 Hi everyone. Good evening. Thanks for being here. Welcome. I'm Reverend Erica Richmond, myself and Marta Flanagan are the two ministers here at the First Parish Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Arlington. This is an event put on by the Racial Justice Coordinating Committee, one of our justice initiatives here at our congregation and a big thank you to them for putting this on. I have a few things to say before we dive into the conversation. I want to thank Laura and Sanjay, of course, for being our panelists today. We're going to hear from them. They were both part of the commission study looking at what a civilian advisory board would look like. They'll tell you all about that and where we're at in the progress and then we'll take questions. So we want to make sure they have a chance to share updates and information and then a chance really to have some dialogue and conversation about what's unfolding. There's no Zoom tonight. We couldn't get the tech volunteers, but ACMI, our local cable organization, will be posting this on our behalf, which is very exciting. So Maggie is recording it, but the audience is not in the shot, but we wanted you to be aware of that's why there's a phone here. It is set on our consenting panel. So if you see Maggie recording, that's what that's about. I wanted to mention that in our Unitarian Universalist denomination, there is a eighth principle coming down the pike. We are a democratic liberal faith. We have seven guiding principles, not a creed or doctrine, but seven principles, beliefs and values that guide how we move in the world, how we spiritually live our lives. And in our national denomination, there is talk of an eighth principle coming out, perhaps in June. Well, there'll be a general assembly and a vote and that eighth principle calls on us, a Unitarian Universalist, to live out our faith in a way that pays attention to the spiritual wholeness, especially when addressing oppression, specifically racism and other oppressions. So this panel tonight, this conversation about policing in Arlington to me feels very much in flavor with that principle, with a look at how we live spiritually full lives, how we live holistically and in community, and how we pay attention to how race shows up in our systems and in our individual lives. As many folks know, there's been a long recent, long and recent history of policing and conversation in Arlington. Several years ago, there were the controversy around Lieutenant Padrini and the racist publications that he did in the statewide police magazine. And there has been lots of community conversation about him and how we call in and call out our policing department when missteps or violence are made. So I first learned about Arlington and its policing issues through that lens and gotten to know this community as a place that has really thoughtful conversations that are honest about how we built a safe community for all. Some of you might have heard about Donovan Johnson's recent lawsuit. I just wanted to start by mentioning that. He is a man from Somerville, a black man who was walking home on the Ale Wife Parkway in the winter of 2021. The Arlington police were pursuing a white suspect, but stopped Donovan. And in Donovan's words, violently pushed into the ground and humiliated him and assaulted him. Chief Julie Flaherty of our Arlington police started an investigation of that. And one of the officers involved has since resigned. But Donovan is pursuing a lawsuit against the Arlington police department. And that's been in the news in the recent past weeks. So that might be on the forefront of our minds as we're thinking about police accountability here in Arlington. I think those are the things I wanted to say. A special thank you to folks from the town. I hope it's okay that I'm going to be back. There may or may not be some folks from diversity and inclusion here, and we thank them for being here. I just really appreciate everyone coming out and having this conversation. So are there any questions at this moment that I might address? Our masking policy is in line with the town of Arlington, so it's optional, but we really encourage you to wear it if that helps you be fully present. I will turn it over to Laura and Sanjay now, both members of the study commission, and they will share all their wisdom and hard work. I think we should start by applauding them because they have given a lot of hours to get in. We're going to start by the caveat that Sanjay and I both realized when we were talking that this is the first in-person anything where we've talked about this. We conducted our entire study commission and town meeting over Zoom, so. I'm used to always having like a set of notes. Usually I'd be staring at this on my screen. Thank you, Reverend Erica. As Reverend Erica said, I'm Laura Giddelson, and I was one of the co-chairs of the Civilian Police Advisory Board, a study committee. Sanjay was our clerk, but that sounds like a much smaller job than he actually took up. The study committee was created by a warrant article voted on by the December 2020 special session of town meeting. The study committee met for the very first time in March of 2021, and over the following 12 months, we met 17 times as a group. During our meetings, we heard from guest experts and discussed with each other what we were learning from our research. During a six-week period last fall, so just coming up on a year ago, we held 14 listening sessions to solicit feedback on interactions, both positive and negative, as well as neutral, that folks have had with the Arlington Police. Four of these sessions were open to all residents. One session was held for town employees, and the rest were held for students and parents, residents of public housing, residents who are a member of racial or ethnic minority groups, LGBTQIA plus folks, and folks living in public housing, living with disabilities, members of faith communities, veterans, and or immigrants and refugees. Throughout the month of November, we also collected feedback through a Google, an anonymous Google form. And then Sanjay and Susan Ryan-Volmar, who is my co-chair, and I also met with Chief Flaherty and members of Herkman staff and my presidents of both police unions. We drew six key findings from our work, and if you want to read about them in detail, the report we published to town meeting is still is on the town website. I'm going to highlight three of the findings tonight. The first is that, and Reverend Erica alluded to this a little, that compared with other suburban police departments in Massachusetts, the Arlington Police Department has a well-deserved reputation for excellence under the leadership of Chief Flaherty. In 2020, just weeks after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer, the eight-camp wait campaign launched. This