to redactions, the department should redact as little as possible, while also protecting the privacy interests of those who are captured on the footage. That states the privacy goals, and then I'm fine with it being mentioned again later on. In cases, isn't this like last resort where it's fully blurring and fully redacting audio? Well, fully blurring is, I think, the idea is that it's supposed to be a last resort, but I'm not sure exactly what is meant by fully blurring, but again, I mean, my preference is still that people who are, that people be blurred out of body-worn camera footage in general, just because I think that's kind of being captured on an officer body-worn camera is not the sort of thing that automatically makes one subject to public attention. Wait, this doesn't read right. Does it, that first sentence now? Well, no, no, no, no, never mind. Would you? I mean, if there are concerns about kind of that being exploited to, you know, to kind of protect officer privacy interests, that could be changed, something like legitimate privacy interests or something like that, but I do think that people who appear in, people who are captured in officer body-worn camera footage do also have often legitimate privacy interests and those should be respected when they're releasing a batch of body-worn camera footage to the public. I don't think that the general principle should be that everything captured by officer body-worn camera is released kind of without any redactions to the public. How could, I think I can explain why the struggle here is because this was an attempt to comply with the Vermont Public Records Act that they, in the language in here before was that, well, we can't comply, but these are the things that we can do if you really want us to release this footage. And so I may have ruined that by- But could you have a footage, Chief Mirad, where you both fully blur the video and fully redact audio and have a product that, can there be any footage that actually comes out of something that redacts both of those? Totally. There are ways to blur the footage and make it something that doesn't show faces, for example, or blurs if it's something that's done in a private home or if there's a significant amount of, for lack of a better term, gore in a scene. And so those are possibilities. And then audio redaction can be complete. It can be word-based. It can be- But if you had fully on both of those, because that's where it says you could do both, fully blur the video and fully redact audio. And I don't see how you would have a product that shows the public anything. I don't know that you would. I mean, I think you would be meeting the bare minimum requirement of the law, but you would not be meeting the spirit of it, but your rationale would be meeting a different spirit of it, because a different spirit of it has to do with the right to privacy that some places have. Should it say either one of the following or should it say one or both, which really means nothing? Of that, I don't necessarily have a strong opinion. I think timing goals could be achieved by using either one or both. It is true either one or both. There may be instances in which you are not only obligated to blur the screen and the entirety of it, to put a gauze across the entire screen, but are also obligated to remove a name or a term. But it says fully redacting audio. So that's what I'm getting hung up on, is we are talking about fully blurring and fully redacting audio that you could potentially have both of those done in one, for one request or production. If it's a short enough snippet, if the body camera only exists for a very short period of time before it became inactivated or was wrenched off, it may be that you do fully redact the entirety of the audio because the whole thing included, I'm sorry. And the video too. You see what I'm saying? I do, but what I'm going to say is that these kinds of, this is why sometimes directives end up with caveats that seem to be loopholes but are not. They're designed for situations that we can't prognosticate. And there's so many different kinds of scenarios that can come into play that that's why this is the language that's chosen. It's not dissimilar from when we've been discussing for example, equitable sharing. The fact that I can't say entirely 100,000% that this is never done in X way because there's always the possibility that there's going to be some one-off situation in which an asset is seized without a final determination of the court. Although I've been told differently. We could say, as you're talking, I'm thinking of instances where both would be done. And things I've seen and I can definitely, you know, I think that the problem is the fully, you know, fully blurring the video. So can I just ask? I'm sorry, go keep going. I apologize. No, no, no, that's okay. I'm just trying to get there. I'm just wondering whether this discussion is a little bit moot. So if we changed possible to feasible and we just left out the discussion of, we left out the references to fully blurring video, fully blurring, fully redacting audio. So the idea is still going to be, you know, as few redactions