 Awesome. Well, we have a quorum. So I'm going to call this meeting to order. Um, we have, we have four of seven commissioners. Um, any additions or modifications to the agenda? Not seeing or hearing anything. Moving on to public forum. And I'll give it to Shannon. I'm happy to receive any requests. For speaking tonight. But I'm happy to, if there's anyone in the public that you'd like to. Absolutely. Yes. Anyone in the public are really attendees. Um, I want to speak for public forum, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing any hands raised. And seeing how, yeah, no public form. I'm going to close that agenda item. And I'm going to recess the meeting until 6pm. Um, just like the training. So thank you for everyone. Thanks for jumping on to, to let us start the meeting and, uh, we'll see everybody in about 17 minutes. Thank you. All right. It is a 6pm. We're returning from recess. Um, and we'll be back in a couple of minutes. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us. This is the first of four trainings with Nicole. Um, the next three being June 10th, June 15th in the June 17th. Um, yeah. So thank you for joining with us. And with that, I'll give the floor to Cameron. Hi, everyone. Thanks for, for allowing us to join you tonight. I'm going to talk a little bit about civilian oversight of law enforcement. Um, as you had mentioned, um, this is the first of four trainings. Um, tonight. This meeting is being recorded. Get my screen. This, the presentation up and running here. Can you all see the screen? Okay. Okay. Perfect. So tonight, um, we're going to talk a little bit about civilian oversight, um, in general, more general terms, um, and about the principles for effective civilian oversight. Um, later on we'll be talking about things like, uh, reporting processes, training, um, uh, standards as well as, um, community engagement and, um, we'll wrap things up on the 17th with, um, in addition to a couple of other things, um, a session where we'll be able to address opportunities and challenges for the commission. Um, so before we, again, I also want to say, um, I'd rather this be a conversation than us, uh, me talking to all of you for two hours straight. That seems, um, Well, like a horrible way to spend the next two hours, uh, just being talked to. So, um, as we go, if you have questions, please feel free to just speak up and, and ask. Um, I don't mind being interrupted for a good cause. So, um, so with that, um, I'm going to start by telling you a little bit about myself. I know I've had the opportunity to meet some of you, um, on a meeting before, but my name is Kami Macklehenny and I am with, I'm the director of training and education for NACL. I've been with the organization in one form or another since 1998. I started out as a board member for a civilian review board in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1998. And I served on that board for six years. And one of the things, um, that I realized is, uh, that I was appointed to a board that I knew the purpose of, but I had no idea how much I didn't know, um, when I started. And so I have worked very hard over the last, I guess, uh, over 23 years now to make sure that boards and commissions and oversight agencies in general have the training that they need to be able to perform the mandates that they've been, um, asked to, to carry out. So now I'd like to hear a little bit from all of you. Um, so we tend to ask, um, since we're going to be spending eight hours together talking about this and probably a little bit of time after that as well. Um, I just wanted to learn a little bit more from all of you by asking a couple of questions. First of all, why you wanted to be, and I'm sorry that says PCRB, um, but why you wanted to be a part of the Burlington police commission. And then also what do you, what do you hope to get out of the training process? And I asked that second question because, um, I have easily have, I could talk to you for eight hours about all things, civilian oversight. Um, but I want to make sure that we also talk about the things that really will help you in the work you're doing. So, um, if, if someone wants to start, um, um, answering those two questions, we'll just kind of do it. A popcorn style that works for you. Just jump on in. Yeah. I'll start. Um, I'll start with the, uh, the first one here. Why do you want to be a member of the brother police commission? Um, I joined in response, uh, to an incident that happened. That involves some of my, some of my close friends. And as a 30 plus year resident, I found it unacceptable. And wanted to see how I could affect change and. And make sure that, like, a, this wouldn't happen again. And, and yeah, just kind of make sure this wouldn't happen again. And. Be more involved with the process and see how it works. Great. Thank you. Anyone else. Hi, this is, uh, Commissioner Grant Milo Grant. Um, very similar experience. Um, That our chairman just described. Um, just some things that happen that just really hit. Close to home. And, um, Burlington's an amazing place, an amazing community. And it talks a really good talk, but it doesn't always walk the walk. Um, Our city's currently facing. Multiple lawsuits. And I just wanted to be a part of, of change. Um, And what I hope to get, out of this is to have an understanding because as we're currently set up. We really can't. We're not really an oversight. Body. We, we can bring up things, but there are times where we're ignored. We refuse access to information. Um, how can we improve that? How can we, um, Reimagine an oversight body, uh, create something new? What would be the best practices, et cetera? Thank you. Thank you. Hi, uh, I'm Stephanie. We know I joined the commission for similar reasons. Partly, um, Also related to work that I had done previously. With regard to racial disparities. And policing in Vermont. And, um, Hopefully being able to offer some of my data skills to the commission, But also to really want to participate as a citizen. In, uh, Rethinking public safety in a way that I think is maybe more modern. In the sense that, uh, You know, A lot has changed in the last 15 years with regard to our Understanding of brain science. Trauma, Restorative justice. And many other, you know, Mechanisms for public safety. And so I was hoping to be part of that conversation. And to, as I said, lend my skills to any extent I could. Hi, Tammy. I'm Sharon Hart. So I've been on the commission for five years. I've got one year left of my second term. And I joined it. Back five years ago when they were just wrapping up, the police commission had just done an extensive look at response to mental health crises. And that was what interested me because of some of the work I do has to do with. A mental health agencies and hospital eds and responses to mental health crises. And how often the police are involved. So that was what got me interested and made me apply. What I'm hoping to get out of this is one of the big issues with something like the police commission is we have tremendous turnover. So for example. I'm the last one at this point from. Well, they're a tremendous turnover. And so it's very hard to have systems in place. For example, I've noticed people calling in. With issues about mental health crises. And we, they did such a deep dive six years ago into that. But we just, there's, there's very little historical. Knowledge or memory for what we do. I also think that the, the, the, the. The the the, the, the, the public. Are putting that over to them. So if we have that knowledge or, or memory for what we do, I also think we don't want to continue doing what we've done because. We're largely responsive and, you know, responding to things, and it would be great to develop. Practices that we can document that. So that, you know, years, they at least will not have to reinvent the wheel, which it does feel like we're doing. I have no doubt in my mind that we are