 So it's 542, it's Tuesday the 1st of February and this is the public safety meeting and my apologies for the barking dog in the background. So the first item I believe on the agenda is probably the agenda. Just for everyone's reference so that in those who might be participating that are public members may be participating is that this is the public safety committee. The members of the public safety committee are myself, Karen Paul, board six and then the other two members are counselors Hightower and Stromberg in wards one and eight. Jane cannot be here this evening and so it'll be just Soraya and I, the working group the members of the working group that are working on the CNA report. It was decided by the committee that we wanted to gather a broader range of input. And so we asked for there to be two police commissioners one representative or member of the marketplace commission and a member of the representative from the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance. So those are the members in addition to the three of us and with that we'll go to just simply probably I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself just a motion to adopt the agenda would be helpful. Move to that. I'm sorry, is that, is that yes? Move to that, yes. Okay, thank you so much. So I will second all those in favor. I and we have a, we have an agenda. Then we would move on to the minutes of the, I don't have it in front of me. What was the date of the January? 25th. 25th. Okay, so those were the minutes of the 25th. Thank you so much for getting those to us so quickly. And I'm fine with the minutes. I don't know, Soraya, did you have a chance to take a look? I will say that I did and that they're fine. Well, you're, we're welcome. You know, the other thing we can do is because there's only two of us, if you want to wait till the next meeting, we can do that with all three of us. If you'd prefer to have more time. Sure. Not a problem. All right. So why don't we go, why don't we, why don't we continue on the next item? I would imagine not having it in front of me but what I would imagine is the discussion or the public forum. So there is a public forum. There are people that are on, that are here that are members of the public. The way that we've been doing this meeting is that if there are comments that you have while we're doing our work, you're welcome to raise your hand and I'll do my absolute best to recognize you. If there's something that you'd like to say now, we're happy to hear that now. And that would be to the Public Safety Committee, which is again, myself this evening, it's just myself and Soraya. So if there are anyone, you're welcome to just simply turn on your camera and speak with us. If there are no members, I'll give it, I'll give it a little bit of time. And if not, then we'll continue with the next item. Jane, I see that you're, I see that your hand is up. If you want to put on your camera, that's fine. If not, if you want to just simply speak, that's fine too. Thank you. I just wanted to get some clarity about the spreadsheet. So I understand that some members of this committee have submitted their responses, but they're not on the spreadsheet available to the public. So will the public eventually see all responses from all members of this committee? Yeah, so the way it is right now, Jane, is that we, at the last meeting, we were going section by section. So this is our first, our first stab at the recommendation. So section one, and this spreadsheet was created by the acting chief, section one was to be completed by all members of the working group for our meeting tonight. And we had asked that people try to get them done by noon yesterday, and then they were integrated into one spreadsheet. So what we were talking about before, hi, what we were talking about before was the fact that Milo has her responses, but it's in a different format. So we're waiting to try to get that together. We don't have them either. Now on board docs, there is a spreadsheet that was posted a couple of hours ago. And that one has my responses, Jeff's responses, the BPOA response, and Jabu's responses. I see all that. Okay. Will we see everybody eventually? Well, we will as soon as we're able to get them all. I mean, Soraya has hers up on a document that I'm looking at, it was just sent, and we're waiting for Milo's. The only other members of the committee are Jane. And actually, I see Isaac is here. I don't know if you have responses, Isaac, or if that's something that you're still working on. Yep, so we did start, put it in our own draft. I copied the sheet and we wrote some comments, but yes, we are still working on it. We apologize. Okay. I just want to be sure that eventually it'll all be, it's obviously a public document and we want to see everything. Thank you very much. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, as soon as we have them, I mean, our goal was to have them up completely today, but I think we're sort of going through a first go around and hopefully we'll be a little bit better on section two. Thanks very much. Sure. So I don't know. I mean, we can continue on. I mean, if we have the materials that Milo has given us and we can integrate them, if not, and we need to show them as two separate documents, I just don't know. Have you received those now, Jared? Not as of yet, I don't believe. I think she was still trying to work on the formatting. I do not know why the attachment is changing the format. The file is saved as a numbers file. So I am continuing to struggle with this. I do apologize. And numbers is not something that, in my day-to-day work on work computer, I use Excel all the time, but my work laptop is a PC. I rarely use numbers on my personal Mac, so the struggle is real right now. So I do apologize. Still trying to work on it. Well, maybe the way for us to move forward so that we can try to get at least through the first half, if not even farther into section one, is to just move forward. And then you can tell us, Milo, if there are things along the way that stand out to you or if you wanna give us responses to these items as we go along, is that, I know that's probably not the most efficient way, but at this point, we just wanna make sure that your comments are integrated into the conversation. So we'll do the best we can and at least give it a try. Is that, does that seem okay? Yes, certainly, thank you. Okay, so I think what, probably in the absence of any other approach, and I'm open to any approach, would be to just simply go in a linear fashion. And I know that I don't know if the BPD Zoom, is that the acting chief, or is that one of the officers? Okay, all right. Just wanted to make sure we knew who was here and as well the HR director, Karen Durfee is here and the REIB director, Taisha Green, is also on Zoom with us. So going to the first, the very first recommendation, it appears as though from what I can see that, and for those who aren't familiar, the initials QW means quick win. That is, that was the items that are in blue were all the original columns that were done by the acting chief. The rest are all of the others from the committee. So it appears as though items two, item one, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1, that there appears to be general agreement from the members of the working group, as far as that these are, this is a director of review. It is an amendment to a directive and is a relatively easy fix or a quick win. Just in the interest of time, I'm interested from the working group, if there are any who wish to talk about those first two items or if there appears to be general agreement and we can accept the fact that they need, that item needs to be amended. And then I think the, perhaps the only other thing would be, maybe next steps would be for the, an idea if maybe the acting chief can give us an idea of what the timeline might be and we could put that into either a separate column or as something that would give us an idea of what that timeline is. And then if that would go to the commission and what those other next steps are. So I don't know, chief mirad, if you could enlighten us on that as to what you think that would be and then maybe we could move on to some other recommendations. So for 1.1, and honestly, that is literally could be done by the time of the next police commission meeting and be given to the police commission in time for them to approve that addition of a sentence. I mean, all we will be, this does get us into a quick question though, which is, so for this directive, this one was actually written by, officially this directive was adopted by the city council, not by the police commission and not by the Burlington police department. So the rewrite is simple. The council could approve it, the police commission could approve it. And adding in the sentence that it requires is pretty easy. I don't know if you want to consult with the stakeholders who were instrumental in adopting that policy, which is there were many and everybody remembers that adoption process in the spring of 2020. But insofar as this, adding cultural competency to that section, I think it is merely the addition of a bullet. I think that's all that it is. I'm sorry, I'm pulling up the actual directive right now. Apologies. Section eight, training and compliance. BPD will ensure that at a minimum, all members are compliant with the legislative additional trainings include anti-bias, power and privilege, non-English speaking communities, undocumented communities, cultural competency training and victim witness services. So that's it. It's literally the addition of three words and an extra comma into eight B of DD03. And that will take, I mean, it'll take as long as it takes for the police commission to look at it and approve it. Can you read the first sentence again of like what that list is? Sorry. Yes. I mean, this is, I'm reading the directive as the council adopted it. Section eight is training and compliance. Section eight A is the BPD will ensure that at a minimum, all members and employees are compliant with council and legislative requirements regarding fair and impartial policing training. Eight B, additional trainings may include instruction on anti-bias, power and privilege, non-English speaking communities, undocumented communities and victim witness services. That's what it currently says. And we would simply do non-English speaking communities, undocumented communities, cultural competency training and victim witness services. So I guess the quick win is just adding it, but then there's the question to be had about like just adding it to a list of potential trainings. What that does, so I guess the not quick win is having an overview of like what all the optional trainings are. And how readily available those are and how to prioritize them and that sort of thing. Yes, although I don't think that was the recommendation. I mean, I think the recommendation- No, but just because there are so many other recommendations along those lines, it feels like that's, I guess, the big, I felt like that's what I kept writing in my comments as like, well, we kind of