 Okay, now. I want to adopt the agenda. Okay, so just for the record, today is Tuesday, March 8th. It's the Public Safety Committee. We just have had a, there's two members of the committee that are here. Councilor Hightower wasn't able to make it this evening. So Councilor Stromberg has made a motion to adopt the agenda. I will second it. All those in favor, will say aye. We have an agenda. Jared, we got the minutes of the meeting. I think probably given the fact that Zariah is not here, we'll vote on those next week. And then I'm trying to think if we have, I'm not following the agenda. I assume the next item is the public forum. I don't know if there are members of the public that are. There appears to be two members. Right, so Courtney is on here from, that's Courtney, I'll land in from seven days. And then Mark Boucher, if there's any, at any time, if you would like to add anything to the conversation, we're pretty informal when it comes to committees. If there's a point where you'd like to speak, you can use the raise hand function and we will do our best to recognize you. So with that, we'll close the public forum. Before you do that Karen, I can just update the committee on the request to have the meetings put on town meeting TV. So as of now, all of the recordings with a link have been posted to board docs, all previous meetings of the public safety committee that we have recorded have been put on board docs. Thomas and I reached out to town meeting TV to see if they could also be added to the YouTube channel. And we have been told that at this time, it's gonna cost us $150 a meeting. So it would be $600, I think for the month of March for the four meetings that we have. And part of that is because the city does have a contract with town meeting TV, obviously city council meetings. And I believe that the police commission is also something that was contemplated in that contract. But the standing committees of the city council, public safety being one of them, ordinance, et cetera, all of those standing committees I don't think were negotiated at the time that the contract was drafted. And so this would be an additional thing that would need to have its own contract and we'd have to find the funds to add it. So being that this isn't something that was traditionally done as I understand it with the standing committees. And it also was in a requirement of the open meetings law to have recordings of the video as long as we have minutes of the meeting. We're meeting that requirement. So we will continue to post them on board docs because we can do that for free and individuals can go to the meeting and click on the link and it will bring them to the recording of the Zoom. But if we wish to decide to go forward with town meeting TV that would be a little bit more complicated because we'd have to work out a new agreement and also find some funding to cover the cost of that. All right, so why don't we try to figure that out offline? I think it is important to have it if we can. I'm sorry, Milo, did you wanna say something? My apologies, I didn't mean to speak over you. I just had a couple of questions, follow up questions. Sure. So the contract that you're referring to, when was it like it was the contract renegotiated this year or late last year? I'm just trying to figure out what changed and when it changed. I don't think Milo that anything has changed. So, and I went to talk to Shannon who staffed the police commission to also understand when were they added and it was prior to her arrival which was more than two and a half years ago and me being relatively new I haven't even hit a year yet coming up soon but so I wasn't privy to that contract. I went to Lori Olberg who staffs also the city council and was talking with her today and we didn't pull up. We weren't able to pull up the actual contract right then and there but I wasn't talking to town meeting TV and they say that the current contract doesn't expire for another year. So I don't mean to be difficult but I'm still confused because as I mentioned previously these meetings were posted. They were posted through the end of 2021. So something changed at the beginning of this year and if the contract is still in effect and they were being posted previously why did that stop? So I feel like there needs to be a little bit more digging. I mean, I'm happy to know they're attached to board docs and I can refer people there but when people do look at these meetings especially the YouTube page is a popular place to check them out. So it just is they were posted there posted through 2021 and something changed and so if it isn't a contract that was very recently renegotiated, what changed? Does that make sense? It's a valid question. For sure. And Karen correct me if I'm wrong but Milo, I think that there's some confusion and I would like to know what you're referring to as they were posted whether that's the Public Safety Committee as a standing committee of the city council or the joint committee between the police commission and the public safety committee that was working on a temporary basis so to speak as far as I understand this wasn't the standing practice of city council standing committees to post their recordings to town meeting TV as far as I know that could be different for the joint committee of the public safety committee and the police commission because it has been practice of the police commission to be posting their recordings to town meeting TV which was contemplated as I understand it contemplated at the time the contract was negotiated and again I'm happy and willing to go back and try to dig up the contract and find out exactly what was going on but as far as my understanding of the standing committees and the public safety committee on its own that wasn't the practice because again the minutes meet the open meetings law requirement and I think that that was what the city was relying on also I guess prior to there being Zoom and recording which now has been going on for two years about that I'm guessing again I'm guessing probably there weren't as regularly recorded video meetings. Well I guess what we can do in the meantime is then we can try to have this conversation offline is that it sounds to me like what you're really talking about Jared is that this is all boils down to really a matter of I guess to some degree some precedent although it sounds like this has been done in the past and then also the money so there have been I've sort of lost track how many meetings we've had that have dealt with the CNA report I don't remember now I guess there's been maybe four, maybe five, four of them there's gonna be another this one plus the others we're talking about eight meetings of the eight hopefully that will be what it will be eight meetings and you said that each meeting they quoted us at an estimate of $150 for each all right so that's $1,200 all right so what I'll do so that we can keep moving forward is see if we can't find a way to find the $1,200 and I will report back on that at the next meeting we'll see if we can't figure that out and that's- I'll also work on trying to find the original contract so that it- Okay. Yeah, see that as well. Okay, all right, okay, sure of course well this is important and I think we should have our record of it and for anyone who wants to be able to come back and look back on this they'll be able to follow along with where we were and how we came to the conclusions that we did and as good as the minutes are minutes can never capture the same thing as a recording so okay so let's what we're gonna try to do is and this may not be as difficult as it may appear right now given the fact that it's already six o'clock is to try to do sections two and three. Section three is all about oversight and a lot of those have as I think I said in the email some of that has been covered and will continue to be covered through the resolution that the Public Safety Committee did a couple of months ago back in October and I know that Dan Richardson, city attorney is working on that response as well so but let's get let's see if we can't get started so the section two is all about citizen complaint complaints and internal affairs. The first item and I think there's about 17 of them is that BPD should develop or acquire a complaint tracking system that includes in a minimum the following information about complaints in separate closed data fields and so on. The those who responded it appears as though with the exception of Jeff that