 Good evening, folks. My name is Doug Heim, the town council of Arlington. This meeting of the police civilian advisory review board and study committee is being convened remotely consistent with the state law regarding allowing participation and conduct of remote meetings during the COVID pandemic. A few quick notes for this meeting. The meeting is being recorded. The meeting is also going to be conducted in a fashion that we're going to ask everybody to try to clearly identify themselves when they're speaking. So please either make sure that you've got a fully written out screen name, don't use a nickname. So the record can accurately reflect who's speaking. Mr. Newton is taking minutes this evening. All votes are going to be conducted by roll call. I believe we've got a busy agenda. So with that, I'm just going to take a quick roll call of members and if I leave anybody out. Just give me a quick, quick wave. So, Mr. Newton. Here. Mr. Morales. Here. Mr. Brownstein. Here. Ms. Giddelson. Here. Julian Harvey. Here. Kathy Rogers. Yes, here. Karen Bishop. Here. Susan Ryan Volmer. Here. Chief Julia Flaherty. Here. Bob Radocha. I see Bob. Bob, are you with us? Can you hear us? Yes. Yes. And I think that's it for members up. I see. Ann Brown is joining us now. And I believe that we're also joined by chief Michael Winn, but I'll leave those introductions for, for the chair. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. And thank you for double, double being at two meetings tonight. I'm going to turn it over to Susan to introduce chief Winn, since she's the one who has been in contact with him. And I'm really excited to hear what he has to say. You're still muted, Susan. We're two years into the pandemic. You'd think. We'd have the zoom etiquette down. So chief Michael Winn, he's been chief of police of the Pittsburgh police department since 2007. He's one of governor Charlie Baker's three appointees to the Massachusetts peace officer standards in training commission, known as the post commission, which we've been talking about in a lot of our meetings. Post commission has nine members and it is charged with creating a mandatory certification process for police officers, as well as processes for decertification, suspension of certification or reprimand in the event of certain misconduct. And chief Winn is well suited for this work. He was appointed to the national leadership council of fight crime investing kids. This is a nonprofit that promotes bipartisan solutions to reduce crime and help children succeed. He's served as a subject matter expert and drill instructor at multiple police academies, including as an adjunct instructor for the justice system training and research institute at Roger Williams university since 2006. He's been an instructor for the municipal police training committee in Randolph since 2001. He's been an adjunct professor at mass college of liberal arts since 2018. From 2001 until 2007, chief Winn served as a staff instructor for the municipal police training committee in Springfield. And in 2003 and four, he served as a leadership fellow with the drug enforcement administration's leadership development unit. We're here in certification as a DE, DE a tactical instructor. Prior to his appointment as chief of police in Pittsfield, chief Winn served as a patrol officer, shift supervisor, shift commander and administrative captain of the Pittsfield police department. He holds a bachelor's degree from Williams college and a master's in criminal justice from Anna Maria college. And I'll just turn it over to chief Winn. We're very grateful that you're here with us tonight. Good evening. Can you all hear me? Yeah. So thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to spend some time with you. The purpose of my visit has evolved a little bit since I was first contacted. If I understand correctly, your primary charge is to do some research around civilian oversight or citizen review boards. And then in the most recent email, Susan indicated that you might also have some questions about the post commission and the Massachusetts police reform legislation. So I'll do my best to, to at least give you my experiences and my insights with this. I do have to, you know, start off with the disclaimer. I'm not an attorney. So I can't give you anything that might resemble legal advice. I can share with you the legal advice that was given to me by our attorneys and by council for other factions during some of this discussion. But I, you know, I think what I'll, with your permission, what I'll do is I'll just do a real quick summary of kind of how we got where we are in the city of Pittsfield and kind of the status quo and then take your questions. So as Susan said, I've been with the Pittsfield police department for, you know, with a couple collateral assignments elsewhere from my entire career in some capacity for almost 28 years. I started with the department as a civilian in 1993, right after I got out of college. I went to the academy in 95 and started patrolling on 96. I've had a variety of assignments, but my time with the police department between 93 and 95 was, was a, as a program manager, grant programs manager, handling the community policing grants that the department was receiving at the time. So my background pre law enforcement was in community policing. And when I got out of the academy and got on the job for obvious reasons, that, that kind of continued. So at that time, let's say 1996 through, well, in all honesty, September 11, 2001, I was heavily invested involved in the department's community policing and we had predecessor of our current police advisory review board as kind of like a advisory committee to the chief of police. It was kind of like a kitchen cabinet. It was a collection of resident volunteers who were involved in our community policing programs. And at any given time, you know, chief could schedule an impromptu meeting. They weren't, it wasn't a acknowledged formal body. So they weren't public meetings. They were posted meetings. They were informational. And my predecessor, chief Riello, he would meet with them, you know, quarterly or six times a year. And because I was involved in community policing activities, not every meeting, but frequently I would attend those meetings. It was kind of more informal exchange of information. They would tell us what was going on in their neighborhood watches or with the staff of some of our substations. And we would share with them things that we had on our plan for new initiatives and new plans. After September 11, 2001, when a lot of the federal grants for community policing dried up and were reallocated over to Homeland Security, those meetings kind of fell off. And as a result of those meetings falling off and some decisions that were made by administration at the time, a lot of our community policing programs also evaporated. The substations that we had been using community policing money for to lease, we were directed to give up those leases and close them down. And so we lost quite a bit of collateral and good faith with the community as a result of the loss of some of those funds. And that informal group didn't meet anymore. That situation kind of stayed the same until December of 2007, actually a little bit later that I took command of the department in December of 2007. We had no civilian advisory group at that time. I went through some executive development beginning in 2008. And during that executive development, a colleague of mine who had a lot more experience as a department commander shared with me that he also had an informal advisory group that he worked with on a regular basis in his community in Maryland. So in late 2008, I started floating the idea with my boss at the time about this possibility or this prospect of putting together some type of informal advisory committee. And it was not well received. They basically told me, you know, we get our input from this office and the city council and it's unnecessary and it's just going to open you up to exposure. So that idea kind of died on the vine. It stayed that way until God, I'm losing track now. It stayed that way for maybe three or four years. And we had had a change in administration at that time. I had gone through the ordinances and found that there wasn't existing recognized by code advisory group that existed to advise the chief of police on the mayor. It didn't have any appointed members and it hadn't for a long time. And so I reviewed the ordinance and there was the ordinance was very dated. And there was some issues that I had some concerns with. So working with our city solicitor, I rewrote the ordinance and got it passed with full faith and believe that the administration