 Okay, it is 530. So I'd like to call this meeting this special meeting of the Longmont Housing and Human Services advisory board to order. Our first order of business is whether there's any public invited to be heard. No, there is not I did not get any requests from anybody to join the meeting either in person or by phone. Thank you. And it does look like we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven board members so we do have a quorum. Okay, so the reason that we got together tonight is the follow up to our regular meeting where we discussed the potential making a potential request to have council to redirect 10% of the policing budget towards the Housing and Human Services advisory housing human services budget. So we do have two variations of the letter one created by the group the board member group that was put together to look at language given the feedback that was given during the last meeting. And then another variation which was put together by staff and consideration of their insight into the mechanisms of Longmont City Government and how that may or may not influence success. So I thought what would be helpful if unless somebody wants to just jump in and make a motion and we can have all this discussion within that. What I thought would be helpful is just to hear from each group a representative of each group on the rationale behind the wording in the document and proceed that way. I am open to emotion if somebody wants to start there we're going to end there anyway so you know we can have all this discussion within the motion as well. It's I'm agnostic on which way it happens but I'm certain that some discussion will be a benefit to the group. Mr Vice Chair. Thanks Mr. Chair. If you want the motion now I can make it I would actually probably more comfortable hearing from folks before before emotions made just to make sure that before we anyone here on this board states an opinion will wear another that that everybody involved in the process is a chance to get their thoughts out. I think that might be helpful. I tend to agree with that if that's acceptable to the other board members and let's go ahead and do that. So our board committee not committee our working group was comprised of Graham Madeline and Diana. Yep. Thank you. So why doesn't one of you open it up with your if you can just you know some background on the structure of the letter and why it was you wanted to create it the way that you did. So you're all just not doing anything. I'll start. Excellent. Thank you Madeline. The rationale my rationale behind it was to make it make it a little more firm firm to city council so they wouldn't just read it and push it aside. And so I spent a considerable amount of time writing a letter and I forward that letter to I forwarded that letter to I forwarded that letter to Alberto and Alberto I'm not sure I was I don't know. I thought I thought it would be shared with all of the board members but I'm pretty sure he added to it. So other yeah other than that that was my my intent to make it stronger. Right. So so so for Malin say yeah Malin sent her letter and then the subcommittee and then I made those edits and then I sent it out to the subcommittee one last time for revisions and then Graham revised it and I sent it back out for any further comments or revision hearing none I sent I gave that to Nicole to send out to the board. So it was based on Malin's original letter and then Graham's revisions my edits and Graham's revisions to that to those edits. Thank you Alberto. Madeline I just want to ask you on this point of of edits are you satisfied with the way that the letter turned out relative to your own intentions. Oh yeah yeah it's okay I just would have preferred to have been notified of that but but it reads well it's a it's a little lengthy but maybe my maybe mine was two I don't know. Okay. All right. Thank you. I have one other question. I guess my question is if we were working on this if they were going to do it on what why did they need why we why what was our purpose. Yeah that's a good question. Madeline so let's if you don't mind let's do this let's hear from Graham and Deanna and then I think when we address the second version. Ella Bertone Karen will have an opportunity to give a more detailed response to your question. That sounds good for you. Very well. Okay thank you. Deanna would you like to weigh in. Yeah so you know I spent a lot of time reflecting and thinking about how this letter should be drafted in the most effective way to try and communicate our points and I think obviously the main difference between these two positions is the advocating 10 percent reallocation from the police budget and I can see the pros and cons to both of these approaches but I think that subcommittee and our discussions were, we were interested in two things, right? Like making sure that we increase the budget if we can for our services. And also sort of being a little incendiary to try and get the ball rolling to get the community engaged in having this discussion, right? And I think if you take away that concern, then the second letter is probably more effective. I'm sort of, I guess, giving you my thoughts on the second letter and I'm not sure that you asked for that, but I'm doing it anyway. But it may be more effective in terms of not alienating counsel, but it certainly isn't gonna really push the envelope, I don't think, but so I think we all need to talk about whether that's our motive here or not, our motivation. That's really helpful, thank you. Graham, would you like to comment? Sure, I think as a general report about how the meeting went is Deanna and Madeline both submitted revised versions of the letter and then the committee reviewed both of those versions and Ellie Berto in real time before us sort of cut and paste and wove those two letters together. And then we added some language and took away some language. So that's how the structure of the meeting went such that Ellie Berto came up with the letter you see here. I think I personally was a little surprised about how the subcommittee went. I feel like the feedback, some of the feedback I got from the larger group prior to included removing the relationship with the police, included detailing how much money and how is it to be distributed, et cetera. And I think the subcommittee group decided that a lot of those issues were in the purview of council and not us. And so it seemed like we were settled in on the letter needs to be sort of this value proposition. And then we added some interesting points about suggesting they request feedback from, VIPOC groups about their interface with the police, et cetera and a couple of other main points. But yeah, I think the intent is to continue to be in the area or provocative or to make a statement about number one, mainly that nonprofits need funding. We did before COVID and now all the more because of COVID and we think it's worth mentioning and relating to the issue about the public safety department and their funds. And then we mentioned those three programs, which are Angel Initiative and those and we discussed that and we discussed how those are in large parts funded by grants though there is a baseline funding which comes from the department. Anyway, we wanted to specifically call those out as something we really want to encourage and appreciate about public safety. I think that's all I have to say about it. Okay, I've got a couple of questions, but I want to, you know, I think let's just try to have a dialogue like we did the last meeting. Well, let me think through this. I probably should have done this before we jumped on. Actually, if I may, let me ask Ella Bertone, Karen to kind of walk through their version and then let's open it up for discussion and make sure everybody's comfortable with what we know. Jake, you okay? Just pensive? Just kind of my general attitude, Mr. Chair. Yes, I totally get it. Okay, all right. So Karen Ella Bertone, do one of you want to open up with a kind of viewpoint on your own creation? How about Karen? Do you want me to go? Yeah. So, so Madeline to your point, your question is, it really wasn't our intent, and also I'll speak to me. And I expressed my- Sorry, hang on one second, Karen. I think you're cutting out a little bit. Is it just me or- Yeah, no, I can't hear her. Sorry, you're cutting out. I'm going to get closer. Better? No, no. No? No, not- I have a new computer. Okay, that was better, what you just said was better. Oh, so I guess I'll yell, no. So, so the intention wasn't for staff, or I didn't have to write a letter again, but I was, I rested at the last meeting that that 10% redirect, I felt very strongly was a non-starter. And so certainly I'm involved in the budget process. I know what we are looking at in terms of one budget. Karen, I can't hear Karen, Brian. So don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Let's just go ahead and go ahead with the meeting. It's okay. So, you know, so it really was that 10%. And going back to what I think what Brian had identified in terms of what we wanted to try to highlight, and maybe it's actually really what's the purpose, what are the, what's the purpose? What I had written down was money for human services is our number one priority. And then advocate, address about our whole culture and our community and address PD in their role. And then to really talk about what is our role as an advisory board in that work and to be provocative. So those were the five things that I had written down. So what I, so I just felt very strongly and I wanted to just articulate it that if city council, if we presented this letter to city council, city council said staff, what do you think? That is what I think is what Elevator and I wrote. So that, so we wrote that. And so council asked the question. I wanted the advisory board to know this is how I would answer that question. I think that having more money for human services agencies, we are on a path for that. Advocate the staff on that path. I am certainly working on other avenues to get the funding available. We do want to start investing, I think more in how do we keep people even out of needing to contact the police department, you know, for getting their human services? How do we make sure that everyone helps with certain lives and has to be protected? That they aren't getting involved in criminal justice. So they aren't having to call 911 when they need basic services. I think, you know, we can all, I mean, my sense is that we can all agree with that. And we do need some more money and greater investments. That, and I just don't think the same take 10% from the services