making improvements and that just this year alone, there's been tremendous improvement. But I'd like to see us just, where we can folks who are new to the commission don't feel like probably Stephanie and others have felt when they join, which is just, it's like a minefield, learning what we do. Can I add to this question about what I hope to learn? Some things have changed also, and that is that the role of the commission had not been entirely clear, I would say, but increasingly, especially since the murder of George Floyd and events last year here in Burlington, there's increased interest and I would say demand for greater civilian oversight over policing. And there's some question as to whether the police commission is the body to do that or whether we need a different body to provide some of that and really to be able to fulfill our role and to the extent that there's a desire by the city to expand it, we really need to understand deeply what are the possibilities of civilian oversight? What are some of the structures and policies look like? So I think it's really helping us do our jobs better of civilian oversight as we gain more responsibility, which we have been gaining. Great, thank you for that addition. Anybody else wanna contribute, Shannon? So I will say, so hearing all of those answers, I want you to know that you're not alone in that, that some of the issues that you have faced, some of the things that you're feeling about the process are things that we see in other cities, particularly as they work towards more effective mechanisms. And I'm hoping that some of the things that you talked about today that are seen at this moment as challenges, that some of the training that we're gonna do in the next sessions and today will lead those, lead you to a way that you can look at those challenges is also opportunities. And so I'm hoping that we can keep all of those as mine. I took some notes, I'm sure you could tell as you're speaking just generally not attributing it to any in particular person, but I think all of those are very valid and maybe we'll talk a little bit more about how we can incorporate some more of those things in our discussions going forward. Yes. Amy, I noticed that a member of the public, there were two hands at one point. Did you wanna one? Yeah. I think we're gonna keep this discussion amongst the commission. Okay, so we should just make that. Yeah, we should just let the public know what our approach will be. So, cause I did see a couple of hands up. So I guess what we can invite folks to do is depending on what they hear today, there will be public comment at the beginning of each of these sessions. Is that correct, Jabu? Correct, yeah. Okay, so that would be the opportunity. Okay, sorry to interrupt. No worries, thank you. So with that, I'm gonna move on into the training itself so today what we're gonna cover today are civilian oversight and law enforcement and some general information about its history, models and an overview of some oversight mechanisms in the United States and how they operate so that you can have some information on what oversight can look like. And then also we're gonna spend some time talking about principles for effective oversight and also what do we mean when we say effective oversight? So I like to start presentations with this slide because I think that a lot of times, particularly when oversight is established in a city following a critical incident that has occurred in the community, people say if we have civilian oversight and we have subpoena power or something else, everything will be fixed. And the thing is, is that civilian oversight is important and I must say subpoena power when you get it is important, but there are some other things. How a community works to deal with a lack of trust between the public and law enforcement is very important. The most successful solutions include a collection of reform efforts and restructuring that impact law enforcement directly. And increasingly it's been shown that civilian oversight is a very important piece of that whole process. So really, although there are many things that must be put into place to reform policing, build trust and many things need to happen to make all of that fall into place, it is very difficult if not impossible to do it without civilian oversight. That community, non-sworn involvement is critical to this process. So a little bit about civilian oversight and how we define it. So broadly, civilian oversight can be defined as the independent external ongoing review of law enforcement and its operations by individuals outside of the sworn chain of command. Civilian oversight can entail but is not limited to independent investigation of complaints. And I say not limited to because we do have a lot of civilian oversight entities in the United States that this time review complaints that are investigated internally in a department. But it can also involve auditing and monitoring various aspects of the overseen law enforcement agency, analyzing patterns or trends and activity, issuing public reports and issuing recommendations on discipline, training, policies and procedures. Taken together, all of these functions can produce or promote greater law enforcement, accountability, increased transparency and positive organizational change and improve responsiveness to communities needs and concerns. And I know that of all of those string of words that I just said, really transparency and accountability and responsiveness to the community are three very key points in all of that. Kimmy, can I ask a question? I'm gonna take you at your word. You don't mind being interrupted. So I believe that the stage that we are at is with regard to not investigating incidents or use of force, but reviewing. But I wonder if you could describe what you mean by reviewing what that would entail. We in terms of decisions, inputs and so forth. Yes, so when I'm talking about reviewing investigations that are done internally, that means when an allegation of misconduct is made by a member of the community, the complaint is forwarded onto internal affairs so that they can do a thorough investigation of that complaint and come to a decision on whether it's sustained, not sustained, unsounded, depending on what your dispositions are. Some cities do it a little differently than others. And then, so then once that investigation is done, typically what happens is that then the investigation and all of the elements that the law enforcement agency had to make the decision that they made are then forward onto a review board so that they can review that information as well and see if they feel that the investigation was done adequately, if they would come to the same decision to see if there needs to be a further investigation. And in some cases, some cities do have the authority to then ask for an independent investigation be done if they feel that the investigation was done inadequately. So does that help answer your questions? That's great, thank you. You're welcome. Kamie, can I ask a question? How often do you, well, how typical is it for the investigates on the incidents to be in the same entity that's conducting the monitoring and the input on policies and procedures? Is that typically the same body that's doing those in what you're seeing or cities or communities tend to separate those? So what, and when we get to the conversation about models of oversight, we can, I'll be able to explain this a little bit more, but what happens is that we see there are investigatory agencies that do investigations independently, but as a result, they often also are able to do data analysis and recommendations because they're doing all of this. They tend to, if they've been given investigative authority, they tend to also have some additional authorities that maybe just the typical run-of-the-mill review board might not have. I would say that in what we are seeing is a trend in review