was going to appoint the members to this advisory group and that I was going to be able to work with them. We had an election. We had a change of administration. The outgoing mayor departed without appointing anybody to the advisory group and the incoming mayor came in. And one of the first asks I made was, can I revisit the advisory group? And he didn't really give me a yay or nay. And a couple months later, I found out that he had appointed nine people to this advisory group without any discussion with me. And they hadn't been vetted. One of them we were actively pursuing felony charges against at the time. So and go to the mayor's office and say, this isn't going to work. You got to work with me here. And so that iteration essentially died. So fast forward to where are we now? It's 2021 now. So this would have been 2014, 2015. And we had a couple incidents that my department was involved in. They were not high profile incidents. To be honest, they didn't even have to do with criminal cases. They both in some way or another had to do with dealing with individuals with mental illness and the execution of warrants of apprehension or section 12. And one of them went off with no issue. And the other one caused a little bit of contention. But following those two incidents, a small group of residents, one party that was involved in that second incident. And then that party contacted the individual from the first incident. And they really started lobbying and advocating for the creation of some type of, in their, in their terms, a civilian oversight board or civilian oversight group. And so it became a very public and very contentious period of time. And, you know, some members of the administration would like to act with it. They can't do it without us. We'll just tell them, no, some members of the administration, there's an opportunity here. We can kind of set the example. It got very divisive with the council at the time. And then it got really, really messy. And one of the reasons it got messy was that the, the most vocal proponents, the people who were, you know, out there really making the case for some type of civilian oversight or some type of civilian review. They were doing a lot of research, but they weren't doing legal research. And so they were pulling examples of what was out there from all over the country. And some of them were from states that their constitutions were completely at odds with ours. Some of them were from departments that, you know, were 200 times the size of ours with paid professional investigators. And so there was a lot of back and forth. We would receive the stuff and we would red-line it and send it back and say, this is not going to work here. You know, we're trying to work with you, but they really wanted like strict civilian oversight, subpoena power, you know, authority to discipline. Ultimately, it got to during this back and forth, it got to the point where they got the code, the ordinance from Cambridge, and they presented that to our legal department. And that caused, I raised some eyebrows and caused some questions because there was some stuff in that, in that ordinance that based on our, our legal review couldn't stand. It just, it didn't seem tenable. So ultimately at that point, I reached out for Cambridge and I was eventually put in touch with a gentleman named Brian Core. Brian is the immediate past president of the National Association of Civilian Oversight for Law Enforcement. He's also a full-time employee of Cambridge. He works in their human rights, in the human rights office, but he is the municipally appointed representative to their civilian oversight. So Brian and I had a very healthy conversation and Brian explained to me that the stack, or the ordinance was the ordinance, but the procedures that were in place in Cambridge did not actually follow the ordinance because some of the information or the items in the ordinance were in fact not legally tenable in the Commonwealth. So for example, and I don't know if this has changed since then, but at the time that we were looking at it, that ordinance granted that body subpoena power. And that is not a power that can be granted to a non-governmental quasi-judicial entity. It's just not one of the things a municipality can just create. There's got to be a legislative process to do that. So although it was in the ordinance, it wasn't in fact what they were doing. The other thing that Brian pointed out to me was that he was in a very unique position because he was employed by the municipality, and essentially his job gave him basically the rights and authority of a member of the HR department, of the human resources department. And so he could look at and access items that the other members of their board couldn't because it was in his official capacity. And so he essentially was serving as a gatekeeper or a conduit. So he could interact with the police department, reach some agreement or consensus, and then take material back to their group. Once we kind of had an understanding of what Cambridge was actually doing, that gave us the ability to sit down and kind of re-carraft the ordinance over what eventually would become the Pittsfield Police Advisory Review Board, which is the entity that I've been working with for the last couple of years, several years. Our police advisory review board is 11 members appointed by the mayor at my request. I don't have the statue of the ordinance in front of me. I think four or five of the members are at large. They essentially don't represent a constituency. The remaining members are specifically selected. They represent members of the NAACP, our faith community, a couple other nonprofit affinity groups, and there's a student youth representative. And so we specifically identified some segments of the population that we wanted to make sure were represented. They do not, because they cannot have subpoena power, and they do not technically provide oversight. They serve in an advisory capacity to me, the mayor and the city council. They have the my ordinance. They have the authority to review finalized, closed disciplinary investigation, investigative cases, and to make recommendations back to me if they disagree with the disposition. And actually, I should, I should rephrase that. They didn't. They have the authority to make recommendations back to me if they disagree with the investigative findings or the discipline. I'm not obligated to, to abide by their recommendations, but historically generally have. As of January 1st of this year, they are, they are actually entitled to review, not just the final reports, but under legislative reform. They're also authorized to see the discipline, the actual details of the discipline. In addition to that role, they also advise me on policy development. This part was a little dicey. And then things kind of like for their stamp of approval, we had to get a legal finding that the statute didn't allow for that. They essentially they, they participate in the draft process with my command staff and send me requested recommendations. And then when we get to the final version, I, I again issue that. And they, they do make recommendations to both the mayor and the council. So they've done things like our station is antiquated. So they've done station tours and they've, you know, written letters saying, you know, this is the situation in the police station. You need to explore looking for alternatives for any station. They may have recommendations for training. They do have a fair, what I would say for volunteers is a fairly stringent training requirement for membership. There's about seven policies and or lesson plans that they're required to kind of get up to speed on in their first several months as members. And then pre COVID, we're kind of getting back to that. We also expect them to schedule ride-alongs with our officers quarterly. So that once they get through the initial training, they schedule those with our shift commanders at their own convenience. That's pretty much it. That's a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. Should we open it up for questions? I'm seeing lots of head nodding. So. If folks have questions. Just raise your hand. I did that good job. No questions. Oh no. This is the calm before the storm. Go ahead, Sanjay. Sure. So. I mean, could you talk a little bit about like how you felt that you were going to get back to work or not work? Sure. So, you know, that's kind of why I gave you the historical perspective. Remember that I initiated this conversation because I was looking for another source of information. You know, we all, we all have blinders when it comes to some things. So I was trying to make sure that we had an objective outside