campaign urged police departments to adopt eight policies that have been shown to reduce use of force during police interactions with civilians. When the campaign had launched, the APD already had seven of those policies in place, and within several days had adopted the eighth. And in 2018, the APD was one of just 14 law enforcement agencies nationwide selected by the Council of State Government's Justice Center to be a law enforcement mental health learning site. So they train other police departments on dealing with mental health issues with the community. Our second key finding is that despite all of that, even though the Arlington Police Department operates at a high level of excellence, there are residents in town who have experienced deeply negative interactions with the police and who do not feel comfortable coming forward to make complaints about those interactions for fear of retaliation. Without exception, residents who shared these stories with the study committee were people who belonged to racial or ethnic minority groups, people who are LGBTQIA plus and or people who are living with a disability. Our third key finding is that the current process for reporting complaints and or compliments about interactions with police does not meet the need of all residents. We found a lot of confusion about what that process even was, so much so that there's sort of this ad hoc process has developed that Director Harvey has ends up sort of playing a big role in, so she was an incredibly useful helpful resource for us. And we also heard from residents who've had great experiences with the police and also didn't know how to convey that information. So based on our findings, we voted to recommend to town meeting that the town create one or more alternative ways for residents to file complaints and or commendations regarding police interactions. We also voted to recommend to town meeting that the best way to improve trust between residents and police and especially for residents in these historically marginalized communities is by creating a civilian police advisory commission. And we that was a warrant article in the spring's town meeting and with one amendment. I think there was one small change it passed. So it's going to talk a little bit about sort of what the next steps are. But the primary purpose of this commission is going to be to serve as a qualified advisor to town residents, the Arlington Police Department and other town staff with respect to policing in Arlington from a civilian perspective. And what this means in practice is that the commission will educate residents about their options for filing complaints and commendations, connect residents who have information to share about the police department with appropriate town officials and committees, support residents through the process through a complaint process and follow up with residents and will the commission will also work proactively with the Arlington Police Department to find ways to make the department's work more transparent to the public in easy understandable ways, one of which is by providing more transparent data about the interactions between community members and the police. Yeah, so that cover is sort of where we got to in the spring. And now of course, we're several months after that. The main thing that we were waiting on at this point, the way that town bylaw changes work is that town meeting votes to adopt a bylaw change. And then those changes go to a unit within the attorney general's office. And the attorney general's office reviews all of those for legality. And once the attorney general's office has signed off on those, then those bylaw changes go into effect. So this bylaw change that town meeting voted for in the spring is currently with the attorney general's office. And I would we were one of the last town meetings to finish this year. So I would I would expect sometime fairly soon that we should get word from the attorney general's office that our bylaw has been approved. And we should be going on from there. Okay, yeah. So I think one of the reasons for the timing of this conversation tonight is looking ahead towards that predicted approval of the AG. So once that bylaw does go into effect, there'll be the process of what happens next and how can folks within the town support folks who want to be part of this commission, ask questions of the commission and make sure it launches in a way that feels efficient and productive and worthwhile. So that's why we're meeting tonight at this juncture in preparation for what we expect the fall the rest of the fall to be of launching that application process for the commission itself. Yep. Absolutely. So the wording of the bylaw got changed during town meeting, right? So are you going to read the final wording? Like, where do we find the final wording? This is not this isn't the final wording. I don't think it's published anywhere. I think we'd have to ask town council's office or the clerk or the clerk for that final language. The final language. You could put it together by looking at the amendments and which ones. Yeah, exactly. If you're looking, if you'd like the exact language, the place to get it is from the clerk's office. And again, when the bylaw is approved, then that will be our bylaw language. And I think you'd be able to find that a little more readily at that point. But it sounds like from two commissioners point to study commission point of view, it wasn't a significant change to what was recommended? No. Yeah. There were attempts at more significant changes. Yeah. The intent of what the study committee put forward to town meeting was certainly preserved in my opinion in what town meeting passed. Was there another question before? I have no questions. I understand you can find it on the Unleaked Town Meeting information from the town council. It will show from the local students in what language they're learning. So it's there on the website, under town, in the clerk's website under thank you. Yeah. So that's where we're at in the process. The recruiting and nomination process will happen soon. And I probably should just read in the final bylaw, there are nine. There will be the back of that. There will be nine commissioners. One and the nomination process will be a little bit different than a lot of other town committees and commissions. Most other town committees and commissions, they're all a little bit different, but most of them work with select board or the town moderator making appointments. And in this case, a number of town bodies will be making nominations to the town manager who will do the final appointment. And so those bodies making nominations are one member nominated by the Arlington Human Rights Commission, one by the LGBTQIA plus Rainbow Commission, one by the Disability Commission, one member nominated