the rest of us do feel that this is a priority mostly because I think what I've gathered from what most of you have said including myself is that when it comes to citizen complaints this is important because it is about building trust and this is important because the community wants this and what builds trust within the community benefits everyone it benefits the BPD it benefits the city it benefits the community it benefits everyone there really are no losers when it comes to building trust. So I think what we're gonna try to do and normally Zariah has done this so I don't know Jane how you feel about this. The suggested timeline and the committee conclusions are effectively what Zariah has been filling in. This suggested timeline shouldn't be too hard because we're talking about either Q1 through whatever the rest of it is anything that we can add as far as a conclusion and we'll try to be succinct. I'm happy to fill that in on what I have on my screen and then I can just send that around after or I can screen share whatever you want. Okay so probably the easiest way is just use the enable yourself to edit what you've got and then we'll deal with it after the meeting. Happy to take notes on that. Okay, thank you so much. So what we're talking about here is the it appears as though for most responses that again this is a priority and I believe that the chief would put this down as partially agreeing and looking at Orrin what your response is. All right so what you're saying is that if data is being kept for the collection of data as data that's one thing. If it's being collected kept to be used in future discipline decision of an officer. When you say future do you mean like future as in a year later or I'm not really sure exactly what you mean by that. Yeah basically if this is gonna come up somebody is looking at discipline in a year or two time and the department want to go back and they look at all the complaints that have been levied against an officer and use as an aggravating factor that would be something that we'd be looking to negotiate because that's a change in practice right now. Okay, so in other words if it was, if it was being used, I mean according to this it looks like it's being used for demographics, process related dates. I'm not sure exactly what that means. Specific details of the accusation and discipline directed when applicable. You know I mean we could put that in as a union item but I think the biggest reason for this is to have a way of tracking data so that we know whether or not it's been followed up. That to me is what I thought what I interpreted this as. Chief, you had said you partially agree. Can you sort of elaborate on how you feel that you partially agree but not completely agree? I partially agree. Many of these things are actually already being done. It's a matter of the implementation of it by which I partially agree. Benchmark can do some of these things. I'm not certain which parts it can do and that's the partial depending on what Benchmark can do. We'll look at it demographics of complainants. Right now we don't do that. We can add to the existing online form voluntary complainant information and a good number of complaints are made anonymously but we could add that demographic if people want to fill it out. It's not something that we currently require but we could with regard to the personnel that we have that information. It's just not in the spreadsheet but it's a component because we know who the officers are. If they are named and once we identify them in the course of an investigation if we're able to do so. And then process dates, we take all those and we keep track of that for the most part. Date review, if for larger cases, yes. For smaller cases, citizen complaints, we don't necessarily track each of those dates although they are not in the spreadsheet and but we can add them to the benchmark system. We're just, it's taking time to roll that system out and then the specific details that is absolutely a component of it because that's what the complaint is, is the details and then the discipline is also generally described in the spreadsheet. There is an online version of the spreadsheet covering years 2018, 2019 and 2020 that was shared with the committee when it was looking at the charter change. There was one, it's there. It's probably on board docs still in that section of the, in that section of board docs that gives an idea of how these things are tracked and what's the information that's inside. All right, so Jeff, did you have your hand up, yes? Yes, Karen, I took a close look at this and you did pick up on my answer. I ranked it a three, but I read through section two and I see there's community concerns. The people I know downtown, we already trust the police and so in our circles, there's not a lot of distrust here and I know you want trust within the police force. I understand that, but I think right now we need to focus on rebuilding the police force and hiring more officers and getting them trained. I mean, that's really where the focus needs to be in my mind and I know everybody says, look at the data, look at the data. So I looked at the data and I see that there's 197 complaints and it says commendations on page 23. I think it meant condemnations. And so, and then it says 191 complaints. And so I did the math. I said, well, you're 36 months, 156 weeks within this three year period. That comes to 1.2 complaints per week, but then it says 23% of those had a sustained outcome. So I guess they're the most severe. That comes to 1.2 per month. So there's not a lot of complaints here. So I just think the focus should be yes, we want trust within the public of the police but we really need to focus on rebuilding the police force. So therein lies my answer number three. So thought that needs to be said, thank you. Okay, all right, Milo. Thank you. I just want to add a gentle reminder that part of this whole process is to develop a holistic solutions for the entire city of Burlington. So we do have to be very careful on just focusing on just one particular segment of our community. The number of overall complaints may seem small, but depending on what those complaints are, we do want to have consistent practices in terms of how they are addressed, how they are tracked, are members of the community who are complainants who choose to give their identity and request follow-up is that follow-up actually being done? And I know there was a document that the police commission has been working on itemizing revisions to the complaint process. I believe Karen, you were sent a copy of that. I think it might be helpful to add that. And if not, let me know because I can definitely forward it because I think it would be helpful to have it added as a attachment for this process, but we are definitely encouraging demographic information to be added to the complaint form. Of course, it's voluntary, but it really should be there given that the continual effort to work on racial disparities in the department. So that's what I would say for now. Thank you very much. Okay, great. Thanks, Milo. Thanks, Jeff. It's good to know, I mean, a number is just a number, but there's an understanding what's behind the number. I think that it probably falls somewhere in the middle in terms of where we should probably be placing this. I mean, citizen complaints are, there may not be dozens of them every week. And of course, that's a good thing. But we do need to know that we are tracking them effectively and that people know that they're being tracked effectively. And certainly the issue of racial disparities, it's pretty hard to, it's hard to do that without data. So I think if that, if those can be, I guess what I would say, Jane, and if others have any other feelings about this is that the committee conclusion is that these, for all the reasons that we've said in terms of building trust, and you could probably just use some of the things that others have said from a point of trust building that we do need to prioritize citizen complaints so that citizens know that their complaints are being tracked. And it sounds like from what the chief is saying, that being able to do those in terms of demographic personnel information, some of that is already being done, but whatever isn't being done, it sounds like could be with the caveat that we do need to understand and appreciate that tracking that information for the purposes of collecting data is one thing. Tracking it for purposes of at some