look at some of our procedures and some of our operations. I mean, it was, it was, you know, I wasn't in love with the process that got us to where we are. Largely because, you know, the, the people who pushed for this particular thing, they, they, they were just a meaningless left and right, you know, they were coming at it like they just wanted to tear the department down. We were looking for a partnership. Once the, and I should say that, you know, the current police advisory review board is in a significant period of transition right now. All of their initial terms are coming to an end. Some of them are not re-electing to continue to serve. We had a couple of resignations during the pandemic and their vacancies haven't been filled. So it's, it's a very chaotic time right now. For the most part, I've, I've been very, very pleased with the relationship we've had with our incumbent members. They, they've been more than fair, but they've also asked hard questions and not, not going to get into a ton of detail and bore you with the detail, but for example, you know, I'm a, I'm a police officer, you know, 28 years as a cop, I'm an investigator. When I was delivering endorsements or findings on an internal affairs report is very clinical and, and very austere, you know, concur, disagree, you know, this is not consistent. And then like, you know, chief, this is kind of harsh. Can you think you can soften the tone a little bit? And I was like, well, I could, but that letter is written to the cop. And so like, well, maybe, you know, you should, you should have two versions, right? One for the cop and one for the complainant. I was like, okay, that's, you know, that's, that's good advice, right? Cause our internal documents are written for an internal audience, but because of the internal affairs open records, they're being read by an external audience. So we had to be mindful of that. Just a couple, you know, the, the language that we use in, in some of the reports, the language that we use in, so, you know, several years ago, just down the advice of a friend and a colleague of mine, I stopped, I deliberately stopped using the word citizen to refer to, you know, members of our community and I switched to residents or visitors, but the complaint form was still called the citizens complaint form. And, you know, I'm oblivious to it. I wrote that complaint form as a lieutenant in 2006. And so even that we had a conversation. I was like, I don't use that language anymore. They're like, it's on the form. Like, okay. So, you know, we, we had to edit the form. Carlos. Actually, thank you for, for being here tonight and for sharing your thoughts. And one, one question that I have is, so what do you think it's, it's the greatest benefit, the greatest advantage that you have by having this commission, you know, being in big fill. And that's one question. And then a second question would be, is there, do you see that, you know, do you have any problem in implementing these with collective bargaining? So maybe let's start, you know, with the positive side of what, what is the greatest advantage you can see from this commission. So for me, the greatest advantage was having another channel and mechanism of public accountability and transparency. So a lot of police officers in the Commonwealth are surprised to find out that internal affairs records are public. They've been public for a long, long time. But the interesting part about the decision that made them public was, you know, Worcester telegraph decision is, it's not proactive. Like I don't, I don't conclude an internal affairs investigation and publicize the results. Under the, under the case law, it's entirely incumbent on the complainant to ask. Right. So our disposition letter says, you know, completed the investigation with a finding of sustained or not sustained or unfounded. If you have any questions, you know, you can contact my office, whatever specifically said, and oh, yes, by the way, if you want to see the report, you can see it was, you know, the law says if you ask for it, I have to give it to you. It doesn't say I have to tell you. And so having the publicly, you know, doable, attendable and then televised meetings, we were getting the reports out in a, I'm going to say a sanitized way, but in kind of a concise way. And we were discussing the reports in a public forum that people could then go and see. So even if the people weren't going to go through the records request process and say, I want that report, they could go look at the recording and hear the conversation about the report. So we do, you know, I'm very proud of our internal affairs function. We do very, very robust investigations, but prior to the police advisory review board, I bet in the 20 years before we started holding those meetings, I had two people ask me for those reports. So the quality of our investigations wasn't widely known. Now it is the thing with the collective bargaining stuff. And there was a lot of apprehension. There was a lot of questions. They kind of threw their hands up in the air. This had to point out to them. It's not a subject of bargaining. The record is public. How I choose to release it is entirely up to me. So if I decide to redact it and to share it with this group, it's a public record, right? It's no different than if they, you know, when the media requests payroll records, it's a public record. You can't oppose that based on the CBA. We did have to be a little delicate. I will tell you that it's, you know, nobody's told me I can't do it. If we release a case that's founded, the officer was responsible. It's released pretty much in its entirety. Only personal protective information, privacy protective information, identifying information like, you know, payroll numbers and stuff like that. And witness information is redacted. If I share a case that was not sustained or unfounded, I redact everything. They can request the cleaner version outside of the public form, but I'm not going to throw my officer's names out there for complaints that they weren't held responsible for. Thank you. Can you give us just, just because one of the things we're struggling with. Is. You know, I thought it was interesting. You talked about one of the iterations. The residents who were researching were sort of just like pulling willy-nilly from all different kinds of communities and bodies and bigger towns. And we, we have that struggle, right? Where there's like 40,000 people ish in Arlington. And there's not much out there for us to look at as like a model for where things have been done before. Like a model for where things have been done successfully in places like ours. So just to give us a little context, can you just give us a little summary of pits? Like how big is pits field and how big is your department? So by census, depending on who you ask and which census you look at our census population is somewhere between 44 and 46,000 people. When I do planning, I use a figure of 70,000 people because we're the county seat. We have the hospital, we have the financial district. So we have the police, everybody who comes to work and shop there. Our authorized strength in our department is 97. Right now we're right around 91. We handle about 70,000 calls for service a year. And do you know like how many complaints you get a year? I mean, like that have to be investigated in this. When I took over, we averaged about a dozen a year for the last four years. It's a, we average about four. Thank you. To your earlier point about the dearth of comparables out there. The first thing I would caution you about is don't look for comparables from other states. Right. Because you're going to have to comply with the Massachusetts Constitution. And so when you start pulling stuff in from, I mean, if you look at anything that's not a Commonwealth, you're automatically going to find yourself in some, some gray areas. The other thing is if you haven't asked Brian to do a training for you. We had him, he hasn't done a training for us, but he spoke two meetings ago. The way that you have, and it was, I mean, Brian has a very brief PowerPoint presentation where he kind of outlines the three main models that are out there for civilian oversight and kind of what's out there when people, when people hear from somebody who's not a police officer, that you can't really do the full office of professional responsibility without paid staff. They back off of that a little bit. Right. So you've really got an OPR. You've got an outside auditor. And then you've got this, you know, it's more local homegrown thing, but if resources require you to go with the more local homegrown thing, you lose some authority. There's just no way around