by the Board of Youth Services, one member nominated by the Envision Arlington Diversity Task Group co-chairs with approval of the Standing Committee, one member nominated by the Council of an Aging, one member nominated by the Minotomy Manor Tenants Association, and two members nominated by the Select Board. So that adds up to a total of nine, which the study committee felt was a large enough number that as turnover happens, there could be a continuity of retained knowledge, but also not be such a large group that decisions were hard to make and schedules were impossible to align. So nine felt like a right number. And also we should say that that is sort of mirrored how the study committee was set up in terms of those bodies were given a say in who was on the study committee, and we felt like that worked really well and wanted to continue with that. Yes, exactly. Robin, you have a question? Yeah, I'm fine. So will they just nominate them and then you will approve them or how will that work? Well, we won't do anything. We actually don't exist anymore. We have no efficient role. We are dissolved. We're just town of Arlington residents. So they'll approve them within your groups and then they'll get sent to the town. They'll be sent to the town manager and the town manager will make the final appointment. I wouldn't expect any disagreement between those groups and the town manager, but it makes a lot of sense to have one person who's responsible for notifying all those groups that there's an appointment that needs to happen or a term that's about to expire, right? Some good to have a central role to feel responsible for that. It's certainly possible that two of the bodies could think of the same person they wanted to nominate, so it's helpful to make sure that there's some communication. Yes, so people will be nominated for three year terms and I think there's nine commissioners, so three of them, three terms will expire every year. I think the way that it works is the manager first set of appointments, the manager gets to just decide, okay, these ones are one, these ones are three, two, and these ones are three. And then after that, three each year. I think, did you have your hand up? I did. I don't want to drag things off in the wrong direction, but what exactly, because I haven't read the warrant or anything, but what can the group actually do? Yeah, we should get to that. If we have, if there was another question on the sort of, and we can return to the nomination process as well later too, please. One is a suggestion, it'd be great if people would say their name before they start. My question is, is there any way to ensure that the commission doesn't become, might not be all white or all male? So we included, or any other category. Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And so I think certainly that the dispersing of the nominations is, at least in the creation of the study committee, was effective in making sure that that did not happen. We've also included language, which is very hard to enforce, but is included so that people are at least, should be considering it. And what exactly did we say in the end? Oh, yes. All members, the commission, as a total body, shall reflect racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, age, and other forms of adversity in Arlington. And additionally, the town manager shall appoint at least one member, respectively, with experience in one or more of the following areas. Criminal defense or civil rights relative to police searches, arrests, or detainments, data analysis, and working with underserved communities such as, you know, such as social workers, mental health counselors, civil, or other civil forms of legal aid, things along those lines. And so it's very hard to write into a statute. You must do, but the attempt has certainly been made. And I do think that the groups that are involved and the manager himself will be looking to do that. Yes. So before we take more questions, if you could, I won't be able to list them off my head, but before when you've given us updates on this, the four types of civilian review boards, yes, and what you all settled on as your recommendation might be helpful. Sure, sure, sure. So there, yeah, that's a great idea we should cover. Yes, there are a number of different sort of models of oversight boards that we looked at. And the traditional model that people sort of think of is a fully investigative model. And this is the model where oversight board receives a complaint about a specific incident. And then at that point, that board or commission employs investigators who are not part of the police department. And those investigators carry out some sort of investigation. And then at the end of that, the board or commission then makes a finding about the specific incident. So that's one, one sort. The second one is investigative. Oh, yes, the auditor model is really, instead of being focused on specific incidents, is focused on looking at the data and looking at policies. And so they that kind of oversight board doesn't evolve itself at all in individual incidents. But right, would on a yearly basis look at all of the policies, right? Or if there is a series of incidents related to something, right, they would go and do a policy analysis or make recommendations around, you know, specific things that the department should do, should do differently. But again, wouldn't make recommendations about specific incidents or how, you know, look, it's a, it's a forward looking model, I guess, right? Some might say that I, I actually wouldn't. Not everywhere. Yeah, I wouldn't agree with that necessarily. Again, the, well, let me come back to that in a moment. And then the third sort of thing is, which is increasingly happening is a hybrid model that takes bits and pieces from all of these things. And that's actually what we have created here is we have taken bits and pieces from the different models and put together what works, what we think is going to work for Arlington. And that's really a big thing that we saw in our research and looking at other communities is that, you know, you have to know where your community is and what your community needs and what your community has the capacity to do, right? And putting those, bringing that context to the table of deciding, okay, these are the things that are going to make a big difference for our community. These are the things that are going to help our community feel safe, help our community feel heard was, was really important. And where we ended up, again, right, a big piece of what we're, we're talking about here is bringing people into the complaint process. You know, if nobody is, is willing to bring forward their complaint, it's very hard to know what the problems are, right? Where the problems are, who the problems are, and