point being able to use that as a disciplinary tool down the road, maybe a year from now, would be something that would need to be bargained for. And I believe, is that correct Jared, that that would have to be bargained or is that not correct? Or is that just simply that data is data? And if there is an issue that comes up to you a year later, that doesn't need to be bargained for, that that is just simply information. And that can be kept whether or not it is a union issue or not. Is that true or not true? And I'll get right back to you, Milo, just a minute. And chief, correct me if I'm wrong here too, you may know better than I, but I think that in terms of the department collecting data, that's one thing. And certainly I think that's what VPOA is highlighting here is collecting of data for the numbers and to understand demographics and the type of complaints that are coming in and those sorts of things. That wouldn't necessarily be something that needs to be bargained for, but as for the discipline process of officers and what is and is not allowed to be contemplated by the chief and his or her final determination as to discipline on an officer, that is something that it falls within the four quarters of the contract. And so if we were to start pulling these things into it, data that had been held out for years and then all of a sudden contemplated down the line, that would be something that might relate to contract and whether or not it is permissible to be contemplated. Would that be your, is that your impression, chief? Yeah, yes, yes, the city attorney is correct. There are rules in the contract about how long documents may be retained and also rules about how long records may remain in personnel files. And there are rules about how long a different kinds of infractions may be considered when rendering future discipline. Milo, did you have your hand raised or is that from before? Nope, it's me again. So I actually wanna do two things now based on what's been added to the discussion. The first thing I wanted to say in general, one of the things that we need to think about as a community, as a city and issues of liability and things like them, how we handle complaints can determine whether or not someone decides to sue the city. So that's the thought that I would like to have out there. And I can't put my hands on it, but I want to say somewhere else, there's a recommendation to keep information about discipline longer because that is becoming the best practice. It helps communities make judgment calls when they have that information on any officer that they're considering hiring that might have a potential issue if they have a high rate of use of force incidents, for example. So I would just have to go through and see where I found that because I think it should have been labeled as a bargaining issue because of the amount of time that we currently save that information. Thank you. Okay, all right, thanks, Milo. So I guess what we're, and I agree with you, I think that that, I don't have it in front of me because I don't have the other tabs, but I do believe that that was one of the things in section one. And I agree with you, Milo. I think that that might have been in one of the tab, in the tab that we put in the union, there were nine or 10, nine or 10 or 11 different items that are in the tab that was the union tab. So I think probably what we should do, Jane, is this one should probably be just, if we have that union tab is that this one should be like posted in both places. We'll keep it on the, we'll keep it obviously on this matrix, but it probably should be added to the other. So I think whatever can be done to be responsive to the complaint tracking system that we know that we should have should be done. And it sounds like those are not difficult to implement. So if people are okay with a Q2, then we'll go with Q2. As far as a suggested timeline, and then the conclusion is just simply that anything that's further, anything that is more than just for tracking would have to be bargained for because that is in the BPOA contract. I will say I just quickly looked at the other tab and it was included. It's a 1.36 but it was flagged as something for negotiation. Okay, all right. So when we finish the meeting and we, and Jane sends us her matrix that she's working on now, then we'll start, we'll start divvying that up Jared and putting that back on the list. I also put in bold to like refer to like 1.36. And then I just, I put that in the notes. So it's easy to find for time. Okay, all right. That would be great. And then what was the timeline on this? We hadn't really done it. I mean, I'm okay with Q2. Are you okay with Q2? Is there any objection to, you know, we'll, I mean, we'll obviously in the hopes of getting it done, you know, soon, but not that it is the absolute top priority here. Because if we have, if everything is Q1, then we'll never get anything. It just, we have to prioritize as much as these things are important. It seems as though the others are the one about ensuring that all data fields contain only a single variable. That seemed to be, that seemed to be, you know, something that we all had agreement on. BPOA did not seem to have any objections. It was more a question of figuring that out with either through Valkor or through Benchmark. I don't know how difficult that is. And that's what I had said, you know, is this something that is that important that it couldn't be done next year? Or is it something that should be done at the same time that you're doing the data, the changes to the data system? And I don't know the answer to that. I don't know, Chief, do you have an opinion about that as far as whether or not these things should be done at the same time? Or is this something that can be done later? I don't have an opinion to that. I don't know enough about the specifics about how Benchmark is gonna work to know whether or not that's something that we can do at the same time as we're doing some of these other things. With regard to the data collection that's in 2.1.1 specifically about complainants, that's on the city end. That's merely a matter of changing the city form, which we can do. The online form that goes to both to me and to the co-chairs and vice chair of the police commission automatically. That's a simple change. This one, you know, the idea of data fields. Benchmark we have control over. We have zero control over Valcor in that respect. So we can't make those changes in Valcor. But that change could be made in Benchmark? I'm uncertain where we have fields that contain more than a variable. I think that they're talking about a spreadsheet that we have as opposed to any of these. They never came to this building to see any of these systems. They never looked at Benchmark. They never looked at Valcor. They never did any examination of what these systems are. I think they are talking about a spreadsheet that we designed in Excel, not unlike the one that we're using here that can have as much or as little in each field as you want. And that spreadsheet is merely the surface container of the actual data that's in mostly paper files that are PDFed and then are held online and also in file cabinets. And then Benchmark's purpose is to take all of that and digitize. Not the back stuff that we already exist in paper, although someday maybe, but that's much farther down the road, but going forward to do that. Okay. All right, thanks. So I guess when it comes to this, Jane, as far as the single variable, as far as the committee conclusion, the first is we're not really sure how many fields this even applies to. So we would need to know how many fields that applies to. And it sounds to me like this one, as well as the next one about reducing or eliminating the none or other, it sounds like these are not that difficult to do through within Benchmark. So I don't know how you feel about that, if that's something that, it doesn't sound to me like this is that big a deal, but I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Milo, I'm assuming you have your hand up, fresh hand. Go ahead. Yes, so if CNA was provided with spreadsheets, when that information was provided to them, did it specify what software was actually being used? I wouldn't know that. It was an Excel spreadsheet. It was an Excel spreadsheet, but was there any additional information provided to them about where that data came from in terms of the software that we actually used? The software is being implemented, the Benchmark