budget when I know we are, we are going to be sure in terms of our 20 revenues and the $1.1 million in this fund. I just think that our message about the importance of funding adjustment, all those things will get lost and will be discussed. I think that we have a path forward if we advocate for communities to get. So we're going to get $2.1 million, you know, no. But is there more money that we can try to advocate for? And I think we can get in the 21 budget, even though we are looking at reduced revenues. So I'm just saying, we're working it. We're trying to get, you know, when we're trying to stay on course 10%, dealing off for public safety and services, very strongly that that is not the right strategy. Our effectiveness. So then the council asked, Ellie Berto, I'll just say yes, Karen. So what do you think? What I would say is what is in the letter. There are many parts that, you know, we tried to capture the essence of some of the things we saw in the letter that we put together. We even, hey, we were going to, we considered the 10% ask. So we tried to, I tried, Ellie Berto tried to capture what we thought were some of the points out saying give us 10%. That was the main issue. So I wanted you to know that they asked me a question. What do you think, Karen? That is what I would say. And I just thought it was important for you all to know that. I don't know, Ellie Berto, if you want to add anything. Yeah, so thank you. And before Ellie Berto speaks, so we could hear, at least I could, most of what you said. I followed the thread. You may check your audio settings. If it's a new computer, maybe there's something or it could be your ear buds. It's good. Just throwing it out there and we'll let Ellie Berto fill in. Brian, I couldn't hear Karen just for the record. Okay, thank you, Madeleine. Ellie Berto? Yeah, I think I'm gonna, I think to Karen's point, right, when I, I mean, I brought it up at the subcommittee, my concerns about the 10% and the, I agree with what we talked about that we have one opportunity. And I think for me, I wanted to honor the idea of the provocativeness and the idea of addressing, you know, the realities of institutional and systemic racism that is everywhere and Longmont is not immune from that. So I wanted to make sure that that was upfront and center, which why when I drafted it, it's in the first or second paragraph. And at the same time, I've been talking to nonprofits. I've been hearing from nonprofits. I've been seeing surveys and nonprofits filling out the funders collaborative and just seeing and hearing the reality of the struggles they're facing as far as financially is concerned. I've sat on a couple of committees for both community foundations, Longmont and Boulder Foundation, when they were giving out, when they were awarding some of their COVID response dollars. And so I really, really believe that it's highly important that whatever we can, if we can, if it's possible, that we increase the level of funding that we can provide to ensure that, you know, some of our most important safety net nonprofits in the area continue to thrive and serve in a time when they have been needed more than ever before. So that's kind of my focus is, want to make sure that we honor what the board is looking for as far as addressing racism. And we want to make sure that we're the most successful as possible to increase funding to support these nonprofits. So that was my take when I helped draft this letter from the staff. Thank you, Karen. So can you hear me now? I took my earbed out. Yes. Okay, all right. Thank you. Sorry. I'm saying kind of, I can hear it, but. There's like static coming in on like every other word, which is making it hard to understand like the full context. Right. That's why I was putting my earbed. I don't know. Go ahead and give it a shot, Karen. It's important that you're able to- Well, I don't have to give me a few more to say. I just wanted to check to see if this audio is better. I find it to be better. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So let's go ahead and have a discussion. Is there anybody who has- Oh, Graham, go ahead. So I'm curious to ask staff if the- Is it that you don't think the right thing to do is to reallocate 10% or you just don't think it's an ask that council will take seriously or absorb like, I guess, which one of that? Which one is that? I would say both, Graham. I think it's both. I answered your question, so I don't really want to have me to say anymore. Thank you. Yeah, because we did talk about that there are, I mean, no one is perfect, obviously, but I think the fact that you all had quite a bit of discussion at the last meeting, about some of the work that the Lama Police Department is doing, has been doing to really try when they do come in contact with people who have disease or health issues, substance abuse, whatever. I think that the department believes it's darned strongly that those problems should not be solved in the community justice. So they have put into place the programs to really try to divert people who are really struggling from the criminal justice system into getting the services that we heard that, I think from Madeline, no, Madeline, here's me, but what she talked about when, you know, that Linda had really been talking to my butler about that. So, you know, I just don't think, we also talked about not punishing another department in this. So I just believe that it's not the, I don't believe in that strategy and I also think it's not gonna get it for me. But I think everything else in the letter, you know, if it was at 10%, I think you did a great job with the letter, I think it reflected our conversation. You know, I might not agree with everything, but I don't have to agree with everything, but it really is that it's really effective. Can I say something? Karen, yes, Karen, go ahead. I just, why can't we say like 10% of the budget that we're asking for, if the police can use that 10% to do, to put it toward human services? You know, I mean, why would we have to take it away from the police when if they, you know, allotted 10% of that budget to go toward human services? And that way they wouldn't take it away from the police, but they'd have to prove or show that 10% of that budget would go toward helping mental health in situations like that. I don't know. The only thing I would say to that, Karen, is that when you talk about a $2.1 million reduction, you're talking about layoffs. So I mean, you really, they are, it's big. So it's not that easy. So we're just saying, and I think, so that kind of hit on top of the reduction that we're gonna have is basically we're saying, hey, layoff folks that work in public safety have additional money. Caitlin? Thank you. So I can say for me, I fully understand where staff is coming from in terms of advising what they think the city will do. I can also say that I think our police budget needs to be reduced. I think the money needs to be out of the hands of people who have guns. I think that it needs to very clearly be distinct and separate. And so I think that it's really important to not just say in this time and to what we're reacting to, that it is not just about increasing human services. It is also about reducing the possibility of those funds getting reallocated next year within the police department to something that can be used to harm members of our community. I know that, I think it's, for me, it's really, it's tough because there are, I do think there are good police officers, but the system in which they operate, regardless of where that is, is a system that relies on using violence and guns to ensure compliance with laws. And I really just think that in order to expand our imagination about what it looks like to have public safety, it means that we need to reallocate those funds to other places. I mean, even just looking at the total budget for public safety in Longmont and then the police sub-budget as compared to like the human services that we're putting into the community here, there's a huge difference there. And granted, that's not all the city is spending on housing and human services, but there's a huge disconnect there. And I think that it's really important to make a statement that this is not, that this is about responding to that call from communities of black, indigenous, and other people of color that's saying, we need to divest from police specifically and invest in community scaffolding. And so I think like, for me, I will always say like, let's fund more human services, but it's important to have that pairing of divesting and investing together. Thank you, Caitlin. Other questions, comments? Jake, yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I take it we're kind of in the general discussion section of this conversation now. So I think I would ask folks on the board, and first of all, I wanna say I appreciate the position staff is in and I understand where they're coming from. You know, a letter from an advisory board saying something like this could certainly start a community-wide conversation that isn't necessarily the community-wide conversation that staff or council wanna have. I get that. I get the position that that creates for them. But I think for, and I understand also, you know, kind of the fundamental thing that we have to ask ourselves in this conversation is what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to make a statement about exactly what Caitlin's talking about, the gap between how we fund law enforcement and how we fund human services, or are we trying to simply make a statement about funding for our funding cycle and the plan that counts along? Those are, I think, the choices. And wherever you come down in that conversation about what the point of this is is I think you're gonna come down here. For me, the point of it's pretty clear. And I think we as a board have an obligation to speak plainly about, since we started the conversation, you know, about whether or not law enforcement is really the best and most effective provider of human services in our community. About whether we as a community believe that we should be asking law enforcement to remain the number one mental health provider in Boulder County and in our community. Or do we wanna say, hey, council, recognizing fully that the likelihood of council seriously considering a 10%, I mean, I think I wanna make this acknowledgement, recognizing that they would seriously consider making that budget adjustment. It's pretty small, pretty thin, pretty slim. But we as a board, starting that conversation and encouraging that discussion and saying, you know, what are we as a community going to try and do to create an environment where all of our residents feel safe and where our law enforcement and our human services sector doing the roles that they're supposed to do and asking that question, which we've asked many times in these calls, you know, are the services being provided by law enforcement on the human services side, really someone, do you need someone with a gun showing up to a mental health welfare check? You need someone. And I think what we're doing by sending that first letter, which I applaud the task force for the work and I thank staff for their assistance as well and something I'm sure is not the most comfortable thing in the world. What we do by sending that first letter to council to saying, no, we wanna have this conversation. We wanna have this conversation about human services needs and whether or not we need to reconfigure some of this. So I am fully supportive of the first letter. I'll wait to make a motion until there's further discussion, but that's where I'm at right now. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Ann? Well, I am not in support of the first letter. I think asking to defund 10% is not only realistic, but we do not know really how the department is working right now. I'd rather see somebody do an audit on the department and really see how they're doing. I know they have statistics. I know they have boards that look over what they do. I'd really like to know how they are doing and hear from the public how they think they're doing. And then I read the letter that Karen sent from, was it Dan, Karen? And you know, he talked about- Yeah, that was an email that Polly passed through from Dan. Yeah, oh, that's right, Polly sent. And he's talked about more work still needs to be done. I'd rather find out what that work is. I'd rather ask counsel to really see how the department, the police department is doing and then see what still needs to be done. Because I don't think it's good to just label a department a certain way when they may not be like that. It's like, I guess I take it kind of personally because a lot of people talk about social workers in that manner also. And I've worked really hard for like 20 years and it just feels like kind of a label to me without even knowing what kind of work I've done without really knowing what kind of work the police department has done. And they, yes, they do take guns out to these calls and thank God because I've been with them in the middle of the night going into a home and having to take children out of the house when you just go in there and think it's just gonna be a little talk with parents and it becomes violent and scary and you have to take kids out of the house. And so I think to just think that you could just hope that these calls will not be violent is just naive. I just don't know what I would have done without them or what we would do without them. And so I am not, I would, I'm glad that staff came up with another letter. I think the letter that you all did was really amazing. I really liked it. I just can't really get on board with it. I think like Madeline, the work she's done with the Boulder Police Department is amazing. You know, what happened there was absolutely horrible and I admire her for getting involved and really putting herself out there to take care of that because she was asked to do it because they knew she'd do a good job. But I just, I can't go along with it not knowing how the department is working because I mean, do you wanna get in your car after people bomb it all over in it? Do you wanna be spitting the eye? I mean, the job is so hard to not know how that department is really working or not. I think it's just a slap in the face to say we're gonna defend you. Karen Phillips? Yeah, I just, did anybody see that editorial about that policeman that wrote in this morning and the Times call? He just commented that basically what he was saying in the end there is that the police could use more training, you know, and why couldn't we, you know, say something about taking that 10% and then using it for training on mental health issues? You know, I don't know why, maybe I see it too simply but why we can't, you know, but the guy was just saying, you know, people want this and the police have given him that and people want this and the police have given him that and he finally said, you know, we could use with more training, you know, the police officers could use more training on mental health. Thank you, Kate, Wynn and then Jake. I think to respond to that, there is, there have been several studies done on anti-bias training and mental health training for police and as far as I'm aware and what I've read, which I have actually read fairly extensively on this, there is zero indication that it reduces use of force or that it protects or reduces the number of black and brown people who are killed in this country. Zero evidence. There is an anecdote from a man, a black man who conducted anti-bias training for a police force in Texas. They were all in on that training. They did it for three years. They trained every police officer. They trained every member of their public safety team. That same police department, one of those officers he trained, attacked him during protests recently, broke his arm and put him in the hospital. That bias training did not protect that man from being hurt. And I totally get like the desire and the belief that training can do this, but I think that the training exists within the context of how policing works. And if it's not evidence-based, I don't think we should put our money into it. I don't think we should be putting our money into training folks in a way that we don't know actually protects members of our community, which I think is the thing that like, and also it ends up that like that training budget is still within the control of a police department, which means they're the ones who are picking who's doing it, how it's done, you know, those sorts of things. And I just, like, that's all I'm saying about that. Thank you, Caitlin. Jake. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just to echo a little bit of what Caitlin was saying, if you go and look at some of the work from groups like A Can't Wait, you know, some other organizations that have worked on this issue, the data kind of reflects kind of that reality that what changes policing is not necessarily training, but it's policy. When policy changes are made, then that's the most effective way to get where we wanna go. I think kind of just reflecting on what Ann said, and I really appreciate what Ann has to say. As I mentioned here before, my dad was caught in the city for 14 years. I recognize it's an awfully hard job that broke him mentally. It's a brutal job. But I think what we're asking the city to consider by sending this is not about any one department. It's not about Longmont. It's not about any one organization. It's about a system that isn't working. It's not working. And how do we wanna be a leader as a community in addressing systematic reform? And how do we wanna go above, you know, having a good police department, which I think we do. Saying we're gonna make some real systemic changes here that really can put us at the forefront of leading. And asking questions about our cops, the right delivery system for human services, which is kind of what we're asking them to do right now. Or are the nonprofits that we support the right delivery system for those human services? And are those dollars gonna be more effectively utilized if we have additional resources to support those agencies? That's the core question I think we're asking. I think the answer to that question is yes. I would ask that, I hope, you know, I'm ready to lead on that. And yeah, I think that's all I'll say for tonight unless something else comes up. But that's, yeah, I just, I appreciate what Caitlin said a lot. And? I mean, I get what you're saying, Jake, but you say it's not against any certain department, but it is because you're asking for 2 million from the Longmont Police Department. Yeah, Council Member Christensen. Oh, okay. I'm unmuted. I finally got in. Sorry, I'm late. I had a terrible time with the computer thing. So, I really think it's important that we have this conversation publicly. And I applaud Graham for bringing this forward. It is a difficult conversation, but this is the time to do it. We can't lose momentum. I agree with Anne, however. I, we are trying to punish a department that has done nothing but try for at least a decade to do everything that it needs to do. You can say that we don't need a mental health person to go along with them on a ride along, but we do. We, the police are the front line of this. Nobody else gets called when somebody who has mental health problems that you love, who's part of your family. I mean, I know people who've done this. Their kid goes bananas and he's a full grown person that he's living at home because he has autism or whatever and they call the police. If they don't mention to the police that this person is their son and that he has mental health problems, then the police will assume that this is just somebody who's threatening them. They have to, you have to tell them that this is a mental health person problem and then they will get somebody who specializes in de-escalating and these are not people who are part of the police department. They are called, they are specialists who come along with the police that the police contracted with specifically to help them with this because these are people who understand how to de-escalate the situation. There isn't anybody else who's gonna do this because the police are the only people who do do this. They also, they are the only connection with homeless people who are causing problems or whatever, you know, so they know how to connect them. They are, Sarah Aaron and David Kennedy have been doing this for years. They are very, they're very heartfelt people. They also don't put up with a lot of crap either but they will connect people who are homeless with hope. They'll connect them with a copy. They'll connect them with services from the hour center. They'll connect them with all these other things and they will try to help them. There isn't anybody else who's doing this and there isn't gonna be any, the mental health partners doesn't go around and do this stuff because that's really not their job. This is in the police department's job. Instead of taking, and as I've said before, I've lived other places and in my opinion, the Oakland police, when I lived there 35 years ago, they should have been just eliminated top to bottom. They were racist scum. Likewise, the Denver police department, when I lived there 30 years ago were just scum. It takes leadership and it takes training but it also does, and implicit bias is part of that. I talked to Chief Butler about that six years ago and he explained to me the training that they did because I had been reading about implicit bias. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is I wanna have this conversation. It's timely. I don't wanna lose momentum. We just lost John Lewis and C.T. Vickers and these are great leaders in the civil rights movement. We can't go backwards. We have to keep our finger on the pulse of holding people accountable. Plus, we're also hiring a new Chief of Public Safety. And that's very important. So this community needs to understand that we are not going to allow somebody to be hired who isn't aware of these issues and who's not gonna be hiring the right people. That's where it starts, is hiring the right people. If you hire somebody who's a racist to begin with, no amount of training is gonna fix that. And I believe our department has tried very, very hard to get the right people in the first place. But I do think it's useful to have this letter. I think it's useful to have this discussion. I think it cannot ever do any harm for this community to understand and have it reiterated what this police department does do and what they should not be expected to keep doing, but what they also do do. Most of the homeless people, I think it's like 35% of the people who are homeless are homeless because of domestic violence. When the police go to a home where there's domestic violence happening, they have no idea what's gonna happen. No idea. They have to have a gun. I don't like that. Nobody, who would do that job? Very few of us would do that job. It's really difficult. If I had a family, I would not put myself in that position but they do and we need them. So they need to know we hold them accountable and we need to know the stuff that they do. And this is a good way to start the conversation. Whether I agree with everything in the letter is irrelevant. This is a way to have that conversation. And so I applaud doing that. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Caitlin. Hi. Sorry, I feel like I have said a lot here and I don't wanna make sure that other folks have room to speak as well. I think a couple of things stood out to me from what Councilwoman Christensen said. The first is I think the assumption that a reduction in funding is a punishment for police, I think is a really dangerous way to think about how we fund various things in our city and in our communities. Reducing funding is not a punishment. It's a reallocation of our priorities. When we reduce school funding, it's not because we're punishing schools. When we reduce funding to other areas, it's not because we're punishing people for that. In the same way that allocating additional funds is not necessarily us saying, you have done the most amazing job, it's because we're reallocating our priorities. And I think to me, like that is a really important mental space to be in, is that taking funding or saying that we should reallocate funding from the police is not to say it's because you personally have done a bad job. It's because we are saying our priority is on funding these community services. Whether you've done a good job or not, whether that should be part of your job is up for debate. I also think like there was a mention about, some people are the only ones who are in contact with homeless folks who are causing issues. And my response to that is a little bit like, why are they the only ones? If we of course, in some ways, there's not gonna be anyone else when that's where we're putting our funding. There's no opportunity for alternatives when we are saying that they are the only ones and can be the only ones. And the final thing I guess is, I think it's great to hire somebody ahead of public safety who is gonna look for hiring right people. But my husband's life, my children's life, other members of our community who are black and brown, they cannot rely on us happening to hire the right people. We need systemic changes so that, because a neighbor calls the cops on my husband because they don't recognize him because he's black in a mostly white neighborhood. I can't rely on the fact that he's gonna be lucky and get a police officer who is not gonna turn that violent. I can't rely on that. That is not something that I can sleep with at night and knowing that that's our protection for members of our community. And I think to that extent, it means that we need alternatives that people can call. We need ways to, we need systems that are holding them accountable. And it's not clear to me that we necessarily have those systems when we're piling a whole bunch of different jobs into the police. One of the ways to hold police accountable and others is by actually separating those job duties. So like, Ann, you're a social worker, having what you do be separate and sort of your scope of practice. Your scope of practice doesn't include arresting people. In the same way, having police, like very limiting the scope of their practice is one way we hold accountable and we make sure that we can keep members of our community safe. Thank you, Caitlin. Karen Phillips, did you raise your hand? Well, no, it's just, as far as, I think the conversation needs to be had for sure, and however that can happen because we know issues, but like Caitlin was just saying, you know, who's to know and you're not gonna adore if there's an issue. And I mean, who are you gonna turn to if you're not gonna turn to the police? And if a policeman comes to the door, like Ann said, you know, who knows what's gonna be behind that door? And you're not gonna be able to just have a social worker appear out of nowhere to help the situation out. These are spontaneous things that happen immediately and, you know, the conversation needs to be had and, you know, I think we've gotta find ways of, you know, we consider and talk about this, but there's no solutions that are happening. So if we open the door to conversations because like Madeleine said, you know, there's a great pool of people that we should be able to come up with something, but it's really complicated. And I suppose we need to, you know, start the conversation. Thank you. Deanna, did you raise your hand? This is not an easy conversation to have, right? And I think generally the consensus is that the police in Longmont have done a great job with a lot of different things. One of the issues that I had is that as I said at our last meeting, I don't truly know that as a white person experiencing what the police are like in Longmont. That's one of the things that I suggested we include in that letter is that the police do, or that the city does some investigation and figure out exactly how people in the community are experiencing the police. But I also am very hesitant to jump onto the pattern that I think a lot of white people suffer from, which is like overstudy, overstudy, overstudy, right? Like we can study this. People have studied this for a while now and things are not changing. I think there's a lot of value in taking an approach that's going to encourage conversation. Do I think that they're gonna take 10% of the budget and give it to us? No, they're not gonna do that. It's a non-starter. Do I think that there's probably gonna be some people who are feeling defensive and feeling offended? Like we are blaming them? Probably that's the case. And that's unfortunate because I don't think that's anybody's intention. I think at least on the subcommittee, I can say for myself that the goal here was really to encourage a conversation, to try and make people think about securing funding for nonprofits, but to also really encourage a conversation about systemic change in our country. And I think there's a lot of value to having that conversation. I guess that's all I'll say about it. Thank you. Anybody else? Graham? Graham? Council Member Christensen? So I don't feel like staff's letter will start the conversation. I mean, I think it's well written and I appreciate their time and effort in that. I just don't think it will start the conversation we want to. So if it's appropriate to share our motion, we submit the first letter. Second. Okay, Council Member Christensen, you wanted to speak. I like Deanna. I mean, Deanna brought up a very good idea. You know, Chief Butler and Dan Benavides have been walking around the neighborhoods for years and talking to people. And I've gone on these things and many people have gone on these things. And what Marta Moreno said to me is, oh, they're not gonna tell him what they think. And you know, that's true. You know, when somebody's walking around the neighborhood, you're not gonna say, you know, you cops are like, there should be a way that we could start a conversation that would be anonymous where people could call in because this, because we're in the process of hiring somebody and you don't hire, you can't make policy based on personality. You have to make policy based on having standard protocol. The police, when there is a use of force, you have to have a policy for that. Otherwise, everybody just does what they feel like and that is not a good, that is not a policy. But having some anonymous thing, since we can't have an open forum and people would not be, many of the people who came to that would not, many of the people who have had bad experiences with the police would not come to an open forum, would not feel comfortable trying to say what has happened to them with the police. They would be comfortable if they had an anonymous way that they could submit some information about their experiences with the police. And I certainly know that my experience is not the same as other people. For instance, I went to a conference a few years ago. My son forgot that he had the keys and he locked me out of the house because I showed up earlier than was expected and I had to break into my own house. Now, Henry Louis Gates, who's very well-known, got arrested for breaking into his own house because he lost his key. But he got arrested because he was black. I probably, I was thinking when I, as I was breaking into my house in high heels and a skirt and up a step ladder, that I probably, somebody might call the police on me, but probably not, you know? So my experience is very different and I know that. But we need to hear from people anonymously about what their experience has been as whatever, whatever, whether it's as a woman, as someone who's gay, as somebody who's Latino, as somebody who's