boards getting more authority to do things like data analysis, policy recommendation, recommendations for procedures, training, and then also doing systemic reviews as well. All of those things are things that we're seeing written in to new ordinances for just review boards that we had not seen in the past. Normally we saw those types of things with an auditor monitor model or with an investigative model. So although there are still a lot of review boards out there that might not have it, that is the trend that we're seeing, particularly, I would say everything that we have seen established in the last nine months has had that kind of authority attached to it. Great, that's really helpful, thank you. So one of the other things about civilian oversight is that because it's an independent and neutral body, oversight law enforcement offers a very unique opportunity to build legitimacy and bring transparency to what's an often very opaque process. Because oversight agencies operate outside of the overseen law enforcement agency and report to local stakeholders, the findings or reports of an oversight agency are free from real or perceived bias. So it really does help build, that's the piece that builds that legitimacy is because people, whether it's real or perceived, find bias often in the reports that are coming out of the police department and an investigation of their own. And this helps add an element to it, that kind of that check to the whole process. So move on to the next screen. So a few facts about the field. So there are nearly 200 civilian oversight entities across the United States. So I will say in 2019, excuse me, in 2019 there was a study done where they looked for, they tried to verify the number of civilian oversight agencies in the US and they came up with 167 verified civilian oversight agencies. These were agencies that were established through ordinance, they were part of the city charter. They weren't advisory boards. And so we do feel like that number might have been a little low, but we do know that by the time we get to 2020, we were closer to 200. And since June of last year, just Naco alone, and I know we're not the only ones talking to communities. Naco alone has talked to over 130 new communities looking to establish civilian oversight. So we are seeing incredible growth in the field. And what we're also seeing is that communities like yourself are looking to find out more about what effective civilian oversight looks like so that they can make sure that what they're putting in place is effective and sustainable and can make a difference because in the end, that's what everybody is looking to do. So one of the, and Stephanie I think you'll probably appreciate this or be frustrated by this as well, since you like the research part of it is that no two civilian oversight entities are alike, which make them very difficult to compare. And that comes about because people put together civilian oversight of law enforcement entities based on the needs of their community. And then we also know that many communities start way up here with the authorities, and they think that they need to make this right. And it's not just that they think that they need, through their research, they have this as their goal and then there's the compromises that happen and maybe a few things get knocked off the list or done a little differently and then you end up with something a little different. So everything's a little, all of the oversight entities have their little quirks or differences that make them very specific to the city they're operating in. One of the things that we're also seeing is that traditionally we saw civilian oversight, mainly in large cities. In the top 10 cities in the country, there's only one that has no civilian oversight. And we're crossing our fingers that Phoenix does something in the near future. But what we're seeing in the last decade is that small and medium sized cities are really jumping on board, realizing that this is something that benefits the community as a whole. So we're seeing a lot more growth in that area. And then also traditionally, that when oversight really was in its new phase, getting started in the United States, it often happened in reaction to a very specific incident of police misconduct. Now that still happens. However, we're also seeing more proactive establishment of civilian oversight in the country. People in cities or jurisdictions are saying, let's get something in place before we need something. Let's fix some of these problems that we know exist before they end up in tragedy. So I am happy to report that there are cities out there looking to either establish or enhance existing mechanisms because of that. So why do we have oversight? What are some of the reasons? Well, first of all, I mentioned before it builds bridges between community and police. There are very few mechanisms that we see that have that ability to do that other than oversight. And one of those reasons is because community engagement, which we will address in depth in one of our later sections really is one of the key elements of an oversight entity. Also ensures greater accountability. It helps limit the city's risks that come about when misconduct is not being taken care of or goes unchecked. Mechanisms should be put in place where good policing is rewarded and support is given to uphold good practices and constitutional policing. So it's not all about saying everything needs to be changed. There are things that are in place that could be working. There are officers out there that are doing good jobs. And so it also, in addition to making reforms to make policing better, it's also looking at policing and those officers who are doing good work and recognizing that. It increases public confidence and trust in the police. And by giving civilians a means to address police misconduct and bring transparency to the process, you're helping to protect their rights and all those that come after them. So the next couple of sides are about common goals of civilian oversight. So you need to make sure that people feel really comfortable and safe accessing the complaint process. So that often means if the only mechanism to file a complaint is to go to the police department, that is possibly causing a problem and making people feel uncomfortable with actually making a complaint. We also suggest that people allow anonymous complaints. Now, I realize anonymous complaints are difficult because when you go to investigate them, if you have no information about the person who's making the complaint, the investigation may be limited. However, there has to be the acknowledgement that people sometimes do not feel safe in making a complaint are in very concerned about any retaliation that might occur because of the complaint that's being made. And so having that option provides a safe option for some. And also making sure that they can file the complaint, like I mentioned before, without fear of retaliation and making the process as uncomplicated as possible is very important. So are there multiple points of access? Can they file a complaint online? Some oversight entities have satellite locations where they partner with community stakeholders to allow complaints to be filed say, if there is a community health center where a lot of people are going in and out and they feel safe there because they know the environment, then maybe that's a great place to have them be able to file a complaint. So thinking about some of those access issues are really important. I can, if it's not a problem, I'm just thinking about this issue of accessibility and complaints. I'm much newer to the commission, so I'll just rely on my fellow commissioners. But I understand we have an online complaint system. We also have a community in which many languages are spoken. And so I'm not sure maybe if Shireen or Jabu or Milo can tell, say if we have other mechanisms other than the online