software is being implemented. It was purchased probably around the same time as CNA was doing the study, or at least when they were contracted and began. And the system is in a system, the system is the city IT system, which is a form, and then populates a form with which I think you're familiar because I believe that once it goes to the chair and the vice chair and the co-chair, that they share it with the others. That's not a data system, that's just a form that populates an email. Yes, sir, I understand that. I'm just trying to have an understanding of when you say that they were just sent an Excel file, where did that information get pulled from? As I said, the file is the synopsis of the cases. Okay, so there wasn't a specific software previous to Benchmark? That is correct. Okay, thank you, that was the clarification. I'm sorry, I could have made myself a little bit clearer, thank you. And then, so looking at the none and other, those are categories that were being used within the department, but with Benchmark, we can add additional categories, is that correct? I believe, I'm not certain. I don't know if Benchmark has pre-existing categories that it uses or not. Okay, that would be something for us. Our categories comport with the allegations that are in the city form and that are based in what we see most commonly. So it's use of force, abuse of authority, bias, courtesy, cruiser operation, neglect of duty, none other violation, and none applies. There are many, 30% of the complaints that come in are none with regard to an allegation, because they are not an allegation against an officer. They are calls about, here's one, a person who says, this person violated in no stocking order. She's yelling out of her window directly at another person and the plow company. That's an online complaint. And I understand what you're saying. So that's a none and an other. Respectfully, I would disagree with categorizing that as none because it doesn't give us enough information. And I do agree with you that we get things like that. Sometimes people complain about parking and parking's no longer in the department. So people are inappropriately sending something to the complaint system that isn't really a complaint, but it's not really none. I would like to see, and I'll have to think upon that and maybe talk about it too with our other commissioners about what type of categories these none and others can be put under. Because I think the type of information when we have certain complaints come in, like if you have a parking complaint, well, what education does the city need to do to make sure that people have an understanding that, hey, we don't bother the police department about parking anymore. That should be something that you're going to DPW about. So it can give information that lets the city know what we need to do to take pressure off of the department so that people know the appropriate place to go with regards to certain things. So complaints about parking are referred to the DPW and the parking department. The idea that a complaint about someone else violating a no-stalking order is a police complaint is not accurate. It is a none. That is not a police complaint. I understand what you're saying. The reason that I would like to see something else other than none, I think we can tag it is not a police complaint with some type of description as to why it's not a police complaint and we'd have to have further discussion on the additional categories. But when we look at this, we have none and other on the graph that was provided with the report came in very, very high. So I think it's important to say what more data can we pull out of this? So we can definitely say, hey, we received something that's not an appropriate complaint but give it a category other than none because I think that data would be useful. I think the more data we have, the more it can help us. Thank you. I know I would tend to agree with that. I mean, I think none tends to be a pretty non-descript way of referring to really anything. So I think maybe the thing to put here, Jane, is just simply the committee conclusion is that none is not, none, quote unquote, is not descriptive enough. We certainly could say instead of none is not a police officer related complaint. That specifically says exactly what I think is being used as none. Or there could be one that simply says not a police officer complaint, it is parking enforcement. Obviously the more categories you have, the more descriptive they are and the better the data, it is also more time consuming. So we don't wanna make it too overly prescriptive but at the same time, none is probably just not descriptive enough. So it would seem that that would be a fair thing. As far as suggested timeline, I mean, yeah, this is important when these other two items, the other two items above get done. If those are Q2 or, I mean, I know for myself, I had put them as less important. Others put them as slightly more. I know Hannah put them as important but not as important. So maybe we could put those, the line 60 and 61 as just Q3. And we'll move on from there. I think that there are a number of items in here that relate to directive 40, DD 40. And I looked back to see where they, because we had done that in section one. And I think it was determined that that is a lot of work and we had put that into Q4. So for item 2.2.2, about citizen complaints to be separate from all other complaint processes, that is what is needed is DD 40. And it sounded to, and again, I'm just going back on what we had done before. There seems to be general agreement with that. It's just simply a matter of the time. So I think that in the interest of time, that conclusion is really just simply that there is general overall agreement that this is a priority, but must be done. But in order to do that, you need DD 40 to be updated. And that is a significant amount of work. So if we put that into Q4, that appears to be where we had prioritized at the last time, I don't think we want to, I think we want to try to be consistent if we can. And there's another one, Jane, also. 2.10.1 is also the same if you want to be able to copy. I think that's the other one. 2.72? 2.10.1. The department. Yeah, line 73. Oh, sorry. Sorry, 73, yep. Okay, I will do that. Okay, so 2.3.1 is about clarifying its citizen complaint process and reference the process within the disciplinary system. This is a long one. So I guess the one thing that I would question is just simply, the chief had put this in as done. I think there is, and this is interesting because I had actually said this Milo was that from what I've heard from the chair, co-chair of the police commission and the chief, it appears there is a process being followed, but that I would be interested to hear if it's confirmed by the working group, we can speak directly to this. And I know you had said agree, but not completely done. And maybe you could speak to that. So we all know what you meant. So along a lot of this information, we have been looking at the overall processes. We're in the middle of so many process reviews. And I think is actually, do you recall getting that document from Stephanie? I think, yes, I think so. She's given, she's sent me a lot. I can't remember it exactly, Milo, I'm not sure, but I think so. So it had a list of things that kind of overlapped with some of these recommendations and things that we were currently working on and things that we wanted to see if we could get done. I guess really the best thing to do, because we have some of this kind of divvied up among members of the commission, I could try to get a more detailed update. All right, so maybe the conclusion is just simply that it appears as though that some of this is either well underway or there is, I mean, my understanding from, as far as citizen complaint, from what Jabu has said, from what the chief has said, is that there is a process and that it is being followed. There may be some parts of it that aren't perfect or let's see. Right, well, since the NACOL training that we received this past summer, it really opens the commission's eyes to ways that we could really improve this process for the community. So there was a process, but we have been adding to it, improving it in ways that we believe would benefit the community and there's still some things that we want to continue to pursue. So like one of the things, I just pulled up that document. So it did have the recommendation of adding demographic information. It