as feasible subject to the constraint of protecting privacy. There might be some other constraints we won't articulate in there. So can I, I don't know whether things like redacting you know, goers in the public interest as it were. But, you know, there might be other things that ought to be redacted. But subject to, subject to privacy considerations, for example, other than the goal is just, yeah, like redacted as little as feasible subject to these considerations. And if it turns out that the only feasible thing, you know, given the number of, given the volume of requests, given the technology that's available, given the time that it takes to process the request, it might be that the only feasible thing is for kind of faster, more crude ways of redacting. If that's the case, then that's the case. But I think kind of, you know, spelling out, well, it's possible to both fully redact audio and fully redact video does make it seem as though that is a kind of a viable option in more cases that perhaps one might think it is appropriate. But if you just kind of leave out that, you know, leave out that as a kind of, it's something which is clearly permitted by the policy and just say the thing which, you know, the thing which the policy is subject to is just feasibility. That seems like it both allows for that when that's the only thing which is feasible, but it doesn't make it clear that that is a kind of satisfactory way of satisfying the policy in ordinary cases. So here's what results if we, I guess we could say redacted, well, yeah, the blurred footage or redacted audio. That was really the only way to get it to the compliant of the records act. I do like striking out the bullet points. I don't think they're necessary. So Commissioner Durfee, is this sentence right here as to the whole policy and should it be its own paragraph that whenever there's body camera footage that's being posted, this is how it's being done? Yeah, I guess we could put it as its own. I mean, that seemed to be a public concern. So sure, that's definitely, you know, important now than by itself, I think. And then the only other thing I added was that, you know, despite the hour, it will definitely be important that the department will adopt any legislative changes because that's really, you know. Right. I've said, I don't know if that needs to be stated, the department has to comply with state law. You know, I always write with like, you know, thinking that the folks that I'm writing policy for are the people who are gonna get on, you know, public forum and be interested to see what we're doing. And, you know, some of it's redundant, but, you know, a lot of it is informational. So we could strike that because we know that it's inferred. I just put it in there because they know what's gonna happen and be, I know that. I mean- Well, the worry is also, yeah, when we say incorporate into, I mean, right, it might be that kind of a, something that Montpelier is gonna, you know, replace what we have. No, that's, yeah, I think we could just leave it out. I mean, I would, by the way, I don't know what number it is now, say, maybe it was four or three, it was four. I would not have reference to blurred video, or I mean, blurred footage. I think that that, I would just say, kind of any member of the public who wished to have access to something like- Redacted? Either redacted or the resulting footage, right? Because, I mean, it might be that the department's able to release non-redacted footage and we don't wanna kind of preclude that possibility in five, you know, I'm sorry, whatever the number was. You know, three just says redacted as little as possible, as little as feasible, excuse me. So it might be that some footage can be released with no redactions, in which case, we don't want to have the next clause make reference only to redacted footage. Yeah, so it may be the resulting footage, I don't know if that's necessary, if it definitely wasn't necessary, but otherwise I think that's better. Thanks for doing all this typing, Shreen. Sure, no problem. A lot. Okay, so I'll just show everyone what changes were made and then I can forward this to whomever. Because I'm gonna, in point number three right now, could I just add the word V between resulting and footage in the public who wishes to have access to- Yeah. Yeah, minor point, thank you. Who wishes, right? I mean, and I'd actually change that could to can. Yeah, or may. May. I think either one's fine. I mean, because we're not granting the permission. I mean, like the permission is, it's a state law, so I don't want to suggest that this policy- Yes, yep. Yeah. Are we good on this? Besides- I have no further comments. I'm good. Anyone else? Okay, so I'm gonna stop sharing my screen and Commissioner Durfee, am I sending this to you? Is this, this is going to the city council as well. Correct, Chair Gommash. What do you want us to do with this document? No, this is, I believe this is our policy. I don't believe this has to go to city council for to go through. This is an ask for us to pass and complete. It was my knowledge and understanding. Oh, that's right. I think Kyle's still on. So if you could send it to me, should we send it right to, well, yeah, I'll take it. Is this something we're supposed to be voting on? Well, yeah. So can I ask whether this document also has been reviewed by the city attorney, prior to the change that we made? It has not. It has not either. So yeah, I was gonna say, I believe this has to be reviewed first before we can vote on it. If I understand that correctly. Right. It should be reviewed by the city attorney who was on. So attorney Devlin, do we send this to you? You can send it to Eileen Blackwood, the city attorney and Joey Hovastan, assistant city. We'll do. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So are, so we are, are we at a place where we feel comfortable to send this to the city attorney for review? My. Yes. Yes. Do you need a motion on that? I don't, do we? We didn't do it for the last one. I don't think so either. Yeah. I guess I'll, I guess I'll say, with that said, yeah, I'll send these documents over to the city attorney. And ideally I'd like to vote on these before our next meeting, if that's possible, depending on when they can review these. So if I do hear, notice that these have been reviewed, I'll message everyone to hopefully set up, set up a special meeting to then vote on these things. If that's okay with everybody else. So there's time constraints. Yep. Awesome. That concludes agenda item 5.03. And seeing how we still have two more, probably fairly lengthy agenda items. Do we want to talk to this now, or do we want to tack these on to our next scheduled meeting, seeing how these aren't super time-constraining? I move that we table them for the next, next scheduled meeting. Thank you. Second that. Any deliberation over this? I'm not hearing any. All in favor, tabling agenda items, 5.04 and 5.05 to our next meeting, say aye or raise your hand. Again, our next scheduled meeting because we might have a special meeting. Yes, our next scheduled meeting. If we do a special meeting, that would be for just the city attorney review documents, sorry. Sorry, all in favor of tabling agenda item 5.04 and 5.05 to our next scheduled meeting on the 22nd of December. Raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That is unanimous. Moving on to agenda item 6, commendations. So I do have a couple of commendations to share and I will get these scanned and sent to you as well. Receipt from three, four, three different officers to pass along from a friend that had called for an attempted suicide, wanted to thank the officer for responding, assisting and saving his friend's life for which he reported compassion that was showed by the officer of the struggling young man for choosing not to execute an active warrant due to his injuries. Another officer received a commendation from the mother of someone who ended up taking her own life. And so she expressed his compassion towards her as well in returning his things. And then the final officer was accommodated for the comfort and help to an occupant of a burned building. And in the officer helping that victim make the right decision to get some extra help at the hospital. And so someone passed along their appreciation for that effort by the officer as well. Thank you for that. Moving on to agenda item 7.01, commissioner updates and or comments. Any commissioners, any comments, updates or anything of that nature? I am not seeing any moving on to next meeting agenda items. So we have our tabled discussions in the event, well actually now, yeah, we have our table discussions and is there anything else? Assuming that the city attorney gets back to us while before next meeting to have a special meeting to review those documents. Not hearing any additional agenda items at this point, please email me anything that you feel that we need to discuss and put on our agenda for next meeting then. All right, agenda item, let's see. Agenda item 9.01, executive session. Do we have any citizens complaints that we need to review an executive session? There are only two, I believe, citizen complaints. But more importantly, one of the things that the role of the police commission in determining employee discipline, whatever the full title of that resolution that we passed in August was, one of the things that it required was a recounting of use as a force as well. And we haven't done that. And deputy chief Lebrek has prepared an accounting of that in accordance with that new role document and is prepared to do that in executive session. Thank you. I then motion. Sorry. I was gonna make a move that we enter executive session for the purpose of discussing disciplinary matters, potential disciplinary matters. Second. Any deliberation? Not seeing any. Let's see what time it is right now. 10.06, I have to use the bathroom. So I say we recess for 10 minutes and then we'll enter executive session in 10 minutes. With that being said, when we exit executive session, there'll be nothing to deliberate and the meeting will be adjourned at the end of executive session. So with that, everyone that has signed on tonight and the public, thank you very much for comments, concerns, feedback, objections. And we hope to see you soon. Thank you.