accessibility approach. Yeah, so Stephanie, we've always encouraged folks to be able to come to commissioners directly, right? If they would rather have a buffer so they could report to the commissioner and the commissioner could file the report. We also did what Kami just suggested, which is, I think it was about a year or two years ago, Jabu, if you were still on, if you were on the commission, then we can know when it was, but what we did is we took this complaint and we delivered them throughout the city to exactly what you're saying, to the high school, to various entities so that we just, we put packets out there for this very reason, but we do have issues. I'm not sure what happened with translating. I can't recall that, but I could certainly look into it, but we would need to update it anyway, Stephanie, because that was, you know, who knows where those are at this point, especially with the new high school. I also do remember there are, my apologies, Mila, you can go. Go right ahead. Also, there were like drop box locations for complaints. I know there's one at the Boys and Girls Club in a couple of other places, though I don't know the status of those since the pandemic started, but yeah. Great. Yeah, some of the feedback from the consultant who is collecting feelings that the community has about public safety, some of the feedback that we received at one of the town halls, specifically about how to file a complaint. I guess my focus was on getting access to the information and getting more details about complaints because those weren't fully coming through at the time, but people brought up, like what was just said, translating that, you know, the online system isn't as convenient or easy as we might think and that people really didn't know where they could, if they couldn't submit it online, where would they go to submit something via paper that there wasn't a lot of knowledge about that? So yeah, I think as a commission that we should probably put that on our to-do list to review and I don't even know where they all are. So that would definitely be something we want on our list to review. Thank you. No, that all sounds great. And I'm so glad that some of those mechanisms are already in place. There are oversight agencies that have their forms translated in an incredible amount of languages because so that all of their residents can be able to read the forms, but I do realize that gets a little tricky. In fact, some, there are some agencies who work with the police who also tend to, because they have the money to invest in translator services, also have, they use them to access live translators and also sometimes work with the police to have the forms translated too. And I know the city probably has that available to them as well, but sometimes that's a point of partnership that can happen if you're looking for those. So other common goals of civilian oversight. So parting, ensuring that investigations are fair and thorough, making sure that they were conducted in a proper manner and that findings are reasonable and consistent with other similar cases and that discipline is being administered consistently is not only a common goal of civilian oversight, but a lot of times we talk about, and I think we'll talk about this a little bit later in the presentation about, okay, so they're all of these things that oversight does that benefits the community, but it's also important to remember that there are benefits for law enforcement and civilian oversight. There are members of law enforcement who deal that discipline is distributed and doled out differently, depending on who you are and what your rank is and having someone also kind of overseeing or monitoring that process and how it's delivered is also a common goal. Also, if it's done effectively and in a sustainable manner, it can increase public confidence in policing and some of those things, sustainable manner, commission that kind of is like this, depending on the political will of the time makes it very hard to build that level of confidence, but when it's consistently supported, then, and we'll talk about that more when we talk about principles of effective oversight, then it can build that confidence. And also, as we mentioned before, to enhance transparency in policing through things like public reporting, not only of what the oversight entity is doing, but also things that the police department is doing, either on its own or in response to the recommendations made by the oversight agency. Some additional goals to improve law enforcement agencies by analyzing patterns and complaints and other police related data to improve policies, practices and training and also management. We are doing a lot of work to, and there are some academics out there doing some work on the role of supervisors in police reform and about how oversight can also kind of work in that realm too to help provide ways in which supervisors can change that culture in policing. There also is that piece where oversight can deter officer misconduct. If people feel that their complaint is going, if a complaint is made against them, it's going to be taken seriously and that there will be a transparent accountable process to that misconduct investigation and determination. It can also reduce legal liability for the city. And it also can improve public understanding and police policy. So there are a lot of instances where complaints are made because there is a misunderstanding of the policies that are in place. I mean, there is no citizen that spends a lot of time looking at the general orders of their law enforcement agency if they could even find them online because there are many cities where that seems to be a very a secret that it's difficult to unearth. But having you as a community as part of the community engagement helping you the community understand those policies and practices, the type of training that the department receives can also help them understand why certain things happen. But it also can also make them understand that certain things are not supposed to happen. They have a full understanding of the policy procedure and know how things should have happened when things occurred. So the evolution of oversight. So as I mentioned before, oversight originally was very reactive in nature and reactive only. Agencies were created after high profile incidents. You respond to complaints. You have to wait for complaints to come in the door in order for something to happen. Normally reviewing policies when one or more complaints came in. In the past has been, it emphasizes legalistic rules, emphasizes what can be seen as an adversarial administrative process by some and relies heavily on deterrence. Well, so there's gonna be a reactive piece of oversight that will never go away because there needs to be that piece where you have an allegation of this conduct come in because you need to have that place where the community can come to let someone know that what has happened to them and have it investigated. But what we are seeing is that combined with that reactive process, we're also seeing a move towards proactive policing or of oversight, I'm sorry. So this is more about exploring problems through investigation, collection and analysis of data, identifying underlying issues through things like systemic reviews. One of my favorite examples is about something that an auditor in Tucson, a former employee of NACOL actually, as well was conducting an audit and she noticed that there were a whole bunch of complaints about chokeholds being applied and chokeholds are banned in the city of Tucson. So as she was doing the audit, she also realized that the badge numbers were almost in succession and which means that they were from probably the same training class. And so she did a little digging and went in and found out that when they were taught about holds, they were taught by an officer who is not a member of the Tucson Police Department