that. You're either going to pay professionals or you're going to concede some authority. And I just remembered one last question. And then I'll move on to somebody else. Can I just, you probably said this, but who has the appointing? Who appoints the members in Pittsfield? Is it all the mayor? Do you have it? So in the city of Pittsfield, so we're civil service police department and fire department. And ironically, we're one of those departments where the mayor is our appointing authority and the appointing authority for all constitutional bodies. There are some positions on some bodies that are by like, so I got our traffic commission. I get a cop. She doesn't get, I get to pick that. But the mayoral appointments are strictly chosen by the mayor's office. I have a great working relationship with my current mayor. So I get a little bit of input on those. And I did get, I did get to write the section of the ordinance about those dedicated members, the, the not at large members. That was my input. Great. Thank you. And again, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I have a few questions about the committee and you mentioned that they have to get up to speed on policies that they do. The ride alongs, but about how much of a time commitment are they meeting with you monthly? More than that. And how long are the terms of service for? Typically. You're going to, I will have somebody from my staff send Susan the actual ordinance because I'm going to get the terms wrong and correct. I think they were originally staggered. One, two and three year terms. And so they would roll. And the first set of three year terms are now up. So many of them are on extensions. The, I, so they meet. They're scheduled to meet monthly, but they have the authority or the ability to schedule special meetings in between. If they choose to. And then they have some ad hoc work. So when we were doing the initial trainings, we did them during meetings. So like their first five monthly meetings. 90% of the meeting was trainings. There was very little. They didn't have cases at the time. So most of the time was theirs. We did training with our training unit. We had Mr. Corps come out for one and then virtually for one. And then once they kind of got through that, we started scheduling the ride alongs. So, you know, I don't know if any of you have ever done a ride along. It can be a little overwhelming. Sometimes we generally restrict people on their first one to four hours or less. Some people don't even want to do the whole four. So those first couple of months was probably just an hour, except they probably had a lot of homework and trying to get up with that. Then once we got through the initial policies and we could start the ride alongs. It was the meeting. And then most of them were trying to get their ride alongs. And so that would have been another two, three or four hours during that time. And then we got to the point where they were kind of, you know, meeting regularly, they were reviewing cases and then they had ad hoc committee work. So I've had members appointed to meet with me on policy review on use of force. Our immigration policy, they, they worked with me on. So we would have one on one meetings, you know, in between the meetings on those for those individual members. That was probably an additional hour or two a month. And then, you know, I might have three ad hoc committee members that I was working with each month. So. Great. Thank you so much. Anybody else have. Oh, chief. Thank you. Thank you, chief. When very much for being here tonight. Very informative. Most of my questions have been asked and answered. So the only remaining question I really have is, could you talk a little bit about the group's ability to take complaints? Sure. And actually this was some, this was probably one of the things within their granted authority that they struggled with the most. So the ordinance does allow them to take complaints. It didn't create a mechanism for them to receive complaints. So essentially we were left with our complaint intake process with our form and they were granted the authority to somehow kind of receive them. So we had to set up outside email for them and a mail drop box and stuff like that. But ultimately it really came down to, you know, is it was their responsibility to receive complaints or to assist with complaints. And this, you know, some, some members were like, was that mean if somebody contacts me and they want to file a complaint? Like I can write the complaint for them. And eventually the members agreed that that wasn't the intent of the ordinance. It was receive complaints. So they could send somebody a complaint, direct an advocate somewhere for a complaint, put somebody together with an advocate who was not necessarily a member, but the resident had to complete the complaint and then the member could receive it. They can receive them by email. They can receive them, you know, person. And then they really struggled because the ordinance did not create an external mechanism like the post. When they get them and they haven't actually gotten on this through that channel, but the only avenue they have is to forward it to me. And then it goes into the regular complaint resolution process. With the creation of post, that's going to change, but. Thank you very much. Could you talk a little bit about that? It feels like a good segue into. As long as nobody else has any questions about the PRB, I'm happy to switch. Sorry. Sorry to ruin the transition, but I had a couple of questions about the PRB. So you mentioned that, you know, well, we talked a little bit about collective bargaining, right? You've talked a little bit about, you know, looking at, at sort of, you know, statutory, statutory authority within the Commonwealth. I wondered if you'd talk a little bit about like civil service and how civil service may have factored into some of the constraints you guys may have felt setting up your, your review board initially. Sorry. That went right down the wrong pipe. I'll try. As a civil service police chief, I get frustrated by civil service all the time, but it's my life and it's all I know. If I had to speak for the members, I would say they were shocked and astounded by civil service. Like they just weren't prepared to deal with what that could, what the impact could be. We have a case you may be familiar with it. We terminated an officer from misconduct. They took it to arbitration. The arbitrator overturned our termination. We appealed it. We took it to Superior Court. And the judge basically said the arbitrator was wrong, but they didn't make an error of law. So I can't overturn this. We took that case to the SJC. But ultimately we had to reinstate that officer. That was all during the time that the PRB was being informed. And they were shocked. Okay, so here's a police department identified misconduct. Did all the right things. And here's these outside entities that are going to essentially undo all the work that they did. I mentioned that it wasn't strictly a civil service process because that particular officer picked the arbitrator, not the civil service commission. The reason they picked the civil, the arbitrator, not the civil service commission was at that point, we had had like a 15 year run that we hadn't lost a civil service. Like I said, our investigative process is pretty good. It's very thorough. But that possibility always exists. So you've got this outside entity. And I'm just talking about the stuff that PRB actually has some oversight and input on. They have tons of questions about hiring. We're restricted to hiring off a list of people that we don't have any information about. It's a bad business practice. And so one of the things we've done several studies in the city about coming out of civil service. And one of the things PRB has done is advocated and lobbied on behalf of the command for the administration to get us out. Again, we don't have any experience with the activities of PRB running up against civil service, but that's largely because our officers haven't used the civil service process since PRB was created. Anybody else have any questions? Sorry, I have one last one. You made mention that you had a fair amount of turnover, right? People are coming up on the end of their terms and perhaps not coming back. I mean, obviously you can't speak for those folks, but I wonder if you had any sort of sense of, you know, to my mind, right? It would be great to have a sort of, you know, length of tenure and continuity in that board, both for your sake and for the communities. I wonder, yeah. Again, I don't want to speak for any of the members. They've been meeting virtually, like as most of us have. That's caused