be able to address them for anybody, right? Whether that's current, you know, whether that's command staff, and the chief, whether that's the community at large, right? It's hard for anybody to know and identify those sorts of things. And so one of the really big focuses on this, of this commission, at least as written, is to bring more people, help more people feel confident and feel comfortable bringing their complaint or commendation forward and bring it to the attention of people who can, you know, then act on that. And then along with that, because, you know, the reality is today, what was the number? Three to six complaints a year? Yeah. Is the number that the Arlington Police Department officially receives? You know, yeah. So that's not a whole lot for a commission of nine people to do. And I think like one thing that just in terms of like concrete what's happened recently, Donovan Johnson never filed a complaint. So he's obviously pursuing legal remedies elsewhere. But the even that investigation that Chief Larrity did was she initiated it. And I think he cooperated with it to some extent. I think early on he provided his lawyer advice and not to, which is also something that's fairly typical and one of the problems with the event. So I'm a former public defender. One of the requirements on the study commission was that there be someone with criminal defense background. And I think I was the only one who applied. And I worked in New York for a long time, which is well known for its CCRB, Civilian Complaint Review Board. And I will say that as an attorney representing defendants who had many issues with the New York City Police, I never once advised somebody to go forward with the complaint because I meant that they had to speak on the record while their criminal case was ongoing often and be at the end of the day, it was a finding that couldn't there weren't many real impacts in the end. And so that is one thing we discussed is that we have to have a process that allows for the discussions to happen, you know, given the realities of the legal system. Do you have more before we go to more questions? We can, I mean, yeah, let me a little bit more the other sort of focus of the of the commission will be on data. And we laid out in the bylaw some specific kinds of data that that we would like the commission to work with Arlington Police Department to I have the one that we ended up with in the bylaw. Some of this already exists and the Arlington Police Department collects it already. Some of it doesn't exist. And you know, hopefully the commission can work with Arlington Police Department to find ways to collect it and publish it. And a lot of it requires interpretation. It's not enough to just put a number out there, right? What does that number mean? How does that number compare with other communities, right? What went into collecting this number? What might be missing from this number because of the way it was collected? And so the things that we have here are complaints, including their nature status and disposition. Police use of force in incidents, including all use of firearms, vehicle pursuits and traffic collisions, injuries and deaths in custody, stops, searches, citations and arrest, and then including demographic data for that. Civil lawsuits and other claims brought against the town or department, a database of training undertaken, and a database of awards and commendations. And so, right, again that gives very concrete things for the commission to be looking at and as the commission has collected that data and more of that data is published, right, that gives metrics for the community to judge and, but not judge, to evaluate the police department on as time goes on. So that's, yeah, sort of the main focus is, well, there are other things, but let's stop there and see. I don't know if we said this. I mean, the first work of the committee is going to be, so there was only so much that we could get done in a year and so much that we could lay out in a warrant article. So, the first work of the committee is like setting up their policies and procedures for how they will work internally. Coming up with a training plan, we do talk in the warrant article about required training for every member of the committee. And so, I think it's fair to say that, you know, I don't know when the process with the AG's office and all that will come, but there's going to be this, this isn't going to happen quickly. So, there's a lot of work to be done, which is part of the reason we're here trying to get people to participate. What questions do people have? Marta? Marta's live again. This is sort of a two-part question. If the commission was in place, what are your hopes of its effect if it had been in place during the Padrini issue and the Donovan Johnson issue? What difference might it have made? So, there are, do you have an answer first? And you may have a different answer. We might have different answers. I think it's really hard to say. I think, I also think those two incidents were handled so differently that they're sort of an example of why having a more streamlined, like, clear approach to how we would, as a community, address those problems is important. So, I don't, I don't really know what, the hope is that whatever the outcome was, that there would be a much higher level of confidence from the community in the process that the right questions were asked, that the information, like, that we need to know as a community in order to, for people to feel safe here, had, like, that process would happen in a, in not in an ad hoc way, the way it's basically been happening. I can't say, I mean, I can't, I don't know. Again, if Donovan Johnson didn't want to file a complaint, and I don't, I can't say that, especially given that he's not an Arlington resident and wouldn't have necessarily been gone into this with any sort of background, like, oh, this thing exists in Arlington and this is our history and what we're trying to do, he might still not have wanted to cooperate with some sort of investigation or some sort of process, but the committee could certainly have said, like, this is something we need to look into, that we want to know more about and they are independent from the police investigation. The other thing I would sort of say is, you know, if an oversight board is working well, the success is the incidents that don't happen. Yeah. Right, the incidents that have been avoided by reviewing policy and making recommendations to the police department ahead of time, right, by, you know, talking about incidents that have happened in the past and making sure that they're not repeated. And so, you know, a lot of what this commission that we've lined up here is not backwards-facing, right? A lot of it is not incident-focused, right? So, if a specific incident happened, you