black, whatever. Some anonymous way that they, we can know whether they feel that they have been unfairly treated by our police department. That's the only way we'll ever find out. So I thought Deanna's suggestion about a way to do that would be an interesting thing. I'm not sure how to do that, but because it's hard to get ahold of the people who should be telling us their stories. They don't interact often with people because they don't trust them because they're badly treated. So, you know, why would they trust people? Anyway, I'm gonna check and just seeing how we can do that. Thank you. I'll just throw in a couple of thoughts real quick. So from listening to everybody, you know, one thing is clear, everybody wants a safer community. And I think part of the certainly intention of either letter is to drive towards a solution for a safer community. The one of the principal intentions we're showing in this is that we believe we can get there by having greater levels of human services funding. And I certainly agree with both of those. My concern, my own concerns with the 10% are that, first, I do think it'll provoke a conversation. I have no doubt about that. I think it will very much be perceived as punitive. And I feel like part of that is because we don't really have precise targets for how that money would be used. So it's really a pretty round number. So it really ends up taking on a symbolic meaning rather than a practical meaning in terms of how does this money create a safer community? And, you know, what I would love to wave my magic wand and make happen, I don't have one, but if I had one, I would wave it and say, you know, what is the path to a safer community in terms of like, I worry that if there are, let's say that taking 10% away means fewer police on the street. I don't know what would happen. Honestly, I don't know what losing that amount of funding would mean, but let's say it meant fewer police, then my question is, well, are our human services agency currently actually equipped to deal with the kinds of situations the police are going into? Or do they need training in order to be equipped to go into these more volatile situations? And if so, are we asking for funds to train those human service agencies? Is there a transition plan from the police as a partner moving responsibilities away from them and towards non-police, non-armed elements of our community? That's what I would think, okay, let's have a transition plan. And so I fear that this will be perceived as punitive and it'll put us at odds with the police department who actually serves as a critical partner in a lot of the services that do happen. Granted, a relatively imperfect partner. So those are just some of my own concerns, but I think whatever, however this vote goes, we certainly can acknowledge that we do wanna safer and a better community. And there is a sense of urgency around doing this. And there is a moment that we need to capture. So I think the disagreements tend to come in exactly how to do that to the best possible effect. And frankly, we don't know. I mean, this is a new conversation for everybody. We just don't know. So that's my 10 cents. Marcing. I have a... Sorry, no, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead, Madeleine. Oh, okay. Now I'm wondering, having heard everybody, now I'm wondering, should we be sending a letter at all? And... You have to drop the bomb, didn't you? Well, I mean... And then the other side of that is Karen is going to be asked by council, what does she think? She told us what she thinks. So why are we doing anything? I don't, now I'm questioning our intent. Thank you. Jake? And council may not ask me. So I've just said, if, then that's what I would answer. You might ask. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I actually had a practical question for Karen and Elliberto and staff. What happens from here with this, if anything? I mean, does this go to city manager and the mayor and say, do we want to put this on an agenda? What does it just get sent? What happens if we were to adopt the first letter? What happens? But I would say that would be part of the... direction from the advisory board, what you want to have happen. I think it's kind of about this. Well, I think all I had suggested that we, you know, council, we show up for the meeting, all the while. So I think it'll be part of whatever letter you adopt or whatever, then it's like, that's the first part. And then how do we want it? How do you want it to be at council member Christensen has some ideas about that. But I think, you know, that's something that you... And council member Christensen, you have the floor and I'm going to quickly escape to the restroom and be back, but don't let my short absence stop you from talking. Okay. Two things. Anybody who wants to see how the police spend their money can look at the budget. It's public information and it's broken down and the line items, you know, this much is spent on radios, this much is spent on video or cameras, this much is spent on software upgrades, this much is spent on salaries, this much is spent on pensions, et cetera. So that might be informative to some people. I would think that this would be sent to the city manager and the city clerk for distribution to city council. And then I would think we would put it on the agenda. I think that unless we do that, it won't be put on the agenda because I asked for about two months ago for a presentation on the police department's use of force. That hasn't happened. Anyway, yeah, I think we should do this because we need to keep the momentum of this moment going to have these discussions. However difficult they are. Nothing happens unless you have difficult conversations. I mean, nothing happens. So let's have a difficult conversation. Wow, Brian, you're fast. I'm impressed. I told you, I told you it was just a short moment. But you know, women are just much slower. And I washed my hands. Jake. Thanks, Mr. Chair. You know, I'm struggling with this a little bit because I think our intent here is righteous, our intent here is good. I am struggling with a couple of points and this is just kind of where I'm at. If we're going to send one of these two letters, I would rather it be the first letter. My challenge is if we send this from the board on what looks like it'll be a divided vote, a divided conversation, and then if staff has their own reservations about it and is asked to comment on, and this isn't just comment at all about staff, I would, you know, staff's entitled to their opinion, but I recognize that we don't necessarily have, you know, if we send the first letter, the strongest advocate for it potentially, presenting it to council, they can present it, and we can be there to argue our case, what have you. I'm struggling with, I'm struggling with that a little bit. And I don't necessarily want to send something when we're divided and have staff go in with their own issues with it. And I don't know if that represents us as well as it possibly can. I don't know if that represents. So I guess I'm going to voice those concerns. I'm still, I mean, I obviously seconded the motion, I'm still in favor of it, but I'm going to voice those concerns. And I'd love to hear from members of the board on those two specific issues about whether, you know, we individually can advocate for these positions or whether, because my hope had been in, and I was the one who made the motion for the subcommittee. My hope had been that we could construct something that would get unanimous support. So I'm struggling a little bit with that. Thank you. So Anne and then Karen Phillips. I guess I would rather see us take a little bit more time and really think, you know, I'm hearing what Madeline said, like where are we at this point? I would like to see real change in the community. I would like to find out if and what the problems are in the police department in Longmont. And then I would like to spend some time, maybe it's a community meeting or maybe what Polly said, you know, surveys are sent out. I do that all the time at work and it's amazing what you get back. If it's anonymous and you can just, you know, get information that way and then really see what change we need to do. You know, much more, I guess that's how I'd like to see it. I'd like to explore how things are working in the Longmont police department, whether that's city council, checking it out or community members or maybe there's already a committee that does that, finding out what the needs are and then finding out what people in the community say about it and then going from there. But I just think sending these letters is not the way to go. Thank you, Anne. So it's Karen Phillips and then Karen Roney. Well, I just, how is the best way, how is the best thing to do to get the conversation going? You know, how do we get the conversation going? By this letter or, you know, like Polly, she knows what the city council, but you know, if it doesn't get on the agenda and that kind of thing, but you know, how do we get the conversation going where they're not defensive and all that kind of thing and we're, you know, dividing that police against the human services. So how could we start the conversation? What would be the best way to do it? Yeah, great question. All right, so let's treat that rhetorically for a moment, Karen, and then Karen Roney and Polly. So, you know, what I want to speak to is everything. So, you're cutting in and out. Just lean right into it. So I want to speak to Jake's point about staff and I'll just speak for me. So what I just want to tell you is that it's not our role to work actively against what the advisor wants to do and we would not do that. So I can, but sometimes it's not all the time is that what I just wanted to make sure that if we were asked, you know, what do you think? We would say something along what's in the letter, but we would not have a role actively advocate against whatever the word to do. So I did, I appreciate you making that comment and that I wanted to clarify that, but I just, I also want to be transparent if it's a, hey, what do you think? We would pretty much go with it about everything that you have in your letters of that template. That's all, but we would not work against it. That's not our role. Thank you, Karen. Council member Christensen. I also, several weeks ago, I said, oh, let's get on the stick and get this in by the August 1st, because we'll be back in the council chambers. Well, the council chambers are all done, but, you know, we can't really use them the right way. And so we're not going to be back in there until September. And that makes