but another law enforcement agency where chokeholds are not banned. And so she was able to see that the whole class was trained as if it was okay that chokehold was something that they could do. And so they were able to retrain them and the complaints nearly disappeared. So that's something that being able to review patterns, look at data are able to do. You're able to find out where the issues are and work to solve them and correct them before something horrible happens. It also focuses on organizational change, not just changing the behavior of one officer but the law enforcement agency as a whole. Something else that we're seeing is that oversight, particularly when it's acting in a proactive manner builds partnerships with law enforcement. Now, I often feel like I have to clarify, that doesn't mean that you're working for law enforcement and that you're pals with law enforcement, you are still an agency that is working, that you are working for the process, you're an advocate for the process, not necessarily for the community or for law enforcement but for the process, a fair, transparent and accountable process. But it also allows to build that partnership so that changes are implemented, that there's a working relationship there, that there is some trust between you and law enforcement and you and the community and then eventually the community and law enforcement, which is that creating Bridges piece that we round this out with. So next, I'm gonna go over a little bit about the history of civilian oversight and I'll do this briefly. I don't want to, this is not the part where I want you all to phase out from the conversation. While I go on about 1928 and civilian oversight. So, but I will start at 1928. And so that is when we see one of the first civilian boards formed in the United States. The problem was is that it was formed by the LA Bar Association. So it had no actual authority within the city government to do anything other than review complaints and be a place where it could take complaints in. So the committee on constitutional rights did not last long, but it was kind of that first effort towards building a board that would oversee complaints made against the Los Angeles police department. In 1931, things started to kind of pick up because we actually had someone say that there needed to be an outside entity to look at the misconduct that was occurring in within law enforcement. So the workers sham commission, which was originally formed to look at the effects of prohibition. It really ended up bringing light to light widespread corruption and unacceptable tactics in policing. And said that there needed to be a disinterested party looking into those matters and creating change. So after that, although it took some time, we see the first civilian review board that starts to look a little bit like what we see civilian review boards look like today, except that there really weren't very many civilians on the board. It was a lot of NYPD officers, or I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I skipped ahead to New York City. So 1948 is actually Washington, D.C. Now the problem with Washington, D.C. is in the years that existed, the first incarnation of it, 1948 to 1964, they only reviewed 54 cases. And I'm sure you can all imagine that there were probably more than 54 issues or incidents of misconduct that should have been reported and investigated and reviewed during that time. It was seen as weak and ineffectual and eventually the mid 1960s was disbanded. Then we have the New York City Civilian Complaint Board, which was made up of three police commissioners and operated completely within the department. And it was expanded to include citizens in 1966, but then they disbanded it shortly after. In 1958, we have another board that then comes about in Philadelphia. And it was a board of citizens who referred complaints to the police for investigations. So starting to sound a little more familiar to what we know now. Tammy? Yeah. When you say in the New York City commission of three that operated entirely within the NYPD, what do you, we are often accused of being a part of the department. And so I want to get an understanding of what that actually meant when you're saying they were operating within the department. There was no independence whatsoever. They were, they met in the department, they were not able to make decisions really in an independent manner. And in that period of time in New York City, they were all seen as friends of the police. So maybe in the training, we'll talk about how to make sure a commission is perceived as independent. Yes. Or not perceived, but how it actually is independent. What one needs to do to assure that. Yeah. Well, and I will say, yes, we will talk about that to answer your question. And I will say it is very tricky when you're talking about police conditions. Because they often, that is an off a very common problem because of their mandates. So closely align them. Correct. Because we're working on directives together, right? So that's why I was asking that question about directives and investigations. And I have to apologize. I have to tune out for about 45 minutes, but I'll watch the recording. So I'm gonna be, no worries. Sorry. No worries. So in 1969, really, this is only... I mentioned this only because Kansas City, the office of citizen complaints is the longest continually running civilian oversight entity in the country. The rest of them have been there, been disbanded. They've come back, maybe disbanded again. And this has been continually operating since then. Not long after it was established, we have the Berkeley model that was actually voted into place by voter referendum. And that was the first time that it happened. And they also had the authority to independently investigate and this complaints and misconduct. So really, we did not see that before 1973. At the same time, the Detroit Board of Police commissioners came in on board and they have been in existence since 1973. And I will say, it might be great to have some connections so that you can talk to some of the members of that commission as well because they have gone through many incarnations and I think also struggled with that independence piece. Now, how their board is structured is a little different. Many of their board members are actually elected, but so they also had that problem with being part of the elected officials. But I think that one of the things, whenever you have some issues that you're talking about, I also like to connect entities with other entities so you don't have to necessarily reinvent the wheel as you're working through issues. By 1980, there were a whopping 13 civilian oversight entities in existence, but in the next 20 years, we added enough to be nearly or maybe a little bit more than a hundred. I will say in the 90s, one of the things that happened is that we saw a burst of this auditor monitor model, San Jose, Seattle. There was an entity that oversaw the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. And so we saw this increase in a model that we really hadn't seen before. And it was often a reaction, a kind of a compromise between this independent investigation model and a review board model. But what ended up happening is that now you have a model that's able to be more proactive and do those systemic reviews and audits of police conduct. And now in 2020, as we mentioned before, more than 200 oversight entities and adding all the time. So it's a very exciting time and still an oversight. It's exciting because a lot of entities like yourself who have been around are now getting the ability to perhaps enhance, better understand what the next step looks like and solutions to some of the challenges that you might have faced. So it's a very exciting time in civilian oversight. So next, we're gonna move on to a little bit about legitimacy authority and civilian oversight models in the United