know, the commission will have a role, like Laura is saying, in facilitating, you know, a community conversation and helping the community, you know, helping the community have confidence that questions are being asked and that processes are being followed, but I don't think it's necessarily going to determine the outcome of a particular, of any particular incident that might happen in the future. Is that? To me, also, it seems, in hearing your process with this and hearing conversations around the town of really emphasizing that point of depending on your identity and your access to power and privilege and understanding of town government that you may not feel comfortable pursuing either a legal recourse or, you know, an official complaint through this body, but that there is a commission that will be the holder of that history and institutional knowledge feels really important to me. So, I know I've heard from Director Harvey and, you know, from folks on the commission of instances where folks in town thought about making a complaint but didn't feel, you know, like someone said felt that the retaliation might be too great or felt that it was too cumbersome or hard on their families and so didn't pursue it. And I will say that one of the, one of the very first things we heard, because Chief Larrie was an ad hoc member of the commission, was she and her command staff pretty quickly as we heard from the community, they were like, oh, yeah, like our system of even making a possibility of a complaint is not working. Like that was a very quick thing that everybody could agree on. And I think even if an official complaint isn't made, that there is a town body that holds onto that unofficial knowledge feels really important to me because if it was only ever official instances of racism or sexism, then it would be few and far between what's recorded in history. The other thing I was just, one thing to add to that is, you know, what justice looks like in any particular incident, there's sort of two frames to looking at from, right, there's what the community as a whole needs, but there's also what the specific person involves needs, right, the specific person bringing forward that complaint. And different people are looking for different things out of bringing that complaint forward, right, some people just want an apology, right, an acknowledgement that what happened was wrong and it shouldn't have happened to you and we will try to do better. Some people need, right, there's a whole, and what I'm saying and saying is that there's a whole continuum, right, of what people might want out of that. And part of the hope for the commission, part of the job of the commission is to meet with those individual people and help them think through this is what, this is what I want from this situation and, right, is there a possible way for me to get that, right, where should I bring my complaint if this is what I want from it. And that might look different from what the community as a whole wants out of a specific incident, right. And so, you know, sometimes there's going to be a little tension between those two things. I was going to start taking some questions, but I'm going to go around like this. So go ahead. Bottom of my first thing, I think what you're saying right now, Sanjay, really goes to the heart of the difference between, and you mentioned the models, you know, where the body would do its own investigation and here the police department is doing the investigation. So the whole question is, is that process objective and fair? And the role of the body is to ensure that what happens over here in the police department is objective and fair. And there are all kinds of choices. I mean, do you sit back and wait for the process to finish and then review it? Or are you along the journey, you know, almost in the sense working with the investigation part of the police department to ensure that they're doing it carefully. And it looks objective, you know, to you folks who are on the commission. So I think there are some really important choices to ensure that the town has confidence that what the police department is doing is fair and objective. Alan, are you next? But we were saying a moment ago, Sanjay, about concerning, the commission concerning itself with the person who encountered a problem ceases the resolution. That sounds to me kind of like the sort of justice. Was this deliberately part of, you know, that some of that kind of thinking part of it? I could say a hard note. Yeah, I don't think that that's necessarily the goal or the intent, right? Other than that the idea that, right, different people need different things from a process, right? I don't think, I wouldn't call what this commission is going to be doing in restorative justice. But the idea that different people might need different things out of a process is certainly a shared value with restorative justice. Is that? Go ahead. Robins Bergman from the AF4 Steering Commission. No, I just was wondering if there's gonna, I guess you won't know, but I'm hoping we have some kind of process where they will revisit some of the things that did happen that were important, like the Jamie issue, like the Donald Johnson issue, because I think it can inform them on our training policy around those kind of events so that it's easier to handle the practice, right? But I'm also hoping that they will call all of you in for some of your findings as well, because they'll be starting from scratch. They won't have your knowledge of how they worked on this for a year. I mean, I think we're assuming we will be available. Right, I'm hoping there'll be some process for, well I'm assuming there'll be a process for people like us to meet with them and talk to them about issues as well. Yes, and part of the, I didn't read the full list of responsibilities here, but one of them is about regularly, or forget the exact word, but it's reporting on, within the, like educating the town and both knowing sort of the sense of the town, I forget there's some wording along those lines. So certainly listening to people as well as educating them about what they're doing or what they have learned is certainly part of the vision for the commission. I think it's going to be hard for us to answer questions about exactly what the commission is going to do or take into account because it doesn't exist yet. I think it's also important to space on some of the last few questions. This commission can't make policy for the police department. That's not within its power. So the, I think one thing that we talked a lot about over the year was like scope and what are the things that we can do well. And that, it's pretty clear that that's not something this commission can do. What this commission can do is comment on policy and educate the public about policy so that