have to have the overview of what's possible and how much time we have and so on. Okay, so yeah, I noticed you had written that, Saraya, that putting it into the directive is a quick win. Actually, having, doing that or how it works into is much more complicated. So I think for the purposes of, for the purposes of the recommendation, the, it would seem as though the next step as you had written in here in your next steps, Chief Murad was the, to amend directive DD03 and then I'm not really sure how best to do this, Saraya. The, as we go through these, we are going to have to be giving to the council these recommendations. And so is it fair to say that we would agree that that is the next step? The first would be to amend it, which sounds very, very straightforward to then have that amendment approved by the commission, which I don't think has to come back to the council, but that would it be, I mean, I'm just putting this out there, would it be our recommendation that then the police commission as our proxy in this case would follow up with, you know, with how that training was enacted and report back to us in six months? Yeah, so first of all, I guess process question is, does it make sense for me to be the one to take notes and send them to Jared of like what our conclusion is for each, each recommendation and then to, yeah, I think have that, you know, like in the next two months, this will be added and approved by the commission. And then the next step is to create an overview of training, availability and priorities by the BPD in the next six months. Well, I guess the question is, so my question to Jared is if effectively the minutes of the meeting are going to be these recommendations unless we want something very specific in terms of one person said this, one person said that, if we are doing that as minutes, then it would be practically impossible to do both at the same time, I would guess. So, you know, I don't know, I hesitate to put that on you, Zariah. I mean, if you feel you can, that would be great. If you don't, you know, we can do it together. I love taking notes, I'm on it. All right, well then, please let us know, you know, I don't want to rush. So let's just make sure that we have that. And I'm fine with the, you know, amending DD-03, then, you know, having that amendment back to the PC, approved in the next two months and then with a follow-up on the training. Are there other members of the working group that have any other, anything else to add to this? Okay, the next one is very similar. It is also an amendment to DD-03 and perhaps Chief Muirad, you could just simply let us know if this, you would call this a quick win. Does this fall in the same category of effectively something that could be done for the next commission meeting? Is that a fair, is that fair? That is fair, but I think that the notion of what these indicators will be wasn't spelled out in, I'd have to look again to see if it was spelled out in the report, it's obviously not in the recommendation. And then if not, I think that it gets a little bit more complicated in that, again, the directive as it's written was from a couple of different groups. I would assume they might want to weigh in as well on defining what these indicators are. Okay, who were those groups? Do you know? I'm pretty certain this was given whole cloth to the council by the ACLU and migrant justice. Okay. Well, then maybe the amendment, so in other words, what you're saying is that you can't really do the amendment until you know what the indicators are. I mean, I know what I believe some indicators might be, but I, again, we didn't write this particular directive. Okay, yeah, I don't know. Well, all right, so maybe the, I don't know, Zariah, do you know when it comes to the CNA report, if there are questions that we have, are those things that they are then available to explain to us if we ask them? Or actually, Taisha, you're on this call. Maybe you would know the answer. One of you might. I would say probably. I mean, I don't really know because we've had this report since September. It's now January. I don't know like how likely it is that they will do, you know, give us advice on what they meant for free, but I guess it's always possible. I'm not sure what you think, Zariah. I think if we, well, one, I feel like this is not a clarification question. I feel like asking them to supply those indicators would be like additional work. So I'm not sure that this is the thing. I do think that if we have a list of clarifying questions, we could continue to list those and then send them to CNA at the end. Yeah, I mean, they don't need to tell us what all the indicators are, but it said be alert for indications of. So we have to be able to say what the, I mean, that would seem, you know, or actually examples for their officers of what these indicators may be. So. Indicators of bias is what y'all are, what we're talking about. Yeah, this is, yeah, this is number two. This is item 1.2.1. Wouldn't that be like just a quick Google search about indicators of bias? Like, do we really have to reach out to them for something like that? No. I mean, I'm really just asking the question, you know, to make sure that we're being complete. I mean, they may have, they may have, I mean, this may be just a very general question. You may well be right. I mean, I think it's Chief Murat said that he has ideas that I wonder if just throwing out those ideas and sending them to some of the original folks, if that's Micron Justice and ACLU and the police commission for additions, edits and thoughts might be the best. Okay. So, I guess the, on the column on recommendations would be that, you know, this working, you know, the public safety committee would ask to have the DDO3 amended and would request that the request of the acting chief or the department solicit input from those committees or those individuals that were part of that group and then make that amendment with it to go to the commission, hopefully within the next 60 days. How does that sound, Chief Murat? Yeah. I'm sorry. I mean, yes, I think that sounds right. Again, it really does sort of, I think that if you talk to those parties and ask them what they intended from that or what their understanding of that was, that would be helpful. Okay. This is in line with the BPOAs question of, you know, do you tell us what those indicators are? Right. Okay. And I think we can certainly, you know, have that discussion. I mean, this is, you know, we have these sections and we have this particular order, but I will say as I review these things, there were general categories that weren't always together weren't always together. And one of the general categories is issues around bias, be it training, be it identifying it. So I found that there were a number of things, even though they weren't one after another, were all related and could be looked at together. So I think that it's an important discussion that I agree with the process of going back to stakeholders, going back to the police commission and then bringing it to the department. Yeah. I mean, I would tend to agree with you, Milo. I know that, you know, I'm sure that there was obviously rhyme or reason to how CNA organized their report. You know, I feel it's like the only way that we can, you know, without a lot of advanced planning, you know, which would take a lot of time, I think it's hard to organize, to reorganize their recommendations. You know, it's just, it's hard. I agree with you that we are sort of skipping around. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I completely understand that, but it is part of that this whole topic has been neglected. So I think we're gonna find ourselves delving into it a little, well, not even a little bit deeper. I feel like because it hasn't been honestly discussed that that's why we're having these questions right now. And I'll leave it there. Thank you. Okay, so that's why we will, you know, those that directive and that amendment will go back to the stakeholder groups that began this process and it will then go to the police commission. So hopefully there will be a deep enough vetting of this that, you know, there will be sufficient discussion. If there isn't and it needs to go further then I guess from our committee's perspective, we'll trust that you'll let us know that. You, not you personally, but I mean you as a commission would let us know. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. So, all right. So the third item is another directive review. It's about revising the policy so that all complaints, even those immediately resolved with an explanation are documented in the same complaint system. There was, Jeff, you had a question about this. The BPOA response was for sake of efficiency. This could be discussed in section two, which relates to this, depending on how it's implemented and used potentially a change in work conditions. So, I don't know, Jeff, if those were questions that you had that you wanted to ask of the Chief or, okay. This one struck me. And I guess my background, years ago, we were in property management business and we managed thousands of condominium units and every condominium project seemed to have one or two people complain about everything. So I'm imagining that might be a similar situation in policing. And then I read through here and it says that these incidents need not negatively affect an officer's record. Well, need not, what does that mean? It could very well affect an officer's record. And then I kind of, my thinking evolved and I said, well, you know, we've got some issues that we need to get our arms around and deal with downtown. We've got drunk as a sort of behavior being one of them and a number of things that affect the operation of a marketplace at City Hall Park. And I've seen officers interact with people drinking public intoxication. And in some instances, they just ignore it. We would like to see a robust, you know, officers take a real active role in enforcing our ordinances downtown. And what I would imagine that people, you know, do, you know, feel protective and don't want these things to be enforced. And so I'm a little nervous that, you know, officers will not feel like, well, why bother because people might complain. We all want to see this behavior stopped. But some people might complain about an officer trying to stop people from drinking. And I've seen it. So I'm concerned. And I'm wondering how, do we have a large complaint problem? And maybe the chief here, I could answer this. Do we have a problem with a lot of complaints or how often does this happen? And am I, am I fear is not, you know, are they misguided or? We generally, we register a relatively small number of complaints per year total. All of them are reviewed with the, with the police commission in executive session. And I can give you, for example, the total numbers for calling up our form. So in, in 2021, we had a total of 31 citizen complaints. And then there are also what we call administrative reviews, which are generally more internal issues, although they can be citizen complaints that become a little bit more serious