some disconnect. And I will say that in the conversations I've had with them either in the meetings or individually offline, there's a enormous sense of frustration. And the reason is their role by ordinance is largely advisory. And so as I said, you know, they can, they can read my findings. They can read the investigative determinations. They can disagree with them, but they can't make me change them. And in a couple of cases, it's like, you know, I completely disagree with you chief. I'm like, I understand that. But, you know, one, you're looking at one investigative, the final investigative report. You haven't seen the whole investigation. So you got to give me a little latitude here. And the other, the other part of it is like during, so I told you how I was originally sending those policies for approval, final approval. And their own members came back and said, we reread the ordinance. We don't get to do that. You know, we get input on the policies, but we don't get to approve them. And so essentially that they're, okay. Their concern was we had a good relationship. But what if my successor didn't, you know, it would be largely an honorary kind of thing. So they invested a lot of time, talent, and energy in getting this board up and running. And I think, you know, many of them were, they were frustrated at where they found themselves during the pandemic. You know, good, bad, or otherwise, we didn't have a lot of cases. We weren't doing a whole lot of activity all the time. So we didn't generate a lot of cases. So they're coming to meetings and they were essentially hearing presentations and not doing a lot of work. Thanks. Thanks for the insight. And I'll, sorry, I'll stop asking questions now. It's okay. So police reform and the post commission. That, that is a monster. I don't, I don't know that I can do justice to everything that is in front of us. This Susan said during the introduction, I am one of the inaugural appointees to the post commission. I am Governor Baker's police chief appointee. I'm one of three police officers on the post commission. The other members of the post commission represent several different disciplines, including civil rights attorneys, faith community, forensic psychologist, our chair as a retired judge, social workers, specifically social workers who have worked in prosecution. And we have this, this charge to kind of stand up what in December, the governor signed his police reform. Some of it is very, very time specific. Some of it is, is more longitudinal. It's, you know, kind of work in progress. What I can tell you is the legislation got signed. On the last day of December, we didn't actually get appointed until I think April. We didn't actually meet for a couple of weeks after that. And then we had to dig into the work with some very, very difficult deadlines right in front of us. And we had to do that with no budget and no staff. So when we sat down to kind of lay our work out for us, we had to say, so I'll say three and then the third one will kind of subdivide. We had three time sensitive critical tasks in front of us that, that we absolutely had to, to complete the deadlines were, were not negotiable. The very first one was we had to develop an issue, a set of guidelines. So guidelines, no statutory authority. Set of guidelines for deescalation strategies specifically when dealing with juveniles. That was number one. And we had to get that done. I think in June, the second one right after that, and this one is pending right now, is we had to work jointly with the municipal police training committee to issue a set of regulations, statutorily valid regulations on use of force prior to this set of regulations that's about to be disseminated. There was no statutory guidance on use of force. There was all case law and lesson plans. We were one of a handful of states left in the, in the nation that didn't have some regulations on use of force. And then the third time sensitive priority was to try to get some staff in place. Well, we were working on the first deadline. Governor Baker did request that on the finance side. So I haven't seen it all, but he did request a supplemental budget to help us get some staff in place. So they sent to start to locate some offices and get some infrastructure in place. And then they did approve us to start the process of hiring three key positions. Those key positions being the executive director, the general counsel, and the director of information technology. I'll go back and talk about the two processes first, and then I'll talk about those three key positions. So the. So far, the way this work has been going is that the chair appoints the handful, usually three members of the commission to work outside of regular commission meetings and work to kind of come up with the, the. Rough outline of the language and what we might be looking at draft a template. That we meet with the entire commission and a public meeting. So we've got that template goes back to the working group, working group hashes it out again, might meet with some constituents or some stakeholders. And then we take it back for approval. On the use of force guidelines are on the guidelines for de-escalation juveniles. That was pretty much the process we had here too. There was a couple of hiccups in that one. I think the first major hiccup was nobody could find a agreed upon definition of de-escalation. We had to work that one out. And then the second one was we couldn't agree on what was meant by the word juvenile, depending on what your background and experience was that was anywhere from 17 to 25. And so we kind of had to have to negotiate that one. Ultimately, we came up with a nationally recognized definition of de-escalation and we hit on 18 and younger for juvenile and we managed to hammer that out with the assistance of outside assistance from strategies for youth. And so we got that one out. Actually, it wasn't as painful as I thought it was going to be. But again, it's guidelines. There's no requirement. It's a best practice or recommended best practice. There's no requirement for police departments to adopt them right away. It'd be wise if they did. But particularly in that one, we realized that some of the smaller departments, the hilltown departments, rural departments, there's they're not going to be able to make some of that stuff happen. They just don't have the personnel or the resources. The second one was the use of force regulations. And obviously that was a heavier lift because that is going to be statutory. It's going to be by law. And we had to do that with the municipal police training committee that had to be issued jointly. So the same process I outlined, but put in a series of negotiating meetings between our working group and the MPTC working group. And then everybody has to go back to their stakeholders and put all that in that. That was a. That was a heavy lift that that was, that was a lot of making the sausage. But they were subject to a public hearing. I want to say four weeks ago, Friday, three weeks ago last Friday. And the input, the written testimony from the public hearing was accepted by both working groups. It was renegotiated. And we've learned last Friday that that's being sent to the Secretary of State's office. So that, that one should be done. And now that brings us to the, the three key positions. So the three key positions got to have somebody who's a, a paid professional running. Running the office of the post commission besides the commissioners because only chair Hinkle is a full-time commissioner. The rest of us in secilateral duty. And then the general counsel, because we've been relying on a lot of outside counsel. So we really, you know, need some legal eyes on the work that we're doing because some of, some of my fellow commissioners are attorneys, but most of us are not. And then the third key position is going to be our director of IT and that, that's probably the key position because a lot of what's included in the statute is this requirement for publicly viewable databases. There's 330 some on police departments in the Commonwealth. They all have different records keeping systems. We got to figure out a way to get them into one centralized location, consolidate them, and then put them out in a way that can be viewed by the public. And we need to do that for both training and discipline. And in most police departments, those are two separate software suites. So it's, it's twice as complicated. The good news is that executive directors Uniga started today. We got through the hiring process for him. That was announced last week and he is on the job. I checked before I logged into this zoom. His LinkedIn has been updated. He is now the