had the recommendation for additional categories. Developing certain protocols for regular updates to complainants, revising the policy so that the commission has some input in terms of determining levels of a complaint because sometimes we might look at a complaint differently than the department does and then we have to discuss it and offer our points of view and also like we have one particular complaint where we had the commission's legal counsel involved in reviewing certain policies and procedures. So going through that process, we have a process but it's a work in progress really. There is still things that could be done that will have a final process, I think be better overall. Okay, all right. So I think when it comes to committee conclusion unless others have other to add is that, I think there is a process, Jane, that is being used. There are some aspects of that that probably could be done that are under review by different members and are being worked on by the police commission. So I think probably the best way would be for that to be something that the commission will continue to work on and to do that with the union as well as with the chief and that could be ongoing. It sounds to me like they're in the midst of working on that. Maybe Q2 with being able to hopefully be able to conclude that and then just simply it's just a process. And I would imagine that could just simply be monitored once it is in place to everyone's satisfaction that could be monitored on a semi-annual basis or something like that. And I did, by the way, also, sorry about that, Jane. I also did find the next one, 2.4.1, is also about the DD-40 directive. I'm sorry, I'm just finishing up some thoughts. That's all right, that's all right. Okay, so what was that 2.0? We're moving on to 2.4.1, and that one is also about DD-40. Okay, so I'll just copy and paste that. Yeah. The other, the two that are next, the 2.4, 2.5 under 2.5, the first one, which I think is a very interesting one, is the one about building community trust and sharing information. And that I think, I mean, again, I think there's always going to be agreement about that. And I also do very much agree with the chief about the hiring of a PIO, a public information officer. I can only speak to the fact that it has been highly successful at DPW. In fact, I think if you ask Chapin, he will wonder how he lived without it, how he lived without Rob Golding, because he is, it's incredibly helpful to have that. I'm hopeful, and I don't know, chief, if you have time, if you have a feeling about speaking to that as far as going into the FY23 budget, if that's something that you are going to be prioritizing, so that we can even speak to the fact that it's already in the works or where you stand with that? No, it is not a position owing to the fact that I think when the mayor requested it, it wasn't one of the parts that was granted during that discussion back in December to my knowledge. It's not a component of our current budget. It's certainly a position I know I want and need. The mayor has expressed a belief that it is needed, just as you just did, counselor. And it's definitely something I'd like to include in the budget. It's not currently factored into the budget. And I would guess that's at least partly because it's not an approved position yet. All right, so, I mean, are there any, are there any feelings on the part of the, of the working group. About how we feel about putting that as in a conclusion that we would support as a, as a working group made up of police commissioners, city counselors and key stakeholders. That as well as the marketplace, sorry about that, Jeff. That, that this is, I mean, if we're going to talk about building trust, we have to be able to get information and, you know, if we're going to talk about building trust, we have to be able to get information and would there be feeling about including that and having that as a conclusion that we would support on that position. I know Jeff and Milo are both raising their hands. Jeff, I, I see you first. So go ahead. No, you can see I write those number one as a priority. I, I keep reading in this report about the lack of trust. And I got to tell you the folks I deal with all day long. They largely trust the police. And we value their, their presence. And, and so I want to make sure the narrative is that there's a good portion of this community that does trust the police. I just want to make that clear from, from my standpoint. Okay. Thank you. Milo. Thank you. So. A couple of things. Once again, we have to look at this. Holistically for. The whole city of Burlington. And do our best to address the concern. Of all the. Communities within our city. There are wide range of views. Regarding public safety. And we can't get to the extremes, but we can certainly make an effort to meet most people. Where they are. When I started getting involved in this process, going back to being on the committee for to review policing and policing. And I've been. Talking about ad nauseam is the need for improvement. For public engagement. And certain types of public engagement from the police department. So I wholeheartedly support this position. Respectfully. To the mayor, he made it. A little bit of a political discussion. And I think he was just trying to lump it in with other things. He was just trying to push through and it was made a little bit political. And it should not be a political discussion around this position. This position should be handled as a standalone. Issue and not lumped in with other things. And. I think that that causes even more distrust. And I think that's what I think needs. Which I think need to be discussed once it's, I hope, hopefully approved, but I think definitely we should stand behind it. Thank you. Okay. All right. So great. Thank you. Thanks, Milo. So, so, so Jane, why don't, you know, and this may be, you know, this would hopefully with this will be helpful. In terms of here, you've got a working group. I don't know, Hannah, do you have anything to add to that? If you, are you so, I'm sorry, you, I see your hand. Go ahead. Yeah. So I just want to be to clarify one thing and this is not to dismiss Jeff, what you had stated. I believe that that is your experience and I believe that people have shared that same experience with you. However, I do live in the old North end. There is a lot of distrust with the police and public safety in the city altogether. It's not meant to be a big deal. It's not meant to be a big deal. And to be successful in public safety and to serve the public, you need trust and I want to see trust be built. I don't like the fact that people don't trust the police. It's not meant as a dig. It's not meant to elongate a fight. It's more of a, I see this as an issue that we should address as a community. And so I just want to, want to say that there, I don't believe a lot of it or all of it is solely created by things that we have experienced in the city. We're living in a really rough culture and our world's in a tough spot. And so we're all building trust with one another on multiple levels. Totally and forgetting the name of it to the title of the job position that we're discussing. I agree that this job position should be created. The one thing I would say is if there is a way to kind of. Present it or educate the public on the intention behind the job position, that would be great. So that the public understands the purpose of it. That's all I wanted to add. Thank you. Great. Well, that's great. So, so we, there's, we, we all agree. We all agree that we need this position and this would be an opportunity. Hopefully this will be beneficial to the chief in terms of planning for the, you know, for moving forward. If there are other things that we can do to help move that along. But I think Jane, in terms of the committee conclusion is that there is unanimous support for a need for a PIO. And for a variety of reasons, but mostly because information sharing can't happen unless there is a way to get that information out. And there's only so many hours in a day. And as I say, I mean, you know, I, I think if, if Chapin were here right now, he'd be telling, he'd be saying, I don't know what I did before Rob showed up. So that would be, so in terms of the suggested timeline, I mean, that would be like now. You know, more information is the more information, the better. That sort of leads into the second item, which is also about who would address that as public information, although