and require an additional layer of review. We had 11 of those. And then we have what we call BIAs or Bureau of Internal Affairs investigations. Those are the most serious and occasion very significant investigations and reports. We had two of those in 2021. In 2020, we had 66 citizen complaints. A great number of those were, we had a spate that didn't have anybody named either as officers or civilians as complainants. And they weren't really complaints, but they run the gamut. But there were 66 citizen complaints in all of 2020. And there were four administrative reviews and five BIAs. And I'll just go back one more year. So there's a sense of trend in 2019, there were 41 citizen complaints. There were 10 administrative reviews and nine BIAs. So, so that's our basic range. Somewhere between five and 10 BIAs, somewhere between, you know, four high forties of citizen complaints and about 10 administrative reviews. Okay, so it's not a major problem with complaints. I'm just fearful that if we want to start enforcing our ordinances and we would all like to see go back to the days when we had an officer assigned to downtown, that doesn't seem to happening in the last few years or a number of years. But if we had somebody that's, they focused on these issues, they could be the ones that people might complain about and they would be less apt to try to stop the public intoxication that we deal with down here. So that's the basis of my concern for this one. But if it's not a major issue and obviously we want the major issues to be documented, but anyway, that's what my concern was. Okay, well, it's good to know what that is. And it's also good to have an idea of how many complaints we're talking about. You know, so I think we know we're not talking about hundreds of complaints. It appears as though from the notes of others that this is either a high priority, very high priority, or that there is agreement that all complaints need to be documented. I know for myself, I had put out that obviously some complaints are gonna necessitate for their follow-up in time, but it was in my notes that they need to be documented. And so I guess what, the reason why I feel that way for myself is just simply that they can be tiered, but I think all, if we don't document all of them, then it would be next to impossible for them to be available for the police commission to look at them as a level of oversight and transparency when gaining civilian input. So I'd be interested in what other people thought. And so that we can come up with, I know the chief has a series of next steps. Maybe you can explain that to us, to those of us civilians so that we know what exactly you're talking about when you're talking about redraft of DD-40 and what that would necessitate. And it is well, then we can come up with a recommendation so that Zariah can put that into the spreadsheet. Sure. Just quick, sorry, quick question before you go into that. I think I'm curious as to because it's reading it, it sounds like you do agree in terms of logging, I guess I don't see you disagreeing in terms of logging all documentation. And then I'm wondering if you're just saying some of the things that are internal may not require the same level of like Democrat. I don't understand what the partial is because you don't seem to disagree with anything specifically. Part of the disagreement is that a complaint resolved with an explanation isn't a complaint. And so I don't agree to that. If somebody calls and says your officers were going fast down the street and the supervisor who takes that call says, yes, they were responding to a homicide that was at the other end of your street and the person says, oh, I understand now, that's not a complaint and it shouldn't be logged. And that's what it means by result immediately resolved with an explanation. That's what DD 40 explains and what they were sort of referring to in the CNA report. You know, the parts that I definitely agree with we're using benchmark and we're trying to implement it and get the data transferred over to it. That is something that the commission, excuse me, the city council agreed to, to help us fund it in, well, director Dodson was still here and was instrumental in explaining the need for that. I can explain it too. I'm just saying that was the timeframe to give people an idea of the timeframe. We have it, it has not been as easy to automatically synchronize with Valcor system as we thought it would be. Partly that is because the Valcor system has simultaneously been going huge changes as it is adopted by agencies around the state. And so we do wanna continue to do that. It's really important to us. And that documentation includes a number of these things that are in there. And that's what I agree with that we do want these things. We do want to get complainant demographics and types, et cetera, and outcomes. But at the same time, complainant demographics are going to be voluntary. Oftentimes these things are made are online or anonymously or on phone. The paper ones that come, I'm sorry, the paper ones that come from other locations such as the library or city hall or the high schools also don't have that information. We should redo that form. And so that's a component of this. And then with regard to the other component, like the idea that they should be the retention aspect of it and the record aspect, which is why they have to state specifically these need not negatively affect an officer's record, but they are inside and generated as a record. That I think is ultimately going to be something subject to collective bargaining. I think the union is going to have concerns about that, which is why their response says as much. And so the parts with which I agree are the parts that we're already doing and that we can rapidly do irrespective of a renegotiation of the CBA and can get done. I think, I mean, I'm just gonna throw out my opinion, but or at least also looking, I guess, across it, we don't have everyone's up there yet. But I think, I guess I agree with CNA that it's important to log all complaints, even if just for the, even if you define them differently or you say like dismissed complaints or something like that or, but just even for knowing what they were and if there's a whole bunch of the same ones over and over again, and if those can be addressed, maybe preemptively or something along those lines, I think that's a good recommendation. I think I might lower the priority of it based on what you've said, but it doesn't make sense to me that just because you can address a complaint that it's not a complaint anymore. I would agree with that. And something that we're looking at at the commission is trying to see if we can expand the different types of complaints. So expand the number of categories to account for something that shouldn't, doesn't or shouldn't result in discipline, but is something that should not be considered unfounded because it could be something that the department needs to look at and consider responding to in a general fashion or for consideration that we're finding lately, we have a number of things that are a valid concern but not associated with discipline. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but the whole complaint process, especially since our NAICOL training last summer, the commission has worked very hard to make this meaningful to people that are submitting complaints to address issues where people say no one ever got back to them and things like that. Thank you. Well, I would sort of agree with the fact that maybe I had given this a little bit more of a priority given, I feel like it's hard when you're just talking hypothetically to know like the example that you gave us of somebody calls and says it's loud there's something an officer was speeding by my house and only to find out that they were responding to something and the person says, yeah, okay and it's resolved, I guess it is a complaint because somebody calls it in, it obviously is resolved within a phone call. I don't know how to categorize that except as Milo suggested, which is effectively dismissed complaints, things that came in and were resolved. I don't know how many of those there are that come through, would you have an estimate? Would you have an estimate, Chief, on how many of those come through in a year or a month? No, that's a routine part of being a desk sergeant or the officer in charge to get calls like that and resolve issues at the very lowest level. And it is part of the current directive and that's an explicit aspect of it. Any complaint irrespective of its merits or its seriousness or how quickly it is resolved or not or even whether it's a complaint that comes in through the electronic portal is logged automatically. And so those are separate, but phone calls, I think that this is a significant administrative burden to supervisors to have to have them go through all that for something that has been resolved and isn't something that is an issue anymore. I think that there are a lot of things that come through that way. On the portal, on the other hand, we do it because there is the e-trail and yet the Chair Gamash here gets every single online complaint that comes in at the same time as I do. And I believe he will attest that there are a number that are not complaints on their face. They're not the majority of them, but they come in not infrequently. Things that indicate clear issues with mental health and you can see right away that the incident never really occurred. Things that are misreports that are people who are trying to report a crime that happened or they are trying to say something that is not a complaint against an officer. People who are sort of making generalized statements about policing, those things have all come through the portal, the commissioners have seen those. And the idea that anything like that that comes in via the phone is going to have to be recorded and typed up and then submitted and entered by the OIC is an unreasonable administrative burden, my opinion, for officers who are supervisors who are already really, really overworked and overburdened. Jibu, maybe you could speak to that. I mean, you see these in your opinion. I know you would put this as a number one, but based on that and given that you've seen them, what are your thoughts? I know that Shereen volunteered to look into while redrafting this. I mean, I know that she's not done, by no means done yet, but I can reach out to her and see where she's at with that and then report back to you guys next week or in the email later on this week. So in other words, she's working on redrafting DD-40? Yes, to honestly, I'm going to put it in my notes here. Does Shereen mind you identify the great process? More or less what was the recommendation here? Which was, yeah. All right, so maybe it would be best. I don't know how far along she is. The chief's note on next step was potentially redraft all of DD-40. I'm assuming she must be doing some one area of it. Well, I would, if I may add. Sure. Anything related to complaints should definitely be a one. The complaint, when I started on the commission, complaints were described