executive director of the Commonwealth post commission. It's official. The general counsel based on our last public post commission meeting. We've, we've authorized chair Hinkle to proceed with that. They had already done a preliminary set of interviews and she was down to two candidates. So we expect to have the general counsel in place very shortly. I don't have a timeframe on the IT director because it needs to be somebody who's not just familiar across all systems with somebody who's familiar with the Commonwealth systems. So that's, that's going to be a very niche position. After those three key positions is when it gets very, very complicated because essentially within the post commission, we have to build two offices. One office is the certification office. That's the office that's kind of kind of look at all the training records and figure out who's certified, who continues to be certified, who's not going to be certified. And then the other is, I don't have the statue in front of me. So I can't remember exactly. It's essentially the investigative branch. It's going to be that office within the post that's going to receive complaints. And in some cases investigate complaints. That's really going to depend on this, the sending agencies ability to do good investigations themselves. Cause they're not going to redo them all. They'll review them and then deliver a finding, but there are departments out there that don't have an internal affairs capacity. So they'll have to do those. I've received a ton of questions from the chiefs. Chief Flaherty is aware. How do we get this information to the post? We don't know yet. We set up a generic email address and said, you know, if you've got stuff coming in on training, you got stuff coming in on complaints, just email them there. Somebody will disseminate it, but there's nobody there to receive it right now. We just, we did what we didn't want is chiefs to get a random email 14 months from now saying everything for the last 14 months, send it now. So we're just telling them to kind of keep up with it as it goes. The big issue that is looming out there and honestly, it hasn't come up in a post commission meeting yet. I brought it up as a, you know, something we need to keep on the radar is this issue that is going to come to its head in the near future. About the thousands of part-time trained officers, the reserve intermittent officers who are working as reserve officers, their campus, the special state police officers. For the most part, the responsibility for how they remain certified and what the training is relies with the MPTC. The MPTC kind of has to send their plan to us and we kind of have to, you know, agree or send it back to be reworked. The MPTC and chief Flaherty may know I didn't have the opportunity to attend the meeting. They came out with a recommendation that was not well received by a lot of the chiefs. And so they had to go back to the drawing board last week to try to determine, you know, how they could tweak this. Essentially what they've come up with is a set number of training hours that needs to be documented and logged in combination with a set number of hours worked. And it's not either or it's both and. And I don't have any part-time officers, so I didn't really have a clear understanding of this. But some of my fellow chiefs who did have part-time, who do have part-time officers, there's just no way somebody who has another job and, you know, has been doing this a couple of days a month for the last 20 years is going to be able to meet both of these requirements. So it's very much up in the air right now. I know that my colleagues at the MPTC are working really, really hard to try to figure out a path forward. It's there's a time crunch on that because a third of the a third of the officers sorted by alphabet stand to lose their certification if they don't work it out. So we got to kind of get a plan in place. That's that's the down and dirty on the post commission. Okay. Does anybody have any questions now? Thank you so much. This has been. Sorry. Mr. Newman has a question. He was just being polite. But Carlos is going to go first. So I was waiting for you new doing to come out first. Chief, just just one quick question. Thank you so much for all the information that you give us today. That's fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. In your mind by this investigative branch, by this office over there. How do you think it might be able to be used by some of the smaller communities that might have a smaller board, you know, some kind of review work that they don't have staff. They don't have any of these things. So maybe they can just maybe the local review boards can receive something and they say, you know, there's something here. And then we understand, can we remit it to the state where maybe they can go around and look at this. And they have professionals and maybe they, you know, so they're like, maybe it's like to level that. I just want to understand. So I can't, I can't speak for the legislature. In looking at the statute, like, I think that's what they wanted, but I'm not, I'm not sure how they expected to accomplish it. So one of the interesting things about the investigative office is that the staff they hire. Can't be prior law enforcement. So I don't know how you get experience in doing detailed personnel related internal investigations. If you're not a trained law and law enforcement, internal affairs investigator. So we don't know where they're going to draw the investigators from. We can assume that they're going to come from the ranks of like insurance investigators, but a lot of those in New England are prior law enforcement. Or some type of. Legal. And that, you know, the investigators assigned to like the AG's office who are not state troopers. But we don't, that pool is not that large. So we don't really know. I can tell you, you know, it's going to come off as a little flip and facetious when the governor signed the bill and some of the stuff went into effect overnight. We were asking the executive office of public safety and security. Where do we send these complaints? And they're like, send them to the ops. They said, okay, what are you going to do with them? I'm going to send them back to the chief. And the agency that the complaint was generated because they didn't have any other answer. And so for the last couple of months, that's kind of been the answer, right? Let send it to the professionals, have somebody up there to audit the quality of the work. And then we'll go back from there. But that doesn't address the. So, you know, when I started doing some work in early 2020 and I was trying to figure out. Internal affairs in Berkshire County. I did a survey of my fellow Berkshire County chiefs, the president of the Berkshire chiefs did a survey. There was no other department in Berkshire County that had an internal affairs capability. They just didn't have it. Now, most of them are small world departments. So I get it. But even the chiefs hadn't been to school. So we hit, you know, we had to give them some resources and do some sharing. But under the new law, if a department doesn't have that capacity and they should, they're not going to have any choice. They're going to have to send it to this, this post office. Not the U.S. post office, the office within the post. The problem is, I don't know, like I know. I know what we're allowed to have as far as investigators. I don't know how we're going to get there. And I don't know how these handful of investigators, because the departments you're describing are the majority of the departments in the Commonwealth. I don't know how they're going to cover that many departments. I think what may happen is they'll sub some of it back. But I'm, that mechanism has to be worked out. Thank you. No, that was going to be along. I was going to ask along the same line. So I think that's. No, thank you again, chief wind. This has been, you know, hearing it laid out, you know, it's one thing to sort of read news reports and put together bits and pieces from talking to different people. It's great to hear it. The one thing I will say relative to this line of questioning about what these investigations are going to look like. And again, I don't, I don't know your community well. I'm slightly familiar with it. I've been through there. I don't know the culture, but I've had this conversation with other chiefs. And one of the things we've seen, not just with my local experience, but with civilian oversight across the board, or if you're using non law enforcement investigators is the findings in the discipline actually tend to be lighter. And the discipline tends to be lighter. So like my concern is