States. So first of all, what shapes legitimacy? So primary issue shaping people's views about legitimacy when dealing with police is whether the police are exercising their authority in fair ways. So when I see that, then that immediately makes me think of procedural justice. Is there neutrality in the process? Is there respect? Do people have a voice? Do they trust the process? And I think one of the things that's really important in civilian oversight and for law enforcement to understand is that procedural justice is often more important than the legal outcome of an encounter or an experience. It's about whether you have anything to do with the experience that you have become a part of. Do you have a voice in it? Are you being treated fairly and with respect? So it's about the quality of treatment and it's about the quality of decision-making. Our decisions made fairly and in a neutral unbiased way. So I think that when we're talking about building these bridges, one of them very much is about how oversight can help law enforcement be more legitimate in the eyes of the community. But I also don't want to leave out the fact that it's important for the civilian oversight entity to build legitimacy within the community. It's imperative because you have a very important role to play and people have to trust in the authority that you've been given. And that also is very much a part of the procedural justice piece. So when we're talking about legitimacy, we also start to talk about so what are those types of authority? So you have your statutory authority, local ordinances, state and federal laws. And that authority is grounded in its reaction, it's authority-driven, problem-driven, focus on accountability and discipline or punishment. And it's really about command and control. What is the lawful use of that authority and measuring numbers as a result? So statutory authority is very important because you need to be given the authority in a way that it can't be taken away from you. You need to have, particularly for oversight, you need to make sure that you have the tools and that you're able to use them. But there's also this other piece, the legitimacy-based authority, which is really about community expectations and values. It looks at a proactive approach, it looks at it's often done through community outreach and engagement and it's, again, about the quality of the process is as important as the outcome. And it's not just about numbers and results, it's about success. What are the successes that we're having and that builds that sense of legitimacy? So I think something else to talk about at this point is what is legitimacy in policing? So are the police trustworthy, honest, concerned about the well-being of the people that they are dealing with? Should police authority be accepted? Should people voluntarily accept police decisions and follow police directives? Should they comply with the law and cooperate with the police? If all, you get to a yes on all of those questions when there is legitimacy in place and the problem comes when that legitimacy doesn't exist. But also what's legitimacy in oversight? So is the agency, it's very similar to the policing. Is the agency trustworthy, honest and concerned about the people they're dealing with? Should their authority be accepted? Should people accept oversight agencies' decisions and recommendations? And should they comply with the law and cooperate with the oversight agency? And the way you get to yes on all of those questions is through the building of legitimacy by having a trustworthy, neutral, fair process. And I also think to go back to something that was asked earlier, I think as you're building that piece, that independence piece, I think legitimacy really plays into that. If they see the oversight entity as a legitimate entity, then that helps to build that trust because you're seen as moving away from being for the law enforcement agency and being someone that is for the process. So now that we talked a little bit about legitimacy and authority, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the models. Now, if you want to go more into these models at a later date, we can absolutely do that. But I wanted to make sure that you had a basis of information about the types of oversight that exist. So first, we have the review focus bottle, which all of you are very familiar with. So one of the biggest pieces of the review model is that it allows community to be part of the process. It allows them to give input into the complaint investigation process. It allows the community to review investigations and that may increase trust by the public in the process itself. And an individual or a board or a commission authorized to review completed internal investigations can agree or disagree with those findings, which means that there can be a point where there is a voice given when there isn't agreement. So moving on to an auditor monitor focus model, it involves a full-time civilian, well, let me back up a little bit. Full-time civilian investigators and auditors, monitors, they may have highly specialized training and they should, they shouldn't come into it without knowing what it looks like to go through data, to analyze it and to come to conclusions. Often, and I apologize, I think that these are, I'm reading through this and I think the second box here is really about the investigative model. So let's just pretend that at the top of that box, it says investigative model. So investigations are conducted by people outside of sworn law enforcement. The agency doesn't rely on the investigators at all within the police department, but they do have to rely on complete unfettered access to information and documents, whether it is statements from witnesses, whether it's body cam footage, whether it is dash cam footage, the ability to interview officers and see all of the reports that were made. It really is important for that to be able to be accessible. And civilian-led investigations tend to negate that real or perceived bias that public often sees when the police are investigating their own. Now, I will say one of the things that typically has kept cities from moving to an independent investigative model is that, well, first of all, that you tend to talk about independent investigations and law enforcement agencies and unions tend to panic and say, no, thank you, we don't want that. But another part of it is that sometimes smaller communities, it's a large investment. It requires, when you're hiring trained investigators, you need to have people who do have the training and you need to pay them and have that enough staff to actually handle that type of work. So it tends to be a more expensive model. But what we are seeing in many smaller communities now is that they're having a review board-focused model but they have the ability in their ordinance to send the investigation back for additional investigation or they, in certain circumstances, can order an independent investigation be done. They can also initiate an investigation on their own if even in the absence of a complaint. So those two things have happened and allowed cities who might not be able to commit to the investment of a full investigative model, they have been able to commit to the investment of having, say, an investigator on contract who could come in when you needed them to. So that's a great development in that. A great example is Madison Wisconsin just implemented a similar model that is exactly that. They also have the ability to make policy recommendations and analyze data. So moving on to what should be the auditor-monitor-focused model, is that, yes, I think. So just curious, that was really interesting to me, this sort of hybrid model with the ability to hire an investigator who would not necessarily be full-time. Yes. What typically are the qualifications of a person like that? So, no, not necessarily a lawyer, but someone who, sometimes it's