 Hi, Sandy and Jane. Where are you? It's only me and Mark Estrin that are on this call. Hi, Mark. Hi, Sam. Robin, I think the other people are there, but they just don't have their videos activated at the moment. Yeah. I mean, and all of them are mute. Yeah. Hi, Robin. Hi, Mark. Hi. Well, we can have this hearing without Sandy or without Jane Bergman. That's right. There she is. Okay. She will give us a piece of her mind. Is everybody hearing me? Yeah. Is it Sandy? Yes. Hi. This presentation this evening will be about the current proposal, which is on our town meeting day and on the ballot of Burlington seeking to create a citizens commission, which will have some control over the police, over the mayor's authority, over the police. In other words, it will be a commission which has the ultimate power to discipline officers who may or may not be guilty of wrongdoing and also the police chief. Our current police chief is Chief Murad. The reason that we have a slight delay and I'm asking us to be patient is that I made a mistake and because Gene Bergman told me that he would be here at 630 and he is here, but he's taking a couple of minutes to discuss the resolution with a compatriot of his own named Tyler, who I don't happen to know, but I think he will be presenting tonight. Gene and Tyler. This is from Gene Bergman, who is proud of this resolution. I'm speaking, I'll introduce you, and then I will also mention that next week we're going to have another city councilor come, Ben Traverse, who will speak against the proposal. The proposal is on the ballot in Burlington on town meeting day where we will have a chance to vote yes or no. The Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement are presenting these two proposals, one against and one for, to educate the public. We're not taking any particular stand this evening, except to say that it's incredibly important. It has to do with questions about how our police chief operates in the city, how our police officers operate in our city and attempt on the part of the proposers of the proposal to get some kind of an idea that citizens should have a lot to say over how those police officers operate. And Gene will be speaking in a couple of minutes, so I'd ask us all to be patient for a couple of minutes until he joins us. Are there any questions though that I might answer initially from anyone? Am I wrong that I can't hear? Sandy, can you hear me? Hello? I can hear you. You can hear me. Am I wrong in thinking that person? That the person Sandy keeps referring to as the police chief is the acting police chief? He is at this point. He has been an acting police chief for quite some time because I believe that he couldn't get a majority approval from city council. He was hired by the mayor, Mayor Murrow Weinberger, and he was hired as an interim chief. And when a vote was taken on city council, it did not confirm him as the permanent chief, although there is probably going to be a new vote soon because the power shift on city council has changed as a result of an election actually in my ward. So the Democrats appear to have a one vote ahead of the progressive party. The progressive were the ones who appeared to be blocking Chief Murad from becoming the permanent chief. And the Democrats were for that to happen. And now that the Democrats do have a vote over the progressives, that permanent appointment might very well happen. It's something that I know that Mayor Murrow Weinberger wants. Are there other questions before we begin? Okay, everybody, are there any? Okay, okay. So we will be back in a couple minutes if everybody wishes to hang on for a while while Gene and his friend or whomever he wanted to confer with before he takes a stand. I guess I would put it in a couple of minutes and I believe is that he coming in? No. Okay. All right. So hold on for a couple of minutes if you will. Thank you. Jesus. No, I'm beginning to think the other ones maybe just as good. And you won't have to. I saw you on Fran Stoddard yesterday, Mark. Very lovely. How many years ago was that? I can't even remember. And I don't even remember what we talked about. So you talked about Gollum, the Gollum more than you, more than she talked about the insect dreams, but it was