disparity of findings. Right. So let's say I'm not going to use that department to the north of me. They're in the news too much. I'll pick a small town in the south of me. Let's say somebody files a complaint against an officer and Otis. For some type of minor misconduct. It's not, it's not rudeness, but it, you know, it's not, they're not going to get fired for it. And on the same day, somebody files a complaint for the same misconduct against an officer in my department. Otis doesn't have an internal affairs function. They send it to the post. I signed it to my internal affairs team. Post does the investigation on the Otis officer. My team does the investigation. We slap my officer with a five day suspension because that's the limit of what I can do as the chief of police. The post commission comes back and delivers us a finding of sustained with a recommendation for a two day suspension or worse yet a finding of not sustained. Now I have to send my investigation of my discipline to them. And now they've got two complaints received on the same day. For two completely identical things with two disparate findings and disciplines. Because there's two processes. I don't know how that's going to resolve itself. I don't know how that's going to resolve itself. Doesn't this happen around the state? Already. I mean, I know it doesn't have to be adjudicated in a. It does, but they're never compared. That's, that's now they're all going to end up in the same database. So if you're the person who filed the complaint and Otis. And you see what I did in Pittsfield, you're going to want to know why they can get the same. Yep. Right. So. And I'll be honest, as much as you see that as a, as much as you see that as an aspect, honestly, right? Right. And, and you know, because it can cut both ways. And it can, but my fear as an experienced police chief is it's going to reduce discipline. Yeah. I hear you. Why? Because somebody in your position. So why, why, why is your fear that it would reduce discipline and not. It's going to lower, it's going to lower the curve. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Any last questions for chief when this has been, this has been really great. Like, I think. Sanjay or Carlos was saying to actually sort of like, especially following we met with Brian core a couple. A month or two ago, sort of like get more on the ground. Like this is how it's. How you've been able to develop something in Pittsfield that. You know, had many iterations, which is also the history was really helpful and interesting too. I think since we're right. This were the, as far as I know, the first body in Arlington thinking about this. Outside of the police department, but thank you. And I know. Contact information. If we have any. As does chief Flaherty. Yes. All right. Well, good luck. If I can be of assistance. Let me know. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Very interesting. You're quite welcome. Okay. That was so, so interesting. I want. I feel like I really hope people are watching. Our Acme videos. They are. Okay. So I think that the next thing. Does anybody want to talk about anything from the. From chief wins program? Before we move on to the rest of our agenda. Sanjay. I don't have an, I won't. So, okay, then I'm going to go back to the agenda, which is in front of me here. And I think the first thing is to approve minutes from prior meetings. Sanjay. Yes. I can share. Can I share? Oh, do I have to do something? No, no, no, no. I just have to find the right one. The eighth. Okay. You guys should see these are them. September 8th. Minutes that I circulated. Sorry, I'm looking away from you to my other screen. Oops. That won't work if I do that. Sorry. Okay. Here they are. Let's just double check at least on the. Attendance. I have everybody present except Karen and. Carrie, I think the last time around. And I didn't get any corrections by email. I don't know. I'll just scroll through here. And people speak up if you had any. Thing before we. Otherwise. Somebody will move to. Move to approve the minutes. Second. Doug is here. Not here. So I can take. The roll call vote. We are voting on a motion to accept the September 8th minutes that have been. Submitted to all members. Carlos. Yes. Sanjay. Yes. Kathy. Yes. Karen. Yes. Bob. Yes. And Susan. Yes. So. You, you have to vote as well. Oh yes. That's why it helps when Doug does it. Great. The next item on the agenda is updates from committees, constituencies, which has become sort of our standing thing on our agenda. I don't know who's met since our last meeting, which was pretty recently, but I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Carlos, do you have anything? No, I will be meeting. Then in the next meeting. The DTG presenting the report. And then I'll bring back any, any feedbacks. They. You know, I'll show them the questions that we, you know, we had last time. Karen. I know we meet this Wednesday. Okay. And Kathy. Nothing to report. Okay. And I think that's everybody with a committee. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Susan. I always forget, Susan. Nothing to report. Okay. Okay. I was just going to offer for folks that are meeting with their committees coming up. If you, if you'd like. You know, company presenting our report, I'd be more than. Well, depending on whether I can make it or not. Right. I might be more than happy to, you know, come with, or. You know, if you would like, if you would like to make it. If you would like to make it. If you would like to make it. If you would like to make it. If you would like company, basically. I might take you on that. Sure. Yeah. Anybody who wants, let me know. I don't want to speak for Lauren and for Laura and Susan, but they might be willing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Next is an outreach plan update. So I'm going to send it over to Susan. I'm sorry. I thought I'm just calling up. Okay. So lots of updates for you. First, I just want to offer a clarification that I did email out to the committee, but I just want to offer it in this meeting in case anybody is, you know, watching on ACMI. And I'm just going to say that I think that we, we were adding police officers to the list of groups that we were having outreach to, given that chief Flaherty is on the study committee. And if one person's wondering this, I'm sure other people are as well. So I just want to share the response that I sent back. And I'll just read it. So. One of the things our study committee is benefiting from is the community. And I'm just going to send it over to Susan and follow their model. Not surprisingly, you can't find any reports or recommendations regarding police reform without explicit mention of the need to center the voices of people from communities that have been historically over policed and under protected black indigenous and other people of color and LGBTQI plus people. Those same reports. Urging the centering of these voices are equally explicit and recommending the inclusion of police in the reform process. We have a report on the president's task force on 21st century policing. A review of the president's task force report by the international association of police. And locally, most interestingly, the recent review of civilian police relations in Lexington included numerous interviews and listening sessions with police from all ranks, which resulted in new information about the racism experienced by some black officers in the interactions with Lexington's majority white population. So I'm just going to go back to that. I wanted to state that, you know, on the record in our meeting for any other members of the public who are wondering why we would proactively seek to involve police officers in this process. Okay. Other updates. Jill and I met. Last week, I think it was. And Jill has kindly offered the services of her office to set up a meeting to do since Jill has been in town. She's done a ton of community engagement, a ton of community outreach has a lot of contacts already. And she also had some terrific suggestions for adding some people to our list. So what we, she is going to help us set up meetings with BIPOC people who live or work in Arlington, people who live in public housing, faith communities, veterans, immigrants and refugees, students and parents of students who've had interactions with the police. A meeting conducted in, in Jill, I can't remember if it was Spanish or Japanese, whatever the language is in town that is the second most one spoken after English. But at least one meeting conducted in another language other than English. And also town employees, as Jill pointed out to me, a lot of town employees live here. They know a lot and they are often not