to us. We couldn't see them. So we couldn't verify what they actually were. And then there was questions of what is the follow-through to the complainant? So there is the acknowledgement, as the chief just said, there are some things that come through that aren't sent to the proper place. Someone complains about parking. Well, the department no longer handles parking. That should be going to DPW, for example. But there were things that were legitimate and serious complaints. So how are we tracking them? How is, what are the responses? What are the timelines to responses and investigation? All of that we've been working on and building a new process. So there is a lot of things as, so going back to what I mentioned earlier, where, hey, we're looking at now, maybe we have to look at different categories because there are things that are a legitimate concern, but don't involve officer discipline, may not need investigation, but may need the department to consider something. So everything related around complaints, there is a certain kind of, like we are following the best practices that NACOL set forth to the commission. We have a lot of things that we're working on and updating. And as Chairman Gommas just said, we are in the process of updating as we continue to improve the process. I can say personally, I would like to know, like we're now getting that electronic information, but when things are submitted via paper or other areas, I don't know how we find a balance between making sure that something that is more serious isn't somehow overlooked. Thanks. So maybe Zariah, the recommendation here or the next steps in for us as a committee are that we are aware that the police commission is following up with a redraft of DD-40. That information hopefully will be available or the redraft will be available, say in the next 30 days. Sounds like, does that sound reasonable based on what you know, Chabu? Sorry. 30 days, if you think. Right now, I'm just doing the timelines by quarter. Yeah. Oh, by quarter? Yeah. Okay, so then we can say quarter. I know that, like, I know the top priority for directors that we're looking at right now is DD-13.02 and DD-13.03. That's like the top of the list. So it'll come right after that, I have to assume. Okay. All right, so maybe the recommendation then is that we are aware and that would ask for that, because that is an important one. I mean, not to say that the others aren't important, but this one is an important one. Complaints are important and that perhaps that would be something when it does come to the commission that you could alert the Public Safety Committee and we could see a copy of that and follow that as well. Oh, I'm sorry. Chief Heroed, did you wanna say something? You're welcome to just chime in if you'd like. Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't know. That's okay. No, I wanted to point out that we've been doing the sharing of the online submissions for more than a year now and the department did that voluntarily after something that was brought to our attention by Councillor Jang. And the other kinds of reports come in and are reported within the month because they are part of the spreadsheet that is shared on every monthly Police Commission meeting and anything of greater seriousness that comes in not through the portal but through some other method is also shared in general. It's certainly within the month, but more often than not, it is shared directly with the chair once, if a case is open, if it's of significant importance beyond something that is incidental. So I'm confident that we've actually been doing a very good job of making that sharing happen and of making certain that it's timely and complete. And we review a parallel spreadsheet that is maintained by Vice Chair Hart each month to make certain that that is happening. Okay, well, that's great. I mean, I think that, so that between that and the comments that were noted by Milo as far as just making sure that the directive finds that balance of covering as much as can be practically covered in a way that does its best to ensure that there isn't anything that falls through the cracks is probably, it sounds like that is what Shireen is working on. So it sounds like this is underway. I'm not sure, Mr. Raya, if there's more that we wanna say or to just have an update on these items in the next quarter. So this would be a quarterly thing, meaning starting, I don't know, I guess starting, I don't know who will be starting today, but I mean starting, say when these recommendations are noted for the council, which might not be for a little while. Sorry, say that last part again on timing to follow up. Yeah, well, according, it sounds like according to Chabu that Shireen is working on this and may very well be done with it by within a month or so that would, is that right? I believe that's what you had said. Yeah, sorry, that's not the part. It was the part that you said on the revisiting it. When did you say we expect to revisit it? When did I or he? You. Me? Well, it would, I think once the draft is available to the commission, that we would, I mean my suggestion would be that the recommendation would be that that would then be shared with the public safety committee when that draft is in reasonably good shape. So it doesn't mean that we have to be there, we're not there to micromanage, we're there to just have you share that information when you feel that you've got it to a good place. Yeah. We'll be very happy to do that. Okay. And actually, if I could ask Chabu, can we follow up on issues around quote unquote, paper complaints because I don't believe that that's been resolved. I think we've had, we had questions about that process of getting that information to us. So I would like us to look into that. And yes, definitely Councillor Jang did have a constituent that had a complaint that really did bring out the process of how not all the complaints were getting, weren't having a process to where there was follow-up. And then that did, based on the additional concerns from the commission, help set up the commission being copied on the electronic complaints. But I think that this particular recommendation does bring to light that we really need to make sure where we've shorn out the holes of where different things can come in. And I think also too, and I don't know if this is quite part of it, but there on the Talitha side, there was actually a number of items brought up regarding, even though I as a English as my first language, my primary language can go to this online portal and easily submit a complaint if I needed to. There were barriers for other individuals in our community, our new American neighbors. So I don't know if we throw that in because that wasn't something really addressed in CNA, but it definitely came up in Talitha. So I just wanna mention that, maybe that's another takeaway to the police commission to have a review of the online submission. Thank you. Okay. So we'll go forward knowing that we've, that this is to some degree underway and we'll look forward to getting notified when that draft is in a place that we can all take a look at it. I'm wondering, and I would ask this question of the chief, items 1.41, 1.51 and 1.61, there tends to be general agreement on these, both from your recommendation, your assessment of the recommendations as well as the members of the working group. So I'm wondering if you might be able to tell us just so that Soraya can fill this in, how, what you feel is the timeline involved on each one of these. And then actually the other one would also be item 1.71 and we'll go back to 1.62 after. I'm sorry, I apologize. That's okay, it's all right, no worries. So what we're talking about is item 1.41, 1.51, 1.61 and then also if we just jump ahead to 1.71, there appears to be unanimous agreement that these are, that we agree with you. And so what our question is, or what my question is, is what you think for, in terms of what Soraya can put in as a recommendation, how long, what you feel the timeline is for each of those on and then that, and I'm assuming that those would be the same thing they would go to the commission. The timeline for that, yes. And the timeline for those is the same as it was for 1.1.1. These are generally very simple directive amendments really. For example, the idea of intervention that is in, that is in our use of force directive. It was in the use of force directive that we created. And it is also in the new statewide use of force directive. And arguably it is already in DD1 because DD1 says that we cannot commit crimes. And if we fail to report excessive force, we are committing a crime. But if we desire to have another explicit statement that covers the same ground, that's relatively easy. We can include it. We will add a rule to DD01 at the end of the rules. I believe there are 33, although I'd have to look to be sure. And we would simply make a rule of what is already a component of the use of force directive, but it would be dropped in the rules. There are 34 existing rules. This would be number 35. And it would say duty to, I'm sorry, duty to intervene or duty to intervene and report. And it would go in there. And the amendments to DD43 are also similarly sort of simple textual changes, really small textual changes. I think the place where the reason that these are quick wins is because these are the places that are, they're only the only mentions of those directives for the most part. Whereas another reason of the partially agree for the previous one, 1.3.1, is that ultimately DD40 is a flawed directive. And ultimately DD40 needs to be revamped entirely. And so the notion of doing quick fixes to DD40 is wasteful. We need to redo the whole thing. And there's no one fix that is going to make it so much better that it's worth spending the time that that one fix would take. Whereas there aren't a lot of directed, there aren't a lot of in this section, places where you're doing significant changes to DD01. They're a couple. There's 1.6.1, there's another one down and farther down. Which number was it? There's another one, oh, I'm sorry, 1.7.1 is a small DD01 amendment. And so those small amendments can all be sort of packaged together, brought forward and essentially inserted with a simple approval by the police commission. Those are easy. DD40, the rewrite of DD40 is gonna be much more complicated. And that's why the potentially redraft DD40 note in the next steps part of 1.3.1 ties into a whole bunch where it refers back to all of those again and again. Especially by the time you get to section two. Section two refers repeatedly back to the notion of redoing all of DD40. And that's a much, much heavier lift because ultimately DD40 should be at least two directives. But these one things are, as I said, we write it, give it to the police commission before the police commission meeting and then they vote on it in the police commission meeting. Okay, all right, thank you. So Zariah, it would seem as though for the recommendation that you can just do a copy on the way that we worded it in item 1.11, that could be inserted into a 1.41, 1.5, 1.1, 1.61 and 1.71. The only one, is there anyone who feels differently, any members of the working group who feel that there's any challenges with that recommendation? It seems pretty straightforward. The one that is in the middle that isn't as straightforward is 1.62. And that one, it appears as though what you're saying is or what I think most of us are saying, although Jeff, you had a question about what bystanders. Well, I'm assuming it means active bystander would be a law enforcement officer, not directly involved in the situation. Is that what bystander means? Or do we mean? Active bystander for law enforcement. Well, I mean, before I answer a question to do with policing, I think maybe we could ask the chief what that exactly- And actually, sorry for the second- And sorry, my internet's just a little messed up. So I'm gonna keep my camera off and maybe I'm a little bit delayed in trying to jump in. But I would say for the sake of time, I wonder if for the training, once all of the recommended training ones, instead of arguing about all of them separately, if we can just say the next step for this is to get that overview of training availabilities and priorities and then have a whole discussion about training at some point instead of us trying to talk about each training suggestion as it comes up. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Milo. Go ahead, Milo. I agree with that up to a point. I do believe that the issues around training for quote-unquote cultural competency and bias needs to be separate because right now we're looking at a failure in that area in terms of getting information. We have referenced information, but we still haven't seen the information. And I think it's really important that we have a clear idea. I guess looking forward, I guess that's one of the things we have to figure out. Do we just say at this point that we don't wanna look at the past but that we know that there is a clear path forward, what that will involve and have some immediacy because we have a department that continues to struggle with increasing racial disparities as incidents have gone down and not taking an honest look at it. And it is really disturbing and it's sad and it's a failure. We are failing the citizens of Burlington. We need to be advocating for all the citizens of Burlington. Burlington is changing rapidly. We've discussed this before. Our school system is approaching 40% BIPOC. These children are growing up, they're living in this community, they're working in this community, they're shopping in this community. So we have to take this with more seriousness. I'll leave it there, thank you. Well, so before we leave that, just my question Milo is, so the suggestion was because there are a number of training recommendations that we discuss them to try, attempt to discuss them all at one time. I mean, if there are concerns about this particular one that we can incorporate, I mean, obviously we're interested in your perspective of this one in particular, if not, I mean, we can always go on and put the training items together. But since you brought it up, I mean, you raised a good point. What would be your suggestion? At least as it pertains to this one, if you have one. I can see, when I looked at some of these training items, there were some that have more immediacy. I don't, if we group them to review them all at once, there's a different timeline in my mind about some of these training sessions. Like we are going back to the issues of quote unquote cultural competency. I put that in quotes because that's becoming a very overused term that sounds kind of cool, but what does it really mean to people? This type of training, because there has been real difficulty to get the department to take it seriously, I just feel that it needs to stand alone from the other training recommendations because there is more of an immediacy. We need the department to take an honest look at what's happening with these racial disparity numbers. They may be able to explain them, but right now they haven't been. And because the numbers continue to increase, we have to know that there is effective training. Going back to having a speaker who said, well, we have to look at presenting information in a different way because previous types of training have shown not to be effective. So we need a plan of action with regards to that. And we need to help the department come up with a plan of action. We as a commission have asked numerous times over a very long period for a strategic plan and we haven't received it. So I feel now that this is an opportunity to really help the department with this. Thank you. Okay, so, I mean, I hear you. I'm wondering, Zariah, I mean, I hear what you're saying about trying to do these together so that we don't spend, maybe it is easier to spend the time all at one time. The only next step that the chief has put down here is determining the availability of ABLE training. So it would appear to me that there is not a disagreement here. There is just simply an issue of availability. And I know for myself, I had noted that would the chief be able to report to the police commission by the end of the first quarter about its availability and integrating it into a plan. We could certainly call that a strategic plan for training and have that as our recommendation. And then when we get into other trainings, put that at that to what is effectively a strategic, a strategic plan. Does that seem reasonable to you? Yeah, the only thing is should I, I might just for, I think how many things we're putting into quarter one? I might just say quarter two. Does that seem fair? Yes. Yeah, and I don't know, were you on when we were talking about the other one so we could just simply do a copy from one to one? You got that. Okay. All right, so. May I, to answer Jeff's question, the officer. Sure, I'm sorry. Sure, of course. To answer Jeff's question, the officer is the bystander. ABLE training is about turning officers into active bystanders rather than just standing. It is a program designed to, for example, prevent what happened with George Floyd, although it long predates George Floyd to encourage those officers to tell Derek Chauvin to get off or otherwise intervene. It is a duty to intervene program and it's not been shown to be all that effective. It's determined the availability has to do with the cost and whether or not we have time to implement it. We have a rule about it in the directive. We don't have a rule yet. We have a very explicit admonition in the directive that goes to the level of a rule because it explicitly states that failure to intervene is something that renders an officer subject to termination and legal consequence that's in the state law as well. And we also are now talking about turning it into a rule in DDL-1 as well. And so that to me renders the training not a high priority based on that we only have so much time to train and we only have so many hours that we can do it in and so many people that we can devote to training at any given time when we only have four people on the street. And so that was my rationale for saying consider and ranking it three. So you're carrying that in 1.7.1, you're already requiring officers to act that way to do that. So what would any special training do for the officers because it's already required and you're already encouraged it, the training seems like overkill. No, no, no, no. I really disagree with that. I really disagree with that. I mean, I respect your opinion, sir, forgive me for jumping in, but I can just tell you some of the things I've seen on body camp footage. I believe that although, because I feel that there's certain other training and I do take into consideration what the chief is saying with regards to hours and availability, there's other things that might be higher, but this is important. I really feel that this is important. And from a national standpoint, there are so many incidents. I mean, the George Floyd is burned into everybody's mind, but there are incidents all the time where officers standing by didn't intervene when they needed to. So it is changing a mindset in policing nationally and here. And there's a few other things I'd like to say, but I wanna say that I would not consider this to be redundant. I believe that officers need to be trained on this because it is changing a mindset. Thank you. So I guess, Karen, if I just follow up question, so if it's required and encouraged, I mean, how often, Chief Irard, does this actually happen in practice right now? You mean an intervention of some sort between? Well, how often is there a situation where you did have an officer intervene and say, wait a second, that's wrong. That's a wrong practice. We gotta stop and regroup here and do it differently. I mean, I'm assuming it's when a more senior officer needs to be told to change their practices, right? Is that what we're talking about here? In general, yes. Although, yes. I mean, I think that that's generally the notion that an officer with a little bit more experience or training or tenure may interrupt another officer or say we're not gonna do that. Certainly something as extreme as the horrific thing that happened in Minneapolis on May 25th of 2020, that has not, but regular smaller incidents, hey, we're not gonna do that or officers turn away from a situation and discuss a little bit and team back, those kinds of things happen all the time. That's a regular component. Officers work with each other in the field to evaluate what they're doing and think about next steps all the time. That's absolutely a component of how they operate. So it depends on how we're describing it. I mean, that's not active bystander. Active bystander is intervening in something very specific, which is generally some kind of criminal behavior on the part of another officer. Excessive force is criminal. And if it's not criminal, if excessive force is defined not by the public's being horrified by a use of force or rendered uncomfortable by viewing a use of force, excessive force is defined by a state attorney or a prosecutor or a district attorney saying that was not reasonable. That was not reasonable, objective and reasonable according to the Graham standard in the Constitution. That was illegal. And that is excessive force. And so that is very, very, that doesn't happen. Yeah, how often does that happen in the department? To mine out. Sorry, did we lose you? No, I, sorry. It's okay. I didn't know if we, I mean, I don't know that that's a question. I saw Chair Gamash express some frustration by the question. So. Okay. Sorry, I'm just frustrated by the question because it's training, sure, it's something that has to get used all that often, but like firearm training, you don't use your firearms often, but you need plenty of training. So, you know, when not to use your firearm, it's kind of, I feel it's the same thing with this disabled training, you know, like I just, my state of training, you don't use it all the time, but you should have it. So, you know, when to act on it. So, you know, that's kind of what I was kind of losing the plot here a little bit. Sorry. I would, I would agree