former law enforcement who have an investigative background. Sometimes it's people who are private investigators and have that background. There are sometimes that work experience, for instance, someone who might be hired with little experience, say in a larger agency somewhere who then works for them for a period of time and gains that training and that experience and then goes to a smaller agency who can't rely on someone who has less experience can be brought in. Our next session is actually an entire two hours on effective investigative practices and reviewing. And so the person who's going to be doing that training, Jason Wechter has been an investigator for over 30 years. He's not an attorney and he can probably talk a little bit more about all of the training that's available and should be considered than I could. Great, thanks. So the auditor monitor models often has many more reporting abilities than any of the other models because what they're doing is they're looking into issues. They're doing audits and they're producing reports which brings so much transparency to the process. Those are public reports that then people can see, first of all, that those types of things are happening but also can see that what the issues are and what the recommended remedies are to those issues. It may be more effective at promoting long-term systemic change in an agency, a law enforcement agency. It's generally, to go back to that cost issue, it's generally less expensive than an investigator model but it does require someone who actually knows how to look at data. It doesn't have to maybe be a certified auditor although many, if not most of them are. And be able to really kind of pull that information together and come up with conclusions. It also, this model also allows the agency to actively engage in many or all of the steps of the process. Like there are many auditors who, although they may not be doing the investigation of a complaint, they might be able to sit in on the interview of officers or complainants and ask questions or they might be able to submit questions to those doing the interviews. So there are quite a few monitor, auditor models who do have that ability so that it happened, it's like you're being involved real time that way because then you don't have to wait till you get the investigation and say, well, but why didn't you ask them this? You can be part of that process. And then Stephanie said the word hybrid earlier, really what we're seeing in most cases now is that most civilian oversight agencies they're a combination of two or more of these models because communities are saying, well, I want this to happen, but I still wanna do this. And we do see that the review piece of this is almost always part of the hybrid because that's the community involvement piece that's so imperative in the oversight process. But then it allows the creation of something that also can do an investigation independently or maybe a systemic audit or a systemic review of something within the law enforcement agency. So we are seeing that kind of hybridization of the models. And I would assume that eventually this presentation will change not only to have the correct headings at the top, but also to say that really here's, we have hybrids and these are the components of hybrids. It's one model better than the other. Every model has strengths and weaknesses. And so really when you're deciding what model to implement, the needs of the community really have to be part of that. What is the history or narrative of the community or communities encompassing the law enforcement agencies? Level of support, both financial and political for any of these models, level of authority, independence that's wanted. And what are the expected outcomes? One of the things that I think that particularly when we get to the community outreach piece that you're gonna hear this word expectations a lot. So I'm sure you all know that, you come into the process with expectations, but the community has a whole nother set of expectations about what you should or should not be doing. And so setting expectations is really important, but also trying to meet some of those expectations where they are is also important, particularly when you have the ability to establish or enhance an oversight mechanism. I think a lot of times there becomes a point of disappointment by communities when they find out that the oversight agency that they might have been told is gonna fix all of their problems, may not have the ability to subpoena witnesses to complete an investigation. It may not have a law enforcement agency that gives them the documents they need to do the work that they're supposed to do. Like there are all of those things that kind of go into that expected outcomes pile that need to also be considered when establishing or enhancing a mechanism. So next I wanna move on to principles for effective oversight. So I think that given particularly the things that you mentioned at the beginning, I think that this piece may be particularly important to you. So I'm gonna kind of looking at my time. I wanna make sure that I spend the time here that we need and please feel free to jump in with questions. So, NACL recently put together the 13 principles for effective oversight. Now I have to say that this was, this is a compilation of pre-existing work and some work that we did working with existing civilian oversight agencies based on what stakeholders determined to be most important for the community that the agency serves. So this is really, it identifies the most important aspects of oversight. And I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the people that helped develop principles in the past that we kind of pulled together to make a complete set. So that includes Sam Walker, includes Joseph D. Angeles, Richard Rosenthal, Barbara Tard, Catherine Olson, some of them oversight practitioners, some of them academics, and many others who have really looked at this over the last several decades to see what goes into effective oversight. So first on the list is independence. And independence is absolutely key. It cannot be overemphasized enough because all of you know that when the community does not see independence, then that becomes a problem. And that could be a real or perceived issue in some communities, it just depends. But it's one of the most important concepts in civilian oversight. It refers to an absent of real or perceived influence from law enforcement, political actors and any other special interests looking to affect the operations of the entity. I think an important point that really has come to light in the last several months is that independence is also important because it means you need to have an ability to maintain that independence, even in the face of high profile events. So there is a critical incident, there's a shooting, there is a death at the hand in custody. Being able to be seen as independent in even those times is really important. And that goes back to the legitimacy piece because you're there to be part of the process and not necessarily on one side or the other. And believe me, you will be asked by all sides to be on their side, whether it's elected officials or law enforcement or community. And it's about you being independent from those influences and doing the job that you've been tasked with. The next is clearly defined an adequate jurisdiction and authority. So having adequate jurisdiction and authority are fundamental in achieving organizational goals and ensuring the oversight agency can be responsive to community. So who do you oversee? How do you operate? Can you make policy recommendations? Can you, I mean, what are your authorities? And it needs to be very clearly defined. I was looking at the policy that guides you and when I was going through it, I was like, there were lots of, well, who does this? Like, who determines whether something is low-level or mid-level? Is