it difficult to present something like this, but I still think it's timely, and I would say bring it forward, but that means that what you should, everyone instead of us being able to actually have a conversation in a room together like normal people and be able to see each other's faces, you'll only see city council and staff visually, and then everyone else would have to call in. But I would advise you, if this letter does come before council, to all the people who advocate for it to call in and talk about why this board would like to see some discussion on this topic. But that means, you know, everybody coming and talking, well, phoning in and talking, which is not terribly onerous, but, you know, it isn't what I would like to see, which is a big happy family having a big discussion or having a big discussion, or having a big community forum where we could sit at different tables and people might be more comfortable saying, well, when I was walking down the street one day and I think that solely because I was Latino, somebody called the police saying I was doing something suspicious and the police did this and this and this to me and I'm telling you this, this exists in Longmont. I think that will never happen. People aren't gonna come to public invited to be heard in city council and say that. They will do that maybe in a smaller group. The only way we'll, but anyway, it is what it is. We have this virus and we have to diminish it and we will, but meanwhile we have to cope with what we have, but we also simultaneously have a crisis going on in all over this country in the fact that white people can now see on phones and videos, black people have been seeing their full lives and we have to address it. Ram. If we changed the 10% to 5% would and staff and Karen would you guys be in more support of the letter than I'm surmising you are now? Anne. No. No. Karen. Yeah. You know, I know if that's really my, so I just, I just, I think, you know, it's really that redirecting. I think it's important to have a copy. I'll be thinking. Well, you know, five is less than 10. I just think it's the, but it's the, it's the concept of, I think that we have other. Again, it's not, it's not my letter. So, so. You know, I'm willing, if everyone else wants to do the first letter, I'm willing to, if I'm the only dissenting voice, I'm willing to step aside if that's what you all want to do. I've been at this for two and a half years and if it's important to you all and you want, and you know, you want it all to be together and I'm the dissenting voice, I'm happy to just step aside. Well, I would just, thank you, Anne. I would suggest that there's no need, certainly to have anybody step aside because they're in disagreement with, you know, elements of what's being voted on. I mean, that's why we have a vote and that's why we have a quorum and a majority carries and you know, in regards to us having differences of opinion, that makes us more like a real family than the actual happy family that, that you know, we probably would all like to think we are. And I do think related to a council member, Christensen's strong suggestion that whatever, if a letter goes in front of council that we support it, well, we are there to comment on it as members, we all can still have a voice without saying, I don't support it, right? I mean, it's, I think everybody can say, you know, this is what I, this was a hard decision. It's complicated, here's why we voted yes and here are concerns that, you know, of course we're gonna need to address. So anyway, Anne, I just really hope that you feel like you would need to step aside because you voted against a measure. Madeline? I've heard that our purpose should be to start conversation. And I'm just, do we need to revise the letter to say that or to say something that would bring that about? Because right now, I'm kind of, I'm thinking we probably shouldn't send either one. Thank you. Thank you, Madeline. Karen and then Karen Phillips and then I'd like to add, go ahead Karen. I feel like Anne, it's like I don't wanna vote on it either because I just, you know, I wanna support, but I want this, but I'm just saying if the letter starts the conversation, if that's the only thing that will start the conversation, then we should vote yes to send the letter. If that's the only way the conversation is gonna start. But I feel like Anne too, it's like, well, I don't know if I should do your quote on this because I don't wanna be the Debbie Donner going now, I don't wanna do this, but the conversation needs to be started. So I don't know. Thank you. I do have one question and it's directed at Caitlin and Madeline and, you know, I'm really asking this in the utmost sincerity because I'm not in a position where I have to worry about my safety. So I don't have that lens, I don't have that perspective. And my question is, and it's really kind of a clarifying question. If the department, if this letter successfully reduced funding of the Longmont police by 10%, do you feel that that does make in itself the community safer? And that's not intended to put anybody on the spot. I'm sorry, I almost am sorry for asking it, but I'm really trying to get down to some of the intentions and underlying motivations behind what we're doing and what we're talking about to understand that piece of it a little bit better. Because if you said yes, I'd back it in a second, I have to tell you. Well, there was a building burned down a few weeks ago. And I think it was that Hilton, that new Hilton, it's over at any rate, I don't know for sure which one, but there was a building that burned that someone put the set on fire and KKK was written on the front for what was left of the building. When I asked, or when my sister asked Chief Butler about that and how they investigated, he didn't know. He didn't know about it. Oh, one other thing, the owner is black. I left that little tidbit out. But so to answer your question, I don't know. Yeah, yeah. No, thank you for my own piece of it. I think, so the amount isn't of a particular concern to me. It's more understanding how that amount is going to generate change, the change that we're all wanting. And so I do for a large part go back to this idea of, if we said we would like to see 10% of funding redirected to moving police activities and social services into social services with the court, I don't know what the hell to say, corresponding training, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? To me, that would feel much more comfortable because we would have a clear idea of why, why we want to move that money and Caitlin, I really, your point about the psychology of having guns, being prepared to use force, having that as a primary tool in the toolbox, you know, it struck me. I mean, that is a, we're seeing that with the militarization of our police force and increasingly these movements towards more and more hostile reactions to community events. And that is, I mean, that's real and that's what we don't want. How do we affect change in that? Caitlin? I wanted to ask if others have seen there's a document that's put out by a group called Critical Resistance that basically talks about, and I'm happy to share it with staff to send to folks. It's a lens for looking through, looking at funding decisions and whether they sort of increase the likelihood of the use of violence versus adequately funding alternatives. It's something that I learned about a couple of years ago but has been really helpful for me to sort of like frame thinking around this, these kind of questions. And I'm just, I guess my question is if folks have heard of it and one of the things it looks at is does this funding increase power of police in a community or does this funding increase community power around safety, for example? And so there are some examples. One example would be like putting more money into building more prisons is a way that you sort of transfer more power into prisons and police without necessarily having clear indication that that makes communities safer. And then there's a contrast to like funding more housing and human services and what that looks like. And so I don't know if anyone else has seen that like framing of funding, but it's something that I think might be interesting for folks to look at if you haven't seen it before. Yeah, thank you. That sounds spot on, Ann. I think we should vote soon because it's getting late. But I wanted to say maybe what we should do at this point is I'm really proud of the conversations we've had tonight and the other night, like I just, it's hard and I'm just, Madeline said it's not very complicated. In some ways it's not complicated at all, but it's, I'm just proud of all of us for being able to do this. And so maybe the next step is just having city council watch these and see how it's weighing on our hearts and seeing how much as community members, we really like Caitlin, I just feel for you and the situation you and your family are in that I have my own feelings about the police department and I just think it's really heavy, but inspiring as well. And maybe they should watch this. But I think we should vote too. Yeah, thank you, Ann. Jake. It's a question for council member Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we've all kind of said tonight that what we want, including folks who support sending the first letter, at least I won't speak for others, I'll speak for myself. I wanna start a conversation about policing and I wanna ask our council to think about not the way things as they are, not about the great work David Kennedy does or about the good work that a lot of our law and law police department does, but ask hard questions about whether that's really how the system should operate or and whether that $2.1 million we're talking about would be better used in the nonprofit human services sector than in the hands of law enforcement. That's the question I think I wanna ask. So, but I also don't wanna have a conversation that, and I am, I agree with you, Ann. I'm very proud of the work that we've done and I appreciate the work of staff as well. I don't want that conversation to be, I don't want our decision to send a letter that is potentially very difficult because I know what happens when things go in front of council to become a partisan political fight where everybody runs to their corners very quickly and where the city just, I don't think that serves our interest, right? Because what council would, I would think would be inclined to do in that case probably trying, I don't know if put it in a drawer is the right sense but try and minimize the impact of what we're doing if it