the public can say how they feel about it. Yeah, this commission can be the voice of the community, right? And have a very substantial seat at that table, right? They're not going to be able to dictate those things, but they will have a substantial seat at that table, which is important to mind. Yeah, I also think that one of the reasons to have this event is to demystify this process because people in this room could apply to be nominated by any of these commissions and then be appointed. So I don't think it's a they, them over there on that commission, but folks who have been working hard on these issues for the past several years, I hope we'll learn how to navigate this because it's meant to represent the community. Okay, I'm going to keep going. Yes. That's some sort of civilian oversight. We will be number three. Yeah, but we also have that's when we were doing talking to experts. It's like a lot of people are talking about it. So it's, I think, who knows what is going to come in the next year. No, no, it's it's Boston and Pittsburgh. Oh, sorry. Cambridge and Pittsburgh. So we spoke to Chief Winn from Pittsburgh, and we spoke with Brian Korr from Cambridge. Both of them actually came to our meeting, to each of them came to one of our meetings and spoke with us. And those are actually both on that. Yeah, I think all of our meetings, I think the last two didn't end up getting close. But definitely the ones where we heard from the outside experts. I'm just wondering how those communities, whether or not there was an opportunity to speak to people within those communities as to whether or not what they have in place is working. No, so we did not take an opportunity to do that again. It was a year. We were much more focused on talking to people in Arlington about what was and wasn't working. I think we wanted to know about the structures in those communities. But again, it was much more about what's going to work for Arlington. And those are such part of our challenge was even going beyond Massachusetts, finding communities that sort of mirrored us in size and resources and demographics that had anything like this was very hard. So I think we learned a lot about that from Brian Korr because he's the expert in the nation a lot. And we couldn't really ask anyone to see other Arlington people. So we're kind of pondering on a kind of hypothetical here. Well, I see a background as you found yourself serving on a music board. And someone like John Johnson had certain, you know, had a legal complaint and certain kinds of issues. Would you, would your background advise that person? I don't think I could. I don't need to get a lawyer rather than. I mean, I think that's one thing that the committee has to figure out. But again, as an individual person, yes. I don't know if I would say that as a commissioner or Yeah, I think the commission is going to have to create sort of a way of responding to sort of template for themselves of how to respond to this. It shouldn't be, it shouldn't matter which individual commissioner you happen to bring your complaint to or that part of developing an intake process and then a follow-up process is going to be part of it. And also, like I wouldn't, I mean, I sort of, yes, we haven't talked about this perfect specific question, but I think like even if my, I think someone's to get a lawyer, I don't think that means there is no role for the committee. I just, when I'm speaking about it, it might potentially be a barrier. I'm waiting for someone getting representation, thinking they're going to get what they want going through this process when, when maybe what they're going to need to do. I think what we, one of the things that the commission is going to have to do is be very clear about what they can and cannot do. And I would imagine that sort of through the training that Debra Sauer, the kind of protocol fund is talking about. Yeah, I'm wondering about what evaluation strategies you built in or if you have and what's the accountability going to be in three to five years. How are we going to look, how do we have any, anything built in, any data built in that are going to help us decide how things to continue or change or? So, the first two of the answers to that and mine, and I'll see what you have to say too, but my sort of two, one is that, you know, again, on that list of things that the commission is supposed to do is they are supposed to regularly review the bylaw that creates the commission and suggest changes. Because again, that's another thing that we learned in talking to Brian Corr and other communities is that what works when you create your first oversight board, either the community has changed or the needs have changed. And so a lot of times, right, people are making significant changes to that oversight structure, you know, five or 10 years in the future, not necessarily because the initial structure was wrong, but just because the needs of the community and the needs of the department and the needs of, you know, everyone involved have changed. And I think also particularly here, they're hopefully the commission is going to learn so much more than we were able to learn. It's just that's a huge part of what I want them to be doing. Yes, I don't, I have a whole no, I will be not upset, right, when three years from now, they come, they come to town meeting and say, right, here are the things that are not working about what was set up. Let's make some changes, right. And I think that's the kind of iterative process that a commission like this in anywhere, and especially in a, you know, in a place that lots, not a lot of other places like us have had this before, it's going to have to do. In terms of actual metrics for that, I mean, I think the number of complaints, right, we should see more complaints. And that shouldn't be a knock on the police, right, that shouldn't mean that the police department is getting worse, right, that should mean that the commission is doing its job. I think that's the number one. Yeah. Hi, I do have a question about administrative support. I just remember in Fitzfield or in Cambridge, do I just agree with you? Because it's a lot, I think it's a lot of work. Do the internal to set it up and then go through the process. I just think that there are some few commissions like this. There will certainly need to be support of this. Cambridge has a different model, right, they do have an actual technically they have a review model, like an investigative model. And so Brian Core, the board and the peace commissioner or something else, but he is definitely full time full time staff that spends a significant amount of his time on that. I don't recall, do you recall in Fitzfield? So what I recall learning about Fitzfield is that they just keep having, they have commissioners. Yes. That they've had a real hard time