with you. I would agree with you. Soraya, you know, I go back to where we, where we had, where we were before, it would seem as though the recommendation, the recommendation that I think you probably have already written in was going from, and instead of Q1 to a Q2, and I'm fine with that. I mean, we have to, we do have to try to prioritize these things. We can revisit some of these if there are serious concerns on the part of the working group, but, you know, this is important. And just because it doesn't get used every day, doesn't mean that you shouldn't have it. So, are you okay with that, Soraya? I am. So, sorry, just to check what I have right now is, on these is next steps is that by August 1st, with review of police commit, or sorry, by August 1st, BPD with review of police commission create overview of training availability slash priorities as foundation for strategic training plan. Right, and that we would, as far as the ABLE training, that we would certainly try to determine that availability with the, and prioritize that for the second quarter, whatever that's, I guess the second quarter would be after, if we use the city fiscal year, then it would be like in the fall. Oh, sorry, yeah. I'm not really sure what we're using for that, but go ahead. Sorry, I was just saying quarter one in terms of, is it happening this quarter, this calendar year quarter, next calendar year quarter, or I was not going off the city's fiscal year. Okay, so if it would be then it would, I would think we're not, I mean, we are in the first quarter for already a third of the way through the first quarter. So I would guess that we're talking about if it's that, maybe what we're really talking about is the third quarter then, if we're using calendar quarters for this year, that would mean that that would be something that would be just trying to prioritize so that if we prioritize everything that it becomes very difficult to, given the number of hours in a day to get all of them done. I mean, I'm just wondering if that's just too much, you know, I mean, we haven't gotten that far. Are we prioritizing things in a way that's unreasonable or unrealistic? I don't know. Yeah, that makes sense. And also at August 1st, which is quarter three. Okay, all right. So the next, we're definitely making some progress here. We're up to 1.81. And this was the issue about the prescribed protocol for where the use of canines falls in the use of force continuum. And, you know, the chief's next step said that, you know, this is not a recommendation. It's sort of like a statement. It appears as though actually, Zariah and you and I felt about the same. Mine was that I did see this as a recommendation just encouraging that perhaps as an agenda item that the police commission follow up maybe quarterly to see the prescribed protocols being followed. I don't know if that's something we have two police commissioners here. Is that, does that seem like a reasonable thing? And then if you chief, if you have any comments on that. So with regards to anything related to the use of force policy because the statewide policy now dictates, I mean, one of the questions that I had and maybe Jerry can answer it is, the statewide policy now is the floor, is the minimum required that must be followed? Can a department add upon it? In theory, if the state law says that this is what you must do, we, I mean, there's a number of factors that we don't think into consideration, but you could arguably as make things stricter than what the state has. Okay. I don't wanna make that just like a blanket statement. There are things, I mean, constitutional rights, et cetera. Like there's a lot to consider, but yeah, in general theory, you could add on to it. Okay, thank you. So, you know, I think from my perspective, I mean, I had sort of looked at this, it's almost like something that, you know, we at the council get certain updates on a quarterly basis, you know, and this would just simply be a way of getting, you know, an update. I don't, you know, I don't, I don't, it's not, I don't think it's that a serious, I'm not sure how serious the use of canines, how often that happens, but I do think it's something that we should follow. Do you think we should do it annually? Quarterly seems intense. I was gonna say, I'd say annually because since I joined the commission, I can't, I can't recall a single use reports involving your canine. Okay. Then I, then I, okay, then I'm in favor of annually. Now the, Milo, you brought something up. I'm sorry interrupts. All right. May I ask a question? What that means to follow the prescribed protocol for where the use of canines falls on the force, use of force continuum? Yeah, you have, yeah. Go ahead. It is not a recommendation. The use of force protocol does define where canines fall on the continuum, as in, are they equivalent to a impact weapon or to deadly physical force? And they are not deadly physical force. They are generally ranked between impact weapon and for example, constructed and conducted electrical weapon or CW or taser. And so they're higher than O.C. Spray. You know, the continuum generally goes from mere presence of a police officer to hard commands from a police officer to physical force from a police officer to, and then that usually gets differentiated as well. I mean, officers spend, spend weeks and months on these things. And then there is a, the continuum within physical force having hands on, strikes and kicks, et cetera. Then we move to O.C. Spray, then we move to batons. And usually that's where canines are. They are ranked there in the use of force continuum for the state. This wasn't a recommendation. It just said they should follow the protocol for where the use of canines fall. It's not even, it's like a, it's like saying the sun should come up tomorrow. That was my objection to it. So I think maybe the point should be is that annually, I think to Karen's point and some of the things that we have in our notes is just to say police commissioned to annually review use of force. And I think there's some recommendations around how much citizens are involved in that or not so that we can give some feedback back to the state. But I think just annually reviewing is not a bad recommendation. And I don't think it's specific to the canine. I think it's just saying annually looking at the use of force, making sure it's still in line with what we think it should be. That's wonderful. And it's certainly the prerogative of this. That's not in the recommendation nor is it in the CNA report. Okay. So I think we'll go with that, Zariah. I know for myself that, when I was going through these recommendations, I'm trying to understand items one point, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12, those all are use of force policy. And I'm, particularly to the chief and members of the commission who obviously are much more well versed in this than I am. I'm trying to understand when you say that statewide use of policy supersedes. And then given the question that was just asked of Jared, that is the floor. Is that my understanding? That is the floor. And is it possible to do more with that? Or, you know, for example, it should rewrite the statement to replace face down prone with prone only. And I read the rest of it, which made a lot of sense to me. Is that not something that we have the authority to do? Jabu? I was going to say, for what it's worth, maybe we could forward these recommendations on those points. I forget the body that writes it for the same. I think it might be the Vermont Criminal Justice Council. We could forward them the recommendations for what it's worth and see what they do with it. If we go that route. Yeah, I mean, that was a great idea. Milo, I'm sorry. I would support that. And I think also, and it may be something we need to look into. Jabu, the yearly report that we get, I'm wondering if I have to go back and review the format that we receive it in and what it includes because it has a lot of summary with regard to use of force. I'm sorry. What's the question? Well, I was just thinking about the annual report that is already produced. The data report from the city side or the report that we produce? Maybe both. OK. Or maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. I'm sorry. I am so tired from last night. I listened to the whole meeting. Let me back off from that thought and think on it a little bit. Yeah, we'll connect to that and clarify that up. All right. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. That's OK. We all had a late night last night. So when it comes to these four recommendations, and I'm not sure what the protocol is, I think what Jabou has mentioned is a good idea. If that is something, my understanding is that most of the items in the use of policy statewide began here due to the good work that many of us did to bring our use of force policy to a pretty good place. So I think bringing this to the state's attention, and I'm not sure what the protocol is for doing that, but I would be in favor of that being our recommendation. Yep, I got it. And I put it down as quarter four. It's kind of with the line of that being potentially annual. And none of us ranking it as a high priority. OK. So the next one would be item 1.13. That's developing a separate reporting system for the use of a firearm to kill a dangerous or seriously injured animal. And it appeared as though we all had that fairly important. And I know for myself, given my question for the chief, would simply be to know what is involved with this. What would be the timeline for implementation? Is this an improvement to the Valkor software? Is this something that's already been done in other communities? If you could sort of give us an idea of what's involved, I'd appreciate it. So as I said in the note, so could Benchmark track this? It could. We could create a new Valkor category, which is a matter of asking the Valkor board to do something. There are certain things we can do easily. And there are certain things we have to ask them to do. So our administrators, our network administrators for Valkor have the ability to do certain kinds of edits on their own, such as a dropdown, larger things, including new check boxes or new other things, like an entire new field, that would require working with Valkor board and then having the actual company that runs Valkor do it. It's much more elaborate. This is something that just doesn't happen. On the rare occasions where we dispatch animals, they are wild animals. Deer on the highway, I had an online person describing themselves as upset over the fact that we shot a cat. It was not. It was an opossum. And when we clarified that for the person, the person said, oh, OK. And then said, you shouldn't shoot opossums either. But that's where these instances happen. The notion of, again, this is an example of a boilerplate recommendation from a national company that never came here. This community concern and national reports of officer uses against firearms and pets, that absolutely something happens in the country. We've all seen disgusting examples of officers unnecessarily shooting non-aggressive