comes from us. So I guess my question for council member Christensen would be, do you council member need a letter to start this conversation, to start this dialogue about structural change and about funding police or is this potentially something that council can take upon itself under the advisement of this advisory board and say, hey, we want this conversation to happen, we want you to carry this, we're passing this torch on to you and say, hey, we really wanna see this happen, we want this conversation to be had, could you do that or do you need this letter? If you say you need this letter, I'm gonna hold up my support of it and send it your way. I would just think that, so I'll ask the question, do you think you need this letter to start that conversation? Yeah, I do think I do because I've been trying to get them to do a presentation on the protocol for police force, police use of force for months and I keep getting kind of stiffed and they said, oh, well, it's on the website. That's not good enough, it's not good enough. How many cares what's on the website? You have to have a public discussion about it and if this board, which has spent several meetings now discussing this, really feels strongly about they wanna have a public discussion about it, that would be very helpful because I can tell you the minute I bring up something, there will be three city council members who will oppose whatever I do, just send general principle. So it would be good to have this board that has spent a lot of, who are all intelligent people and spent a lot of time reflecting upon this. Send a letter. The other thing that had occurred to me is that we have Longmont public media and we can do whatever we want to with that. They're looking for content. We could put together a community forum and have some people, I mean, it's difficult with COVID, but we could figure out a way to do that and get some people from, say, El Comité, from CERC, from Hope, from the Hours Center, people to talk about, you know, because wealthy white people don't have a problem with the police. It's poor people who have a problem with the police. So find people who are usually served by the very services we're talking about, you know, human services, and have them talk about their experiences. Either members of the, who actually do the work, not the board members, but the actual people like Joseph and Mark who are doing the work, talk about what their experience is with their clients and the police or better yet get people off the street who are willing to talk about their experience. That's the way we can use public media to actually say what we would like to say instead of having it filtered through the courtesy of the bureaucracy, which is what city council is. Do you know what I mean? It's one way we can actually have more of a robust discussion, I think. I just don't think we can discuss this enough. We just have to keep discussing the reality of the situation of different groups of people in our society because it's very, very different. Thank you. So Madeline wanted to say something and we'll go to Jake and then we'll call for a vote. All right. I just wanted to correct what I said about the building that burned. It did not burn down. It burned and significant damage was is that Ken Pratt near the roundabout. That's the location. And also I wanted to add that of those organizations that Polly mentioned, we now have an NAACP, just so you know. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madeline. Jake. Just to follow up for Council Member Christensen, just to be 100% clear, you're saying that you believe you do need this specific letter with the 10% request to start this conversation or are you saying you need the support of the board to start this conversation? You need something from the board in order to go in this direction? Because I'm hearing you want the board's backing and support and I think we could all get there. I wanna be 100% certain that you think that we need to have this specific letter as the starting point and if you do, then I'll support calling the question and moving forward. I don't know about this specific letter but in order to have it heard before City Council and start a conversation with City Council, which is important as far as I think all of us agree, we need to make a strong statement. I think this makes a strong statement. I don't happen to agree with taking 10% away from the police department. I would have us try to find 10% more to give to human services. That's the problem is that human services is chronically underfunded and we all know that. But anyway, having this discussion means we need a strong letter. I think this is a strong letter. It does not make the slightest difference whether I agree with it or not. Is this is a way to have that conversation? I think. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's call the vote. Oh, sorry, Caitlyn. Sorry, I have one more clarifying question for Councilwoman Christensen. What I hear you saying is that having board and or potentially community support for this conversation is what you're really looking for so that you are not sort of a lone voice like beating a drum to have the conversation. Is that correct? And to that end, is there, because I am hearing that there are differences in sort of how folks want to approach this. I wonder if the call from the board is really about how do we have that conversation as a community about shifting of funds without necessarily putting a number on it, number one. And number two, whether there's a community driven call for this because I think that there are members of our community that are asking for this conversation to happen but they are not the folks who are on boards. They are not the folks who are writing to city council. They are not the folks who are in the types of conversations that we're having but I think that there are a lot of folks who support having these conversations. And so I'm just thinking about like, I've seen instances where people have sort of had a public thing where people can sign on and they share it with their friends and so forth and so it's really a call for that conversation. It sounds to me like that, like you don't necessarily need this specific letter to have that conversation but that it needs to be something that is more community led and not Polly Christensen banging the drum to get city council to agree to have this conversation. Is that accurate? Well, what I'm saying is we need to have this conversation in many, many venues. One of them is city council because if you send this letter it will make the police department have to come and do a presentation which they have not done for a while and they need to be answering these questions and responding. And I think they would be happy to do that but right now I don't know, it's just because they are in the midst of having a hiring a new public safety chief but it's important to hear from the police and this will get the police to come do a presentation before city council answer some questions, have this conversation for the members of city council to examine what our accountability is what our budget is, many, many things. That's one venue but we need to have as you say a community conversation in lots of different venues which of course is really very difficult right now because of COVID but as I said we could use the Longmont public media to have a small group of people have a forum and we could keep doing this week after week have this conversation. They're always looking for content so let's give them some content. Thank you, Jake. I guess my question is, are we sure that that will be the outcome council member? Are we sure that us sending this letter will actually get the police department down to council more than the community push and council's majority of councils insistence? I guess I just am not, my challenge right now is, I hear that the concerns of the board and I hear the concerns of, I hear these concerns. So I guess my question is, will it though? Will it actually create that outcome? Because I'm not in my head confident that it would, that it would get them down there more than what you've already done which is asked for them to come down there and I suspect that was a motion that was made and that the full majority of council supported or not. Okay, go ahead, Pauline, you're on mute. I don't remember whether that was a motion that was a suggestion to the city manager but I don't think it went beyond that. I don't think anything's, it's just right now everything is very, very backed up and difficult. However, I don't see any public outcry. So let's get, let's have, this is a community advisory board. This is a board that is public, that is, that's part of the job is to give city council your advice and so give your advice. That's all I'm saying, because there's no guaranteed outcome on anything in life, Jake, but you know, this is one thing we can do and it will get something, some discussion going and we have to keep the momentum going to have a discussion about how say. You're on mute again. Nicole, did you mute council member Christensen out of spite? Okay, no. Typing away, I don't even have an extra hand. This is sort of, it's hot and we're all trying to figure out what's going on and we're getting to, it's getting late and we're hungry and the pizza's on its way. Anyway, so be an advisory board, advise council that they need to have this discussion, that they need a presentation from the police department about what they do, what they don't do. We need to have this public conversation. This is one way we can have it. There are many other ways and we all need to pursue them. If I may, just real quick. You know, there is a potentially easy amendment to the first letter we could make, which is to say that the board strongly urges council, so council explore the role of policing in the community, the allocation of resources, given all of the background that's been given, right? And essentially to say in lieu of that, if in lieu of that conversation starting an actual meaningful progress being made, we ask that 10% be immediately allocated. And the intention there is simply to say, this needs to happen, we're clear on that. And if you can't have it, if it's just gonna, if we're gonna drag our feet on it, then let's just take 10% move it because something has to happen. Jalen? I think that like that idea of like revising the letter in a way that says like, we need to be having these conversations, not just this board, this board has spent a lot of time on it. And I think it's really important to actually share even that with city council to say