asked their opinion. So am I missing anything, Jill? Okay. Jill also is going to set up a Google form. So when invitations are sent out to folks, if they're unable to attend the meeting, they'll have a Google form which will have standard questions and there'll be an option for filling out that form confidentially or anonymously. And that's a form that we can just publicize even beyond those invitations if we want to get, you know, as much input into our process as we can. And I think those were the big updates on our community process. And I think that's one of the things that we need to do. And with the, with the. Joyous takeaway that Jill's office is going to help us with this. So. Thanks, Jill. Thank you, Jill. That's awesome. Yeah. Okay. The next item on the agenda is new business, which I just put there to as a hopeful catch-all for anything that comes up. So the agenda for the meeting is that we were, we were going to get on the agenda for a select board meeting. So we are on the agenda for next Monday, select board meeting, which is September 27th at seven 15. I don't think we know where in the agenda we will fall. So I have no idea what time it's going to be. And Susan and I want to present. The, the interim report and just an introduction to what our committee has been doing for the select board and anybody that watches select board meetings. And then we thought it's pretty important to. Give at least a, we only have 10 minutes. So this is not like a huge presentation, but it's important to give an introduction. To the models of civilian oversight that we've studied and learned about. And so since Carlos did that, that presentation many moons ago, I emailed him today to see if he might be available to do that part of the presentation. And I think he's good to go. So we will coordinate later in the week. I think that's a good point. I'd love to encourage anybody who is able to come to, it's a zoom meeting. Anybody from our committee who is able to watch the meeting. To do so. I think it'll be helpful to see what, if any questions. The select board members have for us. We know that. Like Len Diggins has been to a number of our meetings. So I think that's a good point. I don't really know what other people are thinking about. So if you can do that, Susan. I would just note that just point of interest folks, two members of the select board. Shared on their social media platforms. The interview that Sanjay did on ACMI, and that was a select board member, Eric Helmuth, and select board member Diane Mahon. They both shared the video interview. So that's exciting. It's sort of our beyond people choosing to come to our meetings, our first foray into the rest of larger Arlington. So I'm looking forward to that. Sort of. Susan, I think you had an update about the interim report. I do. So we have our interim report. We've approved it. And then we were going to add a section in about how complaints regarding police interactions get reported. And after, you know, drafting it and talking with chief Flaherty and also talking about this with Jill and talking about this with Kathy. I realized that people have different definitions of the word investigate and investigation. And how they're done. And while there's one official way to file complaints in Arlington, which is through the police department, sort of this informal ad hoc process has cropped up where people do go to the AHRC and they do go to Jill's office. And it seemed like we should maybe take a little bit more time to more accurately represent this process. So I think we're going to have to take a little bit more time to figure out how it's working, how it's not working. And toward that end, we thought it might be terrific actually to ask Jill to present on what she's experienced. And. Assisting residents with navigating this process just to learn a little bit more about how it's working. So. If anyone has any questions about that, I think we're going to have to take a little bit more time to answer that. So, so the idea is rather than put it adding that as a. And into this report, we'll have a further discussion and then perhaps issue some sort of. Document at that point. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. You're muted. Sorry. Jill has seen the interim report. So I think we're going to have to take a little bit more time to talk about the ADA reason all the, what we need to know. So we can publish what we have. I forgot I meant to check in with you, Jill, about who we should talk to about getting it translated. And in what languages to get it translated. So I will follow up with you about that. But to the point of having Jill. Yeah. So I think we're going to have to talk about this. So I think we're going to have to talk about this. And this talk to us at one of our future meetings. I wanted to check in with Sanjay about the. How much information you have or don't have yet. In order to come up with a schedule for future meetings. Yeah. I'm trying to think, I think almost, I think everybody that's here tonight. Responded to the doodle pool. We had a number of people not respond. So we can pick dates and we will have. If everybody who indicated their attendance shows up. Oh, Michael has his hand up. Or maybe I said, I said, no, I had a question about just the report. When would that be released? Yeah. Yeah. I had held off on putting it on to the committee webpage because I thought we were going to be voting on an amendment to it today. And I was like, I don't want to put two versions of it out there and deal with that. Now that we're not doing an amendment, I will have it on, or I will ask the town staff to put it on the website tomorrow. And then if any of you need it quicker than that, just email me and I will give it to you. But I'll email the committee once it's on our website. With the town. But yeah, I had, I had held off because I thought we were amending it and I didn't want to mess people up. So. No, thanks. It becomes a resource that I can point people to. Absolutely. Yep. No problem. That's a good question. In terms of dates. I'm going to apologize to Carlos because your dates were the opposite of almost everybody else on the committee. I'm so sorry. But. Or everybody that responded anyway. So I think we could do. October for October, the, I think we need two for October is what we had said, right? One for public input and one for a meeting for us. Yeah. And so the two dates in October. Or sorry, there are three dates that are equal in October, Wednesday, October 6th. Wednesday, October 13th. Or Wednesday, October 27th. Those all had. Equal. Yes, folks. So I think it would be good for us to hear. And is Jill available all of those dates? Yes. Yes. Okay. Because I think it would be great for us to have our us meeting where we hear from Jill before the public comment. Meeting. So. And just in the interest of not having meetings two weeks in a meeting. I think it would be good for us to have a meeting in October, October 27th. If that sounds good. And then it also gives us more time to. Get people out to show up. And then I don't have an opinion about the sixth versus the 13th for our meeting. Anybody. How long does Jill need to prepare? Right. Because that's. Yeah. Honestly, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Right now. Okay. Then we'll do the 13th at, and we will hear from Jill at that meeting and the 27th for. Public comment meeting. Then we can talk on the 13th. Also about how we want to structure. That meeting on the 27th. That's terrific. I see Bob has a question. Bob. I couldn't get at the doodle to fill it out. For some reason it was not responding to my trying to put something in. But for what it's worth, and it doesn't make any difference, but Wednesdays are definitely out for me. All through the month. But that's, but don't go on with it. Okay. All right. I'll follow up with you for making sure we get November straight. Okay. Is that okay? Does that work? I'm sorry. I couldn't, I couldn't access it. Yeah. For the future, just let me know if you have problems. And you can always, anybody can just send me dates directly if, if the poll doesn't work. Okay. All right. Thank you for future reference. Yep. No problem. Sorry about that. Do we have anything else that anybody needs to bring up? Cause otherwise. We can have a motion to adjourn. Okay. So I'm going to move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Thank you. I will do a roll call vote. Michael. You're voting on adjournment. You're muted. Yes. Thank you. Sanjay. Yes. Kathy. Yes. Karen. Yes. Bob. Yes. Carlos. Yes. And I vote yes. So the meeting is adjourned and I will put the 13th and the 27th. On the town calendar. Thank you. Thank you. Good meeting. Thank you both.