there a matrix? Like, who is in charge of tracking all of this? Who's in charge of the spreadsheet? So there are questions like that. And it's really important that it's laid out very clearly so that you know that you have the tools that you need and you have a clear idea of what the expectations are of you. So if, as you work through your process, whatever that might be, keeping that in mind that have those clear definitions and clear authorities is very important in doing the work. The next one is unfettered access to documents or sorry, unfettered access to records and facilities. So the facilities piece there is because we do have a lot and a growing number of oversight entities that also oversee jails and prisons. And some of those do it in conjunction with patrol. Some are just jail and prison, but we do that that facility piece is very key for them. But unfettered access to records. So I always feel like it seems ridiculous that we have to make this a principle because if you can't review records and how can you actually know what you're reviewing or making decisions on. So, but we all know that it still needs to be in here because that is not always the case. So the ability to review all records relevant to an investigation in a timely manner is essential to providing oversight. It allows you to provide informed, fact-driven oversight. Similarly, being able to have access to those who you have questions for. And as I mentioned before, all of the elements that went into the decision that someone made after doing investigation, if you're supposed to review that, you need access to the same materials that they had. Now, I realize that there are often, I get a lot of questions around this principle about well, what about confidentiality? What about state laws? Well, of course, everything needs to be done in accordance with the law. But there are also lots of agencies who have board members, commissioners who sign confidentiality agreements so that if they are not upholding that part of this piece, that then there are repercussions for that. But there are oversight entities all over the country who have unfettered access without issue. There, it doesn't seem to be a large drive of oversight practitioners to release information that's deemed confidential. Can we just to flag that this issue of access to records has been an issue for us? And yeah, I think we'll be talking to you about that and how to ensure that we do have adequate material. There was a complaint that we were asked to investigate and our access to one of the body cam videos at least was denied. And at least some of us felt it was germane to reviewing the incident. And so it became clear that at that point that in our evolving role that we need to figure this out and to memorialize it in a way that allows this not to be negotiated for each incident. But so when you say unfettered access to records, you really mean that, right? Just that the oversight body has the ability and where does that authority rest with that unfettered access to records? So we see it a couple of different ways. So in some cases it's part of the ordinance that creates the oversight entity. And in some cases actually New Orleans comes to mind, they have an MOU with the police department that outlines how that whole process works. And I always feel like if New Orleans police department and their monitor could come to a memorandum of understanding about access, then I feel like anybody can do it. But so, and I'm happy to send you a copy of that because a lot of times it doesn't get outlined in an ordinance, but it is so essential to be able to do the job that you've been asked to do that if it's not in an ordinance, a memorandum of understanding has to be put into place. Because you're right, the amount of time that is spent trying to negotiate the process every time, it's a waste of your time, it's a waste of law enforcement's time, there just needs to be a process in place so that you can do the work. And I'm sorry, I think I cut someone off. No, no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I was just saying that that would be super helpful for us to see something like that because I think it's much needed here. At our last meeting, we asked for some additional data regarding use of force statistics by officer. And we just kind of got like a wishy-washy response when it should have been like, yeah, sure, we'll get you that. Like maybe they'll want to discuss an executive session but to not just say, yes, we can give you that information, which we know should be out there. Could we, I'd like to send you the report that we just reviewed with regards to data that showed still some disturbing trends with racial disparities in our area. I would love to know what you think and how we can go about having discussions with our department about the data and a strategic plan to address some issues. Quite frankly, we've been struggling to get some type of response to trends that continue. Like even through COVID, these trends have continued. Thank you. Absolutely. I might just, oh, sorry. If I might just say, Jabu, we, for all of my fellow commissioners, we do our arrangement with Nicole is that they will give, that we have funding for additional consultation around policy and so forth. So I'm actually keeping a list. And if any of you have things you want to add to that. So for example, an MOU or some kind of mechanism to give us authority to records, your point, Milo, I'll add to the list. So just to let you know that as policy issues, these issues come up and we need further consultation with Nicole, just let me know and I'll add it to the list and we'll work that out. Thank you. I know a problem that I've run into a couple of times and it's not in front of you right now so I can't reference it. I do know that in the BPOA contract that's been bargained between the city and their union, there are some things that are protected in there. And like I said, it's not all data things, but I know there are certain data things in there. Would that contract have to be renegotiated before they would release that? Yeah, so when we say unfettered access to records, so there are, there's a little asterisk there that are allowable by the contract that's in place, by state laws, by local laws, by officer bill of rights, things like that, there are lots of things that inhibit that unfettered access that sometimes you cannot control. I think that when, I mean, there are contracts that prohibit civilian oversight in some cities and bringing that attention to that and trying to make sure that in the next round of negotiations that things like that are removed is just as important as the work that you're doing here. And maybe that isn't your role, maybe that is the community's role to look at things like that that are inhibiting true, transparent, accountable mechanisms to oversee the police. So those are important. And unfortunately until things like that are taken out of the mix, they are part of the equation. Yeah, that's kind of the big elephant in the room with the light feel like a lot of things moving forward. I know when our city was trying to strengthen community oversight that was potentially a big, a stumbling block had the mayor not vetoed it and it moved on, that was a strong concern that it wouldn't jive with the current CBA contract with the department. Okay, well, definitely something to be aware of and as you're moving forward and as that contract negotiation comes around again to look at, hopefully, particularly during this time, elected officials are also looking at some of those things that have been put in contracts before that perhaps are no longer needed because there is the importance of building that legitimacy with the community, which means access and transparency. So one can hope that this moment brings that kind of change as well. Any more comments or questions on that? It's a big one, I realize. And if I could,