I didn't get that impression in terms of the city attorney releasing public guidance about the constraints of releasing information while that would come from the PIO or from the PD. That would seem to me to be a city attorney issue. And don't know what the timeline would be for that. I think there was fairly, fairly, you know, I mean, there was strong support for that, but I don't know what's involved in, in, you know, sometimes things that look really simple are not that simple. I don't know how simple that is. Do you know how simple that is, Jared? I don't. I mean, I don't want to speak to her Dan in particular, but yeah, I mean, I think that this would be a discussion that he would certainly welcome in our department could take a strong look at. All right. So maybe what that could, maybe what that could be Jane is just simply that the city attorney will, would report to the police commission and council on, on with, with public guidance on what can and can't be released. And obviously that would come with, you know, I mean that would be essential if you have a public information officer, they need to know what they can release and what they can't release. So I don't know how, you know, I don't know if that, what do you think in terms of a timeline? Would your guest be Jared? I would say by, by this summer, I mean, we already have internal documents that we give guidance to departments as it relates to, you know, public records and what can and cannot be released. And part of that is dealing with the department itself. And there are statutes, but I think the fine line that we would just have to walk here is the difference between providing legal advice and just general advice, but that's something that could be worked out and, and, and pretty confident that our, our department could tackle that. So I would say by this summer would be. Okay. Cool. Okay. The next item is one, I know that Hannah, you would, you would put a comment in, I had as well, we have a comment from the BP away. I think the bottom line is that something like this appears to be bargainable, even though, you know, and I'm not really sure I understand this where it says that many cities allow the release of overall complaint information and the primary findings of officers, regardless of stipulations in a union contract. I don't know how you do that. How, how do you do something. That is regardless of the union contract. I thought that was the point of, I don't get that. And I know you have your hand up, Jeff, was that for the former item or for the current one? No, the current, well, that's the reason I gave it a three, the union contract. I would have given it a one without that. I think it's important, but I don't know how you go against the union, just what you said, that's why I gave it a three. Yeah. And I do need, I'm sorry to, I have to bow out at seven o'clock for another zoo meeting, but I'm going to try to jump back in. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks for letting us know. What do you, what do you think about that, Jared? I mean, how can you do that? Oh, sorry, Karen. I think you're muted. I do appreciate what Hannah is saying. And I, and I agree. I just don't know what is doable and what isn't doable. Yeah, I unfortunately don't have a direct, like concrete answer on this. I think it would take some legal research. But yeah, I mean, there's a number of constraints around employee rights. And I don't think there's any, any union contracts that have been entered into between the BPOA and the city, as well as judiciary laws and statutes that allow for certain things to be disclosed and not, and oftentimes that involves the incident that an officer may or may not be tied up in also with the disciplinary process. So I think that is kind of a hard needle to thread, to say that it couldn't be done, but it would take some, some research. Okay. So that could be in the tab. I think what, what we're trying to say is that that is a, that is a priority for all of us, that there is support, that that is a priority chain, but it would have to go into the union tab because that's not something I think we can do. Hannah, did you want to say, did you want to add something? Yeah. And then I honestly, I have to go because I also, I have a work meeting. I got to get to, but I just wanted to add and this is my fault because I probably shouldn't have been filling this out at like 12 a.m. But when it comes to like the union, like regardless of union, like I don't, I don't agree with that. Obviously when it comes to privacy of the staff and also bounds of what the union negotiates like, that is something that is necessary protection in my opinion for really any staff. But I do think that there needs to be some consideration on how to make this work that is agreeable to from both the union and expectations of essentially those who I am here representing and speaking on behalf of. So that's the clarity that I wanted to add that I, the union has to, in my opinion, come to an agreement of what this looks like as well because it just shouldn't be regardless of what the union contract says. Those are my thoughts on it. But obviously Jared also covered that because there's a lot of legality stuff around that. So, sorry, I do have to go. Have a good night, everyone. Thank you. Thanks so much. Have a good evening. Milo, you had your hand up and then it went down. Are you, are you good? Yeah, because I was going to say something and then people were saying it and I was going to say something different and then it was said, but I would just reiterate that yes, it needs to be added to the other issues regarding bargaining. And I just wanted to also say that this is moving toward what is being considered best practice and what people want to see nationally because this is information when you have cases of officers that have issues. People need to see that information. So we even have, you know, some of the larger cities starting to enact some of this information. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. The, do you have a pretty good feeling about that chain? Yeah. Yeah. All right. Okay. So the, the next item is also related to DD 40. Yeah. Yeah, I don't have it. Let's see. Is it 6.1? Let me see. Yeah. 2.7. No, 2.7.1. Okay. So I just want to be clear. So the previous one I put down as Q3 because of the union. Yeah. And that one will have to go and then transfer after into the union tab. Yes. Okay. So what, what, I think what, I think everyone was saying that that is a priority. Everyone, you know, from the marketplace to the police, to other stakeholders. The, the question, you know, is, you know, and I think what Hannah said at best is to that they're, that this is a priority and that we, there just needs to be a way of figuring out. We just need to figure it out so that. Yeah. So the, the. 2.7.1 is also directed at. DD 40. Sorry. That's all right. And then there's a number. The rest of these appear to be things that at least in the chief's opinion are done. And I didn't see that there was a lot of disagreement. I mean, I don't know. With the exception, obviously of DD 40, which is on line 72, which is 2.9.3. But the others. On. Due to some degree relate to. I mean, these all relate to internal investigations. So I guess maybe, I don't know, maybe as a way of doing this, but. Chief, in your opinion, you would put these all as done with the exception of that one about DD 40. So your feeling is that the, all of these items, these best practices are already in place. Is that what you're saying? Yes, that is, I believe that our current investigations and the reports from those investigations comport with this. Okay, so as a way of so and so as far as a committee conclusion, because a number of them are very similar. With the exception of the ones that relate to DD 40. I mean, I. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. I'm not on the police commission. We have one com police commissioner here. It didn't appear as though Milo that you had any. Are you under the impression that this is the, the current practice. On these items that go from 2.8.1. Down to 2.11.2 with the exception of one. The directive review. Sorry, my fingers are hitting the wrong buttons here. Okay. Let me just take a quick. Sure. Take your time. Because if that is the case, then the committee's conclusion could be Jane, I don't know how you feel about this. The committee's conclusion could be that. You know, we, we agree. We agree with the chief's findings, which also are backed up by the. I don't know if it looks like, I don't know, or in unit, you only answered one of them. I don't know if it's your feeling that these other items are done, or if you just felt that you just weren't qualified to speak to them. From my experience. Yeah. This, a lot of this looks like, not all of it looks like current practice. So. Hi. Yeah. So when I'm looking at some of these things. I would say that it reflects current practice. Things that have come up with the police commission. As far as sometimes we. Like to have more details, some of the category issues we talked about earlier. And then sometimes we. We just like to. Have a full discussion around particular. Incidents. In terms of how they're. They're described with regards to. Violations. Thank you. Okay. So, um, but what, but in your opinion, I mean, these are, these are being done. There may be nuances to it. But is it your opinion that. These are practices that are. This is the current, these are the current practices. Um, I don't want to put you on the spot. I know you're only one of, one of seven. Yeah. So, um, You know, we look at a 2.92. We might have disagreements over. Um, if there are violations of, you know, policies and directives actually being recognized, for example, so, um, I guess within the framework of these things, we can say that it's current. Policy, but there is, I will just say there is room for, uh, broader understanding and improvement. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Um, okay. So that would be something, Jane, that I think we probably can do literally a drag. Um, that the, that there is committee agreement that these are the current practice. Um, that there can always be room for broader agreement. Um, and to leave that up to the discretion of the police commission. Um, I don't know that we need to put that on a suggested timeline. Okay. You got it. Okay. Um, that would, that would bring us to, um, Section three. Um, and I'm not really sure exactly. Let's see. Um, there's a lot of, there's a lot of items here. There's very few. There's only six items here. I think one, two, three, four, five. There's the other six. Um, I would tend to agree with what the chief said under 3.11. Um, that's a very nice. That's, that's a, that's just a very nice sentence. But I think that it's just common sense. That you base the outline of, staffing levels. Um, Based on anticipated workloads. I don't think that's either here nor there. Right. I, I, I, I mean, I agree, but it's just sort of a. Sort of a, It's sort of common sense to me. Um, I'm not really sure that we even need to have a conclusion on that. I don't know how do you feel about that? I think you. I was just going to say, I think it makes sense to say something about it that like, this is something we agree on. Okay. So we, you know, we agree. Um, with this overall recommendation. And actually what, if you want, Jane, you could take my, my, my notes. What I have on there in that cube. Sure. Then just put it in that cell. Um, unless others disagree. I mean, it's really just a, it's a guiding principle that obviously you're going to, you're going to staff according to work, anticipated workload. I think you could say that about any job. If you need more people, you hire them. If you can. I don't know. Am I missing something? I don't think so. Okay. Anything that's concerning here about that. I mean. I think, you know, the broader discussion of like, how many officers, how much work, that kind of thing is an ongoing conversation. And it should be always as we adjust to things. So I mean, I personally think that that's the, there's nothing wrong with that. What you've said in your comments. Okay. All right. The, the next item, I reached out to RAB to find out since they had, had the overall guidance on this contract. Um, because it appears. Um, and you know, I don't know, I don't know, but it does. If there were a couple of items where it, you know, like it says the city of Burlington of partnership with BPD, that that. Um, at least from the point of view of the chief as well as. Um, the VP away. It appears as though that may be something that was not applicable. To the city of Burlington for months. So I did reach out to RAB to find out. To reach out to CNA. If there are clarification, I think we're going to sort of have to leave that blank. Until we know whether or not that even applies to us. Okay. Should I just write further clarification needed then? Yes. Yeah. I raised this issue with them in my notes about the draft, which are available online. And their response in, which is also available online. Stated that they stood by the general prescription of it. Although frankly, it absolutely still refers to the CPAT. The fact that a substantial, a substantial portion of this entire section referred to the CPAT was. A problematic. Um, this, they, they basically, if I recall correctly, and it can be found in those two documents, as I said, if I recall correctly, their response was simply that it, it is still a best practice to have a, you know, a 45, the 34 to 45 days, for example, but the charter that they're talking about revising the charter, that is specifically the CPAT charter, which is the result of a company that looked up Burlington. On Google and then proceeded to write substantively and at length about Burlington, North Carolina. Hmm. Okay. That was definitely an unfortunate error. I think that there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, I think that there are a lot of limitations, especially during COVID, because ideal situation is we would have had individuals visiting the city and with, with both contracts, that wasn't possible at the time. I mean, I don't want to rehash any issues with how documentation was or was not provided, but I do know from a commission standpoint that one of the things that we had started tracking was the length of time. So that's definitely something that I feel is the best practice that we should, we should look at because when we first started getting more detailed, it wasn't something that was clear. Thank you. Thanks. All right. So, I'm, I mean, regardless of whether or not this applies to us, I mean, I think the 30 to 45 days as practice, because it's just not with the employer, the complaint waiting for the results of the investigation. I'm not really sure quite where to go with this. I think, I mean, I think regardless when you'd further clarification, right? I mean, actually, so I left it at that. Okay. With no timeline put in place at all. All right. The, the other, the, the following, the, the next three items on one of them appears to be more of a training item. Jane, the first one, the person assigned to internal affairs should be specifically training conducting investigation. So that's a training issue. It sounds like only lieutenants are, are, can conduct those and they get internal investigation training as described. So I don't know the only question that I had, it was, I guess for the chief is, is there a plan to continue? Do you need funding for that? Is this an ongoing kind of thing? I mean, are there changes to that training? That means that it's not a one and done kind of thing or how does that work? I apologize. Which, which training is this referring to? That's okay. That's all right. It's the, we're talking about the, the recommendation that says, every person assigned to internal affairs should be specifically trained conducting. Yes. So that, yes, every, every supervisor only lieutenants can conduct BIAs and those are distinct from citizen complaints. BIAs are the more elaborate internal investigations only lieutenants can conduct those and lieutenants do get internal investigation training as it is described there. I don't believe, I believe I have, of my four current lieutenants, I believe one has not attended that training, but I'm not sure and he is, he's scheduled to do so if he has not. Otherwise I believe that he, I think he actually may have attended it last two weeks ago, but I don't know for sure, but it is a training that we schedule lieutenants for soon after their promotion to lieutenant as soon as, as feasible and they do have to have that training. In order to conduct BIAs. Okay. So, so Jane, you see how it says training in light blue. So we should put that one, that's line 79 in light blue. And that does appear to be quote done in the sense that it's part of the process that lieutenants when they are promoted, get that training as soon after they're