holding on to. Yes. And it may be that part of that reason is a lack of administrative support. There were definitely other political things going on there, but I don't think he talked about any real administrative support. No one, certainly nothing to the extent of with Brian and Cambridge. I imagine that's not set in stone of how that the town will support the commission. No, and that's not something that town meeting can do, right. We can't, town meeting can't prescribe that. I guess I was asking in part because I wonder if that's something that besides supporting folks to apply and be nominated and be on the commission, but then also community folks making asks of how that commission is supported financially, administratively, institutionally would seem like an important role. I think that's a very realistic thing for people to be asking about and making sure. Yes. So could, for example, it go back to town meeting for a quest staff, we can't? No, that's not how, yeah. There's a very, I'm not the right person to explain the project process. Perhaps Christine back there might actually be better at that. But, yeah, I think the right thing for, what would you say? I mean, I think that's exactly the kind of thing that the committee can sort of report to the town on. I mean, I don't, they have no formal ability to ask for a budget, but they can say, this is what we've done. This is what we've liked to like to do. This is what's, you know, how we could do it. And then also not at all intimately involved in the budget process, but it has to get there. I mean, there were, there were some questions about this in our, as we went through the select board, and I do think that possibly the finance committee even discussed this at some point, we weren't there for it. But, yeah, again, this is part of what happens going forward. Marta? Marta, do they have a budget at all? Yeah, not this year. Yeah. Have a trouble formulating this question, right? So, it's clear from what I've, or the commission, what it will do to be very valuable. Once someone, a member of the police department who's demonstrated to you, I guess my question is that I'm only going to address this. Is there anything set up toward addressing that in, for example, the past? The jail act. Yeah, with the statewide and the word, you know, is that, is that covering that? Are there still significant gaps in what army has accessible to say this person, you know, it just shouldn't be. So, I think this commission is not, I do not expect to be involved at that level of, again, incident specific recommendations, right? I do think, and as we were going through the process last year, there was still a lot of uncertainty about what post of the peace officer standards and training, which came from the GEO Act, what that was going to look like. I think we're starting to get a little closer to understanding what that's going to look like. And I do think, at least to a first level, it's going to partially address what you're talking about, right? I think this summer, every department, or no, it was like, every department, officers, eighth, with last names, eighth or eighth, or something like that, had to certified or recertified. And so that process is slowly starting. Yes. I think it was a third. The other thing I think the GEO Act does is it just changed the ability of anyone to get this kind of, you're not specifically our commission, but there is going to be, hopefully, better access to information that would inform that kind of request or issue. Whether it's this commission or the community at large, right? The GEO Act made some important changes to what is a public record. So that's, I think, rather notable. It also reminds me in listening to that question and the response that many things are true at the same time in this instance, right? That it's worth celebration, that we're the third community in the state to pass something like this and to launch it this year and to celebrate and then not have community at large accountability for our police department would be a mistake. So it's worthy of celebration and also reason to stay vigilant about what the community hopes for. Maggie. Maggie Kerry. Has the study commission communicated with the governor's office and probably even more importantly, the next governor's office about what is happening and just to kind of keep that communication open? So we don't exist anymore. The study committee dissolved at the end of town meeting. So the moment, so we have, nothing has been done since the warrant article was passed. We're just kind of our own residence here for conversation, so was there any communication while you were active? Do you see a role there to kind of communicate? I mean, there's there are two ways of transparency, right, to the residents of Arlington and then to the to other communities, but also to other governmental agencies. I mean, I guess we have not talked about this at all. To me, we have to see what's happening with post and one of the things this commission will have to do is keep abreast of what is happening at the state level with the certification processes and I guess, depending on how that plays out, they may or may not, you know, want to sort of do do more. And I think it's honestly, it's going to be a couple of years before we really sort of see how post is functioning. And also, it's great with a new governor, who knows what other potential reforms we could have. So let's take a few more questions, but I see two right back there. You can find it out. I don't think we know what happened to the little control officer, so I wouldn't think so. Yeah, I don't think this this committee is going to have any real ability to like get in the middle of HR issues. That's there's really no mechanism for that. Go ahead. That's there. Maybe some of this, I think it's a little late. How does this get jeopardized in the next, I mean, after the case-running thing, because that's your law, the law of law, the responsibility. So how do we, you know, question like, well, how are we going to spend those questions and with support, how are we going to, you know, run a process instead of a commission? Sure. So the the bylaw sets the town manager as the appointing authority. And so the town manager is also responsible for notifying all of the committees and commissions that make nominations, that it's time to make nominations. And each of those committees and commissions under the bylaw has given 90 days to do a recruiting process. I'm sure the town manager can give them more time if needed. I guess, frankly, 90 days is a pretty tight window to across the whole town, right, identified nine, you know, really great people and, you know, meet the sort of, you know, diversity of the town. Right, 90 days is tough. I don't expect that 90 days is will be very easy. But anyway, they