like, this is a conversation that's important in our community. City council should be having this conversation. Other boards and committees should be having this conversation in our city. Our community should be having these conversations. And if we're not willing to engage in those conversations, yes, let's just do something because if like the conversations would are better, I think than just like transferring funds. But like if you're not gonna have the conversation, do something and just be done with it. Like if you don't want to engage the public and the community on these questions, here's a quick way you can just be done with that conversation and not have to like get into the sort of weeds and the mud of it because it is like, it's hard stuff. So I actually really like that idea of if the idea is to really generate conversation is to actually push for that and push for council to have the police in there talking about it and to have other community members and they're talking about it. But if they don't want to do that and it's not like a priority, then do something else but make it clear that something is being done. Well, let's do this. It's late and said that half an hour ago, it's still true. So let's go ahead and call for a vote. And so the motion on the table is to submit the first letter as written to city council. All those in favor? No, go ahead, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I just need to say on the record real quick before we vote. After the conversation that I've heard tonight, and I really appreciate it, I'm just, I'm not convinced that the reasons that I've supported this process and I really appreciate Graham bringing forward. I'm not convinced, even though I seconded the motion after listening and hearing from everybody, I'm not convinced that this particular letter is gonna serve our goals in the way that we want them to be served. I'm not convinced that this letter is gonna do more than start a part as in conversation. And that concerns me a great deal. So I am gonna vote no right now and I want us to continue. And I can explain more. I want this to happen. I want the conversation. And I don't want people running to their corners. And that's what worries me right now. So I'm happy that's where I'm at. And then we can continue, yeah, that's where I'm at. I agree. Thank you, Jake. Okay, and my expertise on Robert's rules of order runs an inch deep and about two feet wide. I don't even make it the mile. So I'm thinking there is still a second on the table. So we will call the vote. So all those in favor of submitting the letter to council as is please raise your hand, leave them raised so Nicole can make a record of your vote. Great. All those opposed, any abstentions? I didn't know what Madeleine did. Yeah, Madeleine. I'm abstaining. You're abstaining. Yes. Nicole, my rudimentary finger math tells me that the motion did not pass. You are correct. Okay. Okay, so it's late. And one thing I do know outside of the fact that it's late is that we are all agreed something needs to happen. It wasn't this exact manifestation, but something needs to happen. Council member Christianson, council member Christianson, do you have a recommendation or? Yeah, at the next meeting, which is a regular session, I'm going to recommend that we have this discussion. I'm going to explain that we have had this extensive conversation and recommend that we have a presentation with the police because we need to have this community conversation. Thank you. And I would like to work with Ann maybe about trying to get some community survey things since you say that you've been doing that. I think we could do that through the city, but my experience with that is that it's the same people again and again who responded to the city. And they are usually not the people who are having problems. Maybe not. It's a different time, it's a different time. Yeah. All right, let's go Jake and then Karen, Ronnie. I want to make a motion, Mr. Chair. If council member Christianson is going to do that, I want to move, in fact, I do move, that this board offer in our record, I don't know quite how to phrase it. And if anyone has some phraseology advice, I would take it, support for council member Christianson bringing this discussion forward and bringing it to council. And some kind of an acknowledgement that we would like this community conversation to take place that is reflected in our record. So I'll make that motion. And if someone has a better way of phrasing it, I would accept that. A second. Okay, thank you. So we'll go into discussion real quick. Karen, Ronnie. So the only thing, the one thing that I wanted to just mention and a couple of folks have talked about it is the value of the conversation that the advisory board has had tonight and roughly two weeks ago. I think it is, we might want to think about how to create food or probably could suggest, a link to our last two meetings where you're coming from. I have referred people to go to look at our conversation last time about how to have a challenging conversation about a very challenging topic. Have people listen and knowledge, respect, even shift their beliefs. You all were amazing. And I think several of you talked about how proud you were to be part of this body. And I think tonight is also a great example. So I think there is value. At some point to figure out how to share this link, but in a way for folks who we would look at, this is how you have these conversations. And these are the ingredients having difficult conversations about helping people understand ideas. That amazing work. Thank you, Karen. Nicole- Did we have a motion on the table about? Yeah, I just wanted to see if Nicole could, if you recorded what Jake said so we can get a clear motion. Yeah, I might need a little help. So it sounds like it just was motioned for community conversation to be included in the advisory board's record. Is that what you wanted? So that's... Oh, go ahead, Jake. And then... Oh, Eleanor, if you have a, if you were kind of on the same... I had a thought. I'm not sure if it's exactly what you were saying, but I did have a thought. So what I understood from the motion, the motion is to formally support Councilman Christensen to bring this conversation to city council and that it'll be recorded in this board's official record. That's the way I understood it. That's a better way to phrase it. Yeah, that's what I'm after. Thank you. Sorry. No. Okay. No further discussion. Let's go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Hold on. I'm coming. Or you can just say yes. Oh, too much. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Thank you, Madeleine. Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, the motion passes. I do want to just end by saying I really, beyond what we just did, I think this board should consider what further actions we want to take. And I don't know when the next meeting is coming up, but it's probably in a couple of weeks. I don't know. So- Like on Thursday in August. I don't know what that is. Okay, all right. So let's- So Brian, do you want us to make sure that we put this as an agenda item? Yes, please. I think everybody here is in favor of taking a firm aggressive stance on addressing issues. And let's take another crack at what that looks like. Okay. And did you have anything to add or? Okay, okay. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? A motion to adjourn. I don't know why I knew you'd be the first one to adjourn. Is there a second? Seconded. Okay. All those in favor- Here's on. That's why. Good work, everyone. Yes. All adjourned. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Graham. Yeah. Thank you to the committee and to the staff. Yeah. Bye. Good job. Thank you, everyone. Okay. All right. So- Try your headphones, because I agree. I think it's your fan. Well, they said they couldn't hear me when I had my headphones on. See, and I thought your headphones were better, but that was just me. So, should we switch? They said they couldn't hear me at all. So, what happens is like you talk for like four. Here, do you wanna come sit at my desk and all that? I wanna hear what it sounds like. So, let's switch. How can I hear that? Do you have your earphone in? You can plug them in if you want. They're right there on the table. No, I don't know. Okay. So, I'm just talking into your computer normal without headphones. Hear the difference? Like you just start talking and then all of a sudden it just disappears. And I think maybe if you go like this, but who wants to look at somebody's forehead? I can hear you. So, you're not cutting, so I'm not cutting in and out or doing anything funky? Seriously? Right. That is really weird. Let me like A, B, C, F, G. Here, I'll read. I can hear your voice. I'm gonna close the door. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Here, you just have to get a hearing. And I think that's probably why I can hear you too. Okay, so I'll just sit like you would like kind of back at your desk and kind of answer and I'll just read. So, dear Longmont City Council, we're living in a moment where community minded people are urging their city leaders to redirect portions of the budgets to group specializing in addressing more comprehensive issues. How was that? So, I didn't hear like the last word. That's what happens. All of a sudden you talk fine and then it just disappears. I don't understand. What happens when you put the head, the earbuds in? Sorry, maybe you don't want to share those. We're probably violating us some COVID thing. Oh, I'm sure we're totally violating it, but that's okay. So, does that help any better or is it still weird? I'll read the next. Therefore, we are tasked with re-imagining what it looks like to get Longmont's community members to the right responder at the right time by increasing access to the ready and willing non-profits that are of course educated to those people. I think I can hear. And is it like solid, solid for you? Mostly, yeah. And I think it's, honestly, I think it's gonna depend on the person's computer on the other end, like how well their mic is. So I think that's why like Madeleine was struggling because she was on her phone. And Brian, knowing Brian, he probably has a super fancy, like, you know what I mean? Like just a more up-to-date thing, so it wasn't a struggle. But that still isn't right because your old computer, you could be- You can hear my laptop just humming. It just is- Oh, I can hear it, yeah. Yeah, it's just going. I don't think that's right. And your own computer, you could hear you crystal clear all the time. Right. So I would almost ask Jeff, yeah.