promoted. And they are the ones that do that, do that, do that work. So I think, I think that is something that is, I mean, done doesn't mean done as in never to be done again, just done as in it's being done doing. I think it's more doing than the past tense. I think that it sounds to me like the 3.3.1 is being done, directives are have to be approved by the police commission. So there is that layer of, you know, so in other words, it says, you know, BPD consistent with a P recommendation of Obama's task force on 21st century policing, BPD should modify directives to require public engagement. And that public engagement is through the police commission. I mean, I'm pretty comfortable with that. I don't know Milo if you have anything you wanted to add to that. Or not. Which is okay. So I think that also is something that it is being, that is there is a process for that chain and that is being done. I don't think we need to have a suggested timeline. Because it is already being done. Yeah. It's ongoing. The, the issue of 3.1.4, that is, you can see what I had put on there. I don't know if you had a chance to look at that the, there is a discussion about that. And I know Milo, you had said you agree, but not done. I would tend to agree with that. And I know that there is, that is coming back to the police commission. Through a memo from Dan Richardson. So that, I think we could put that on there. The, the. The conclusion is that, I mean, yes, that does need to be. Some of that. Some of the authority would have to be. Depending on if it goes beyond, if it goes into authority that is discipline related. That needs to go. That is a union issue. But. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'm, I don't want to speak for everybody. I mean, I'm comfortable with what I had said, but I don't know if that's something that you would. That you and that Milo or that you, Jane would agree with that. Sure. So. Sorry, I heard you asking the question earlier. I had ran to the kitchen to refill my tea cup. So I apologize for that. I mean, for it to seem like I was ignoring you. So regarding this one. There's, you actually, there's kind of multiple issues. In here for me as I look at it. So there's definitely the issue of quote unquote authority. So we have. Had several. Several things put forward as to what that will look like. And. Dan Richardson has indicated that he is working something, although we working on something, although we have not seen it. The ideal situation is that he's in conversation with the police commission about it. But I guess we're going to see it when he's, he's done with it. And hopefully we'll, we'll have. We'll be able to have input on it. The other issue is. Is access. Access to. Reviewing. Footage. So I kind of consider those to be. Two separate things. I don't know if. I mean, there's certainly things that indicate that we, we should have access to. Any footage that we want to look at, but we, that's been refused to us in certain cases in the past. So I guess that part of it, I feel is something that could be discussed further. While we're waiting for what. Mr. Attorney Richardson comes up with. Thank you. Okay. So attorney will corroborate that the amount of what has been refused has been refused based on legal restrictions about what can and can't be shared with people who are not members of the public safety profession. They are not members of the, they are not officers of the court. And there are restrictions on what materials can be shared. Okay. So I can't go into details of what is previously discussed in executive sessions. I would just respectfully disagree with that statement. Thank you. All right. We're probably not going to solve that problem tonight. I think probably what should be done is that. The conclusion on this is that clearly, you know, more work needs to be done. This is an ongoing process. We. I don't know, Jane, as far as the committee is concerned. That. My understanding, and I did speak with Dan is that there is a memo that is. Going to probably come to the police commission at its either next meeting or the meeting after. It will also come to public safety. And that we will work. You know, the, the formalizing. The authority is also going to have to be through a charter change. If it were to have to be. If there were additional authority given. So. I mean, that's what I had said. A response to some of the resolve clauses should be forthcoming. Incorporated into union bargaining. I don't know if you're, if you're comfortable with that. I'm, if you want to just take mine and paste it in there. Yeah. So I have. Basically what you kind of just summed up here. And I'll incorporate a piece of that, especially around bargaining. I think that's important to mention just so we don't. Categorize that wrong. So yeah. Right. On the last item is also the same thing with the PIO. And I think there seems to be universal support for that. So. I mean, the chief agrees. I don't know how you could not agree. I mean, obviously it's, you know, it's a matter of, you know, prioritizing in terms of, you know, positions, but that would be on. And it said seek city council approval. I mean, you've got. Got a couple of city counselors here who think that it's a great idea. So I would just sort of take that from what we had with the PIO and the. In item number. I don't remember 2.4.1 was Shane is lying. 60. No, I'm sorry. Line 60. Five. So what you had in that in column D. Just taking that and putting that into that one right down there. Yeah. And just for the record. Unanimous support for PIO by committee. Yeah. Okay. It is. It is seven 19. And we have done what we were hoping to do. I have a question and that is. Chief, I know you had said, you know, Jeff is not here. I apologize. I took up your time yesterday and I, I didn't even have the chance to report back to him. I'll do that. I'll do that by email. But in terms of sections. Four, five and six, which is what we're going to try to accomplish. At the next meeting. Do you want to supply. Your responses to that. Or. You know, how, how would you like us? I know you have started with that with sections one through three, or how do you feel about. Moving forward with. If you've completed those, I don't know if you have. I have completed four, five and six. I can provide those to you. Tomorrow or tonight. Or I'll provide those to you prior to the next meeting. Counselor. Okay. All right. So I'm so Jared. So we'll have. Offline will get the rest of that. The rest of what Jane had put has put has put down. Incorporated into the next matrix. And then. Today is what Tuesday. So hopefully by Thursday, we can then go and put in the chief's responses to four, five and six. Into a new spreadsheet that would then be posted. So we can all work off of the same. Updated. Same reasonable. So the goal would be. By say. Today's Tuesday. Thursday. Say have the new spreadsheet posted. And then working group members can provide answers by the following Monday. And then we'll have that ready for Tuesday's meeting. Yeah. Yeah. That seems. Yeah. And that would be for, for four, five and six, which as you probably have noticed five and six are very, very short. I think there's only a couple in each one. Which would then bring us. This is what the eighth. So we're talking about the 15th. That would be for the 15th. And then the, the, the next two would just be for the next two meetings. So. Yeah. Okay. Milo, thanks so much for, for staying for hanging out with us. And. Also to. Thank you. And also to Oren and the chief. Thanks so much for, for going, going, going the distance with us tonight. And couldn't do it without you, Jane. So thank you. Thanks so much on. And of course, Jared, you know. So all right. We'll, we'll, we'll plan on five 30. We'll plan on five 30. We'll plan on five 30. We'll plan on five 30 for the next meeting. I know that we're not under any requirement now. Are we, are we under any requirement, Jared? That we must have. The meeting in with an in-person venue. No, no. Okay. All right. So this seems to work. Okay. So if we can do that and just keep going along that way, you don't have to go and find a meeting room either. Which probably makes your life a little easier too. Okay. All right. So we'll adjourn the meeting at seven 23. Thank you all very, very much. And we'll. We'll be back at it again next Tuesday. All right. And I'll send this out right away right now. Okay. Thanks so much. Thanks everyone. Have a great evening. Take care. Bye. Bye. Bye.