technically get 90 days. And then the manager will actually make the final appointments based on nominations from the list that I had written earlier. What was I, did I miss something in there? But no, I guess, I mean, if part of what you're asking is, like, I guess if we haven't heard anything for a while, it's the town manager's office to inquire with about where the process is, if that's part of what you're asking. For reaching out to the commissions and, you know, asking, right, but their process will be, yeah. Absolutely. Reaching out to those commissions, I think would be a great idea, right, saying them, oh, you know, have you thought about what your, what your processes, once this opens, have you thought about what your process for recruiting? Right, because the warrant article doesn't prescribe that at all. Each commission is left to sort of within however they operate to come up with their own method of recruiting. And so that's obviously a whole other sort of lot of work. From a government's perspective, it didn't feel right for, you know, the warrant article to prescribe how each of those nominating bodies made their nomination. But I'm quite hopeful that, you know, most of those bodies will have, you know, open postings and, you know, recruitment processes that they go through. Is that it? All right, let's, two more questions? Sure. Yeah, okay. Just a quick one now and then I'll begin. I wonder whether the town manager, just as this is getting off, could, under their own authority, simply decide what administrators work to be providing base, what office, so right from the outset, it's not necessarily just for you to do it, you know, I don't, I don't think there's much for us to say to that specifically. I mean, that's certainly a question you could ask to the manager. I will say also that our study committee had no official resources devoted to it. We did, we were very lucky to have Director Harvey and other members of the town administration, who gave up a lot of their time and, but we, I think they can start getting a lot done without worrying about, I think long term, yes, administrative resources are going to have to be available in some way or form, but I don't think it will stop things from getting forward. There's, right, there's a lot of work in that first year in discussion of processes, right, in discussion of training and making sure, right, just getting people on the same page, right. It took the study committee, right, several months of research and learning to, and discussing amongst ourselves, meeting twice a month, right, to feel like we had our hands even somewhat around the issue. You know, I think that the commission itself is going to have to go through a similar kind of process, right, and, you know, the administrative load for that is not huge. I imagine that, you know, they might ask for presentations from specific, you know, members of staff in a similar way that the study committee did, things of that nature. So I, my comment is out of my mind because of people talking about the town manager's office. So I actually went to meet Adam in chapter A once, and that was like before COVID, and it was about the dream, and I went into his, he's got this little meeting room off the, the big office space, and we sat down in the, at the conference table, and he and I were talking about the dreamy and how the town got to the decision that RJ was the right decision to handle the dreamy situation. And while we were in this discussion, you know, the other staff in his office kept coming by and peeking in the door and looked at me as if I was like a zoo animal, you know, like, and I noticed because they kept coming by and looking through the door at me, I noticed that the town manager's office is completely 100% white. Not anymore. Okay, great. That is great. I'd love to hear that, that there's an office because I, I am a little concerned that the same office that came up with the decision to do restorative justice for the dream is the same group of people who's going to pick this commission. That's concerning to me. Like is there, will the town manager's decision making process of who the commissioners are? Will that be, you know, influenced by, you know, like let's say, let's say he rejects a little bunch of people that, you know, were nominated. Is there, is there going to be an ability to like have a discussion about. Well, and who will the town manager be when these nominations come forward? Right? I mean, I think that's an ever changing question of. But it's great to hear that at least there's a little bit of diversity in the town manager's office. Yeah, you know, the nominations are coming from, right? It's not the town manager's office is not solely making these appointments, right? It's the town manager based on nominations from the committees and commissions. I also think that's a fair question to the commissions that will be sending in these nominations of what their process would be if someone was rejected, right? And what would their follow up, you know, question be or demand be or their next application. So I think, but I think it's also fair to, you know, these commissions can start thinking about this now. They don't have to wait for the AG's office to approve the, you know, for the final approval. And it's, if you have, you know, if you're a constituent of one of these, of the different nominating bodies, I think it's totally fair to start asking now, like, what are you thinking about this process so that it, just to make, because so that we're not delayed even more than we have to make. Because, right, you know, the reality is, right, all of these boards and commissions are volunteer run boards and commissions. And so, you know, getting people's time and attention and energy is important and hard, not in a good way. Maybe that's the next iteration of this panel is inviting some commissioners to come and talk about their process. I want to be respectful of people's time. Is there any more questions that our volunteer panelists and commissioners can answer? Yeah. That seems like a fair note to fit down. There's cookies. Well, there's cookies. Thank you all for coming in for the good and honest conversation and thank you to our panelists. And if you, anybody who isn't here, you know, people who aren't here who want to know more, I think we both are happy to talk to anybody who's interested in the process. If you know, your neighbor would be good for this, right? We don't exist at all formally anymore, but we have invested, we are very invested in making sure this happens. So I think the more people who even think about it, even if they ultimately decide it's not for them, the better. And if anyone that you're connected with would like the recording, we can certainly send it around. So again, the more information, the better. Thank you.