animals. And it's really, really awful. But it's not something that's occurred here. So maybe if that's the case, it sounds like it's a relatively straightforward thing. I don't know. I'm sort of inclined to think based on what you said, that maybe it's a three and not a two. I don't know. Does anybody else have an opinion about that? I think maybe putting, I mean, I think if this is a problem that has happened maybe in other communities, probably best act to have a policy on it, given what Donda said. I feel like putting it into year two, not even. I would definitely prioritize it. OK, I would as well. We will, just for the committee, the working group, all others, it's now 7.15. Is everyone OK with going till 7.30? We'll try to get a couple more done, and then we'll call it an evening in 15 minutes. Thanks. I appreciate that thumbs up sign of confidence, Jabu. So all right, we're on to we've got a number of other things that are also director reviews that made we can we can a little bit buzz through a little bit more quickly. But before that is 1.14, which is creating channels for the Burlington community members, for Burlington community members to be involved in review of use of force policies. So community, the community can understand why such use of force may be permitted. And so the BPD can reconsider their policies and practices based on community input. It's interesting, though, the three, there were three or four of us that of the members of the working group that responded to this in fairly similar fashion. And I wouldn't be surprised, Milo, if your comments were similar, if you had some, that this is important. And we all sort of said it about the same a little bit differently, but about the same. I don't know what the best approach to this is. I know, Chief, you had said a topic for a summit, a meeting, and I'm not sure if we want to go and spell that out or if it's some sort of feedback that we could give to the commission and let them figure out how to best implement it. But I agree with you that it is critical. I feel like, and maybe it's the wrong way around, and what we did on, is that instead of here. So right now, I on 1.8.1 have please commission to only review use of force, engage communities applicable and provide recommendations to state. And I wonder if I should put that here instead and then continue to say on all the other ones that we talked about, see 1.141, because that's actually where it's most applicable. 1.14. 1.141, sorry. Oh, sorry, sorry. I'm sorry, what did you say? We run that by me again. What did you say? Sorry. I wrote police commission to annually review use of force, engage communities applicable, and provide recommendations to state. OK. That sounds good. Are there others? Do others have a? And I know chief you had said you partially agree. I'm not really sure what you partially agree with or don't agree with or if you could, if you might be able to clarify that. Yeah, it's because the reconsider the policies is really off the table going to the state policy. OK. I would like to hear the public's view on a number of things. I think that we have very differing views in some of the folks who are very, very passionate and active in the community and have specific ideas about how and when force should be used. I think those ultimately will differ with the majority of the community. I think that we've seen two examples of that. And I've made them public in an effort to try to get some kind of community consensus public to the best that I can to try to get community consensus. Most prominently in the one that occurred about a year ago now in January of 2021 and asking our community what they want us to do with regard to taking enforcement action when we are to stop someone, when we are not to stop someone, what we do when a person resists the authority of a law enforcement officer to legally stop him or her. And so I think those are the topics for a summit. Those are the things that I am would be eager to have a true community engagement with. But as Chairman Dimash's entry notes, all these other things are being done. Every single piece that the use of force policy that we created in July of 2020 was produced with the public. It was produced with the public both through the police commission's ultimate review of it and then going back upstream of its development, it was the committee to review policing practices that met again and again from August of 2019 through February of 2020. Anybody could go to it. Anybody could weigh in on it. The members of it were selected from the community as a sample. I don't know how much more sort of engaged and involved we could get short of sending out surveys where everyone has to sort of go down as a knock list on a policy. Here's what people think. And then we take the majority opinions or something. That was a really great. I was proud to be a part of the committee to review policing practices and then develop the use of force policy that came out of it in July of 2020. And that too, that got reviewed by the police commission at over several, over two or three meetings because they were emergency session meetings because we were trying to do it fast to answer a national moment, but the public could weigh in on that and had opportunity. Now the public as Chairman Dimash notes too, the public has an opportunity to weigh in on a monthly basis on every single use of force that we do. They're all published online. They're published in advance on board docs of every police commission meeting. And anyone can engage and say, what's up with this one? And the commissioners routinely do say, what's up with this one and ask to see body camera footage. The redaction specialist that was approved last night is going to make it possible for us to share even more of them so that not only will we put out the report but also the video. So it's not just commissioners looking at video. It will be the public looking at video. And I want to expand and expand as much as possible based on workload, the number of cases that we put on video. We're gonna start with specific ones defined by the police commission, but I would love to have them all. I'd like to put every single piece of body camera I've got online, except there are rules that prevent me from doing so. Like witnesses and juveniles and privacy and et cetera. But the notion here is that I do want that summit to have the community answer certain questions, but there are certain parts of that recommendation that really can't be done. I would just like to say that in executive session, the police commission has given a number of ideas and responses of how to consider doing certain things differently when an officer is not in harm's way. And we have been at times to migrate frustration, dismiss. We have also been refused looking at body cam footage. And that is still an open issue. So I just like to offer those clarifications. Thank you. So when it comes to this issue, what I gather from what you said is that a lot of this, actually, did you want to add something? I know you had had your hands up, I'm sorry. No, it's all good. My hand was raised. Pretty much the chief said a lot of what I'm gonna say that yeah, we do review, sorry, we do get a report of every use of force incident every month as opposed to the board docs, we review it. One said, stick out to us, we ask to review. I don't know how to better get that in the hands of the public. But yeah, it's there. So I think that, listen, we all struggle with this. I understand where you're coming from because there are plenty of things that as city counselors, we know are available, we try our best to make sure that the public knows that they're available. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody knows where to look. And so I think from a community education point of view that whatever can be done to make that more available, I think would be a good thing. I'm not really quite sure how to word that. I don't know, maybe it's right. Did you have something or I can't remember now if you had something that you thought made sense? I mean, I put the same thing that we have. I mean, this is where I now put what I had had on 1.8.1, which is just that PCS to review it annually, engage the, I don't wanna give too many things on what you all have to do, but to engage the communities applicable and provide recommendations to the state as applicable on. And then I think, I mean, I could add which I don't think we need to, but it's possible that we, it's a floor and we could do different policies, but I almost feel like advocating for them on a state level is maybe more applicable, which is why I didn't change it. So I don't know what folks feelings are on that, but that's what I have right now. It's also part of public engagement as well. So it's another part of a overlap with, on the Tlitha side and what people were expressing. And also what I know, one of the main reasons that I joined the commission was the lack of public engagement. And it is a really big, I think it's a really big part of it. I think that the department and commission, there needs to be more done to educate the public as to what they need to expect, right? And what the officers need. What is it that the officers need from the public to effectively do their jobs and to protect the public? Like the department doesn't do enough of that. So I kind of put it under all that category, thank you. Okay, so yeah, I mean, I do agree with you. I mean, I think whatever we can do, one of the things that I'm hopeful not that this has sort of an editorial comment, but one of the things I am hopeful for is that in the not to just in future, we will be able to move forward with the PIO that the mayor had requested as one of his priorities for wanting to see the police department have a public information officer, simply simpler, similar to the public information officer. They have a DPW, which I think has been extremely successful. But in the interim, I would go with the recommendation that we've sort of got. It doesn't sound like there's any objection to that. I don't know if this is something that we can do in a fairly short order, and you'll have to tell me, chief, if this isn't. The items that are number 1.15, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 appear to be directive reviews or mission statement reviews. They don't sound that time consuming. But I'm wondering if maybe you can maybe just take the first two or something and see how we go as we're almost at 7.30. If these are things that we could prioritize, maybe into the second quarter or how you would feel about the amount of time that's necessary to affect these. I'm sorry, did you say 1.15.1 and then others? Because I only see the one. Yeah, there's 1.15, 1.16, 1.7. Those were all John. Yeah, go ahead. They're not all mission statements. Those are... No, no, no, no. No, I understand that. I'm just saying one of them they're either, they're fairly administrative directive reviews. And then of course the first one is a mission statement review. So I'm just wondering how some of them appear to be, like Soraya noted that the first one appears to be a quick win as it stands, but you didn't put it in that. So I'm wondering, is it more complicated than we know? I think a mission statement is gonna be more complicated. I have a mission statement that I would put on the wall immediately and make the mission statement of this organization. I've said it numerous times in public, but what this is suggesting is, what I basically included is something a little more complicated, which is stakeholder input and figuring it out. And that would take more time. Who are the stakeholders? How many? I think a lot of the processes that we're outlining are admirable and are really wonderful. And I think they are going to be incredibly time consuming with regard to having a lot of people weigh in on these ideas. We're talking over ideas and not actually doing anything with regard to the ideas where we're ranking and assigning and there's work getting done, but not the work of it. And each one of these things is gonna be very time consuming. I'd love to give some mission statement concepts to a group and try to get a new one. I think ours is out of date. I also think that, for example, the Code of Ethics using the ISCP's new version, not a challenge, that we can find that and insert that, that can be a relatively quick edit in DD01. The one after that, 17.1, is much more complicated. Again, DD40 is gonna be a really difficult redraft. It should be at least two parts, one for internal and one for external complaints. It's gonna have to talk about a system that we don't fully have up yet. It's gonna have to have a lot of different questions about investigations and what our staffing is to conduct those investigations right now. There's a lot to it. So that one's really long, which is probably why it's a two, because I think it's just, where I don't believe that we're prepared to undertake something that rigorous at this moment. We don't have enough resources to undertake it. But the other two, that's my answer. No, no, no, that's okay. I mean, so it sounds to me like 1.17 and 1.18 are similar to the others that relate to DD40, which is that they are going to take a fair amount of time. And probably should be grouped together, whatever it was that we put on the other one. Well, I know in one of them, we put that, you know, Shereen was working on that. I think it probably, it might be something we have to come back to as far as the others. It sounds like 1.16 is a fairly quick fix. And then 1.15, I don't know, Zariah, that could be something where, you know, we enlist the help of the commission to work with the department on a mission statement that we could also work on with them, the public safety committee as well. The only, yeah, the only thing I'll say in terms of how I had ranked things, because I think other people have ranked those as similar priorities is, for me, I felt like 1.17.1 was a little bit more integral, just in terms of like actually setting up clarity on how those things are done. Whereas, you know, I feel like some things like the mission and value statement are, it sounds like, you know, something that the chief would like to do and worth prioritizing for that. But whereas 1.17.1 in terms of some of the other things in terms of we're already getting complaints and like how are we handling those? It just feels like that's an ongoing need that we're not addressing. So I would address, I would prioritize that one differently than the other ones. All right, so maybe even though they're, so not just making it about how easily things are done, but actually prioritizing it, I think I would. Okay, so as far as the mission statement, would that be something that would be more perhaps next year? Does that seem in line with what you were saying, chief? It could, it all depends on the process of it. If getting a new mission statement, for example, is the goal, I can draft a new mission statement and have it vetted internally so that there's stakeholder buy-in inside and bring it to the police commission. We could do that also by the next session. I have one, I think that the agency would accept it. The question is whether or not there has to be more, how many more hands have to go into the pot and how many more cooks are going to work on that? And so that really is, that's gonna be the crux of a lot of these, the timeline questions for these things. How many people are gonna be involved ultimately? Because if the question is, as I mentioned in the previous meeting, the way that this was previously done was in its own way, a little bit time consuming and sometimes even, I think, complicated in a way that made it not something that was done. I think a component of why former chief del pozo really didn't do any directive review during his time was the challenge of bringing it forward and having it worked on in that way. And I don't know for sure how chief Shirling was able to do his many review. He rewrote a huge number of them in a relatively short timeframe where most of our directives, many of our directives still date back to that timeframe. The couple that I've had to redo, the first one, which was done with the police commission back in, I wanna say 2019, the mid of 2019, went very, very well. We brought it to them. I worked, I convened an internal working group. It was about uniforms. It's DD02, DD02 part one and part two. Convened internal working groups, got all the input we needed for uniforms and equipment, worked with vendors to talk about it, did interior internal surveys, brought it to the police commission. The police commission looked it over, made one or two tweaks, asked some questions about parts of it and then approved it. That was a relatively straightforward process. I don't know exactly how this process is going to work but I do know that we're talking about involving a lot more hands and that's going to take a lot more time. So that's why I can't quite estimate how long things will take. In one way, I could get it to you by the next police. I could have a mission statement ready by the next police commission meeting. But not one that has the level of public vetting that I think some of these discussions have talked about for other recommendations. And the recommendation just says to include it so it's not even necessarily the direct recommendation. And it sounds like you're just saying it doesn't make sense to do that until it's updated because ours is outdated. I think it's, I mean, go ahead. No, I mean, I guess when I'm mine with regard to stakeholder input, maybe I apologize if I'm doing this. Maybe I'm sort of presuming the level of input for this that the group has described for others, for other recommendations that have been discussed. If this follows the standard that I just outlined and that is what I meant when I said with stakeholder input and also said that it why it was a number one priority. If it's an internal stakeholder review and then bringing it to the police commission for their imprimatur, that could be done. Certainly it could be presented to the police commission by the next meeting, whether it gets approved or not and how we work on it. Again, in the complicating factor of open meeting law and who works on it or not. I can't talk about it after that point, but I can easily do that for the next meeting. You say, I understood that from the first thing that you said. My question was is the recommendation itself is just saying, put the mission statement and value statement in the directive. I guess it sounds like we have one, it is just outdated. So I'm saying there's a timeline of saying do we just not even do put the old one in and that's what you're saying. And then of course then if we're saying we're not gonna put the old one in, that creates a longer timeline. I feel fine about that being year two and letting you figure out the timeline that makes the most sense for you for what that looks like. I would agree with that. Does anyone else have any input on that? Okay, so yeah, we would add that in year two, Zariah. It's 7.39, so I think what we'll do is we'll stop here and go into 1.16.1 at the next meeting. The good news is that we've made it a third of the way. The other good news is that most of the other sections are much, much smaller. Some of them are five or six or 10 or 12 recommendations. So we're definitely doing the hardest section first or at least the most recommendation-heavy one first. We'll try to get at least a third of the way, another third of the way with the next meeting. The other good news is that for those who have already completed it, if you wanna add anything to your recommendations or notes or responses, you can do that before the next meeting. And we'll hope that we can get some responses at least going forward from Zariah. We'll try to get, or not Zariah, from Jane. We'll try to integrate Milo's that we already have. And Isaac, if you do have recommendations that you're able to get to us by the next meeting, of course, we would welcome them if you're able. So I'm sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I'll send this to just Jared, just in case. And then he can post it or not, so that we're keeping it public or not at all. And then I think just, I mean, I think we had some helpful discussion here, but I do think it would be helpful if people kept their comments just a little bit shorter because on each one to have this much discussion, I think we're gonna get very tired if we do this week after week. So I think if people could keep it a little shorter so that we can really try to get through the recommendations. Remember, we're just trying, like right now, our goal is to get to a timeline, so prioritizing with a time and then having some, your comments will be included in the sheet no matter what. So people can put their individual comments, but then having some summary of what we think should happen as a group, as well as the individual comments, which is why we have the individual comments. And then if people can just keep their comments short verbally, I think that'll really help us get through through all the recommendations. I would agree, you know, if you, if there's a comment that sort of is an overriding issue for you and you've said it once, it would be great if we could just sort of all try to, you know, just sort of self-monitor. Thank you all very, very much. Enjoy what's left of this evening and take it easy after what was a long evening last night. And I think we had agreed. The one thing I did want to mention is that the police commission meeting that is on the 22nd, I know that I'd heard from one of your colleagues that it's really hard to have a meeting at 7.30. So we had sort of compromised instead of starting this meeting so that you could start at 7.30 that we would start a little bit earlier. So I'm hopeful that we can all start it a little bit earlier than 5.30, maybe 5.15 or so. But that we can discuss it next week's meeting. So with that said, I think we're done. And unless there's an objection, which I seriously doubt there is, we will be adjourned at 7.40, 7.43. And thank you all for your time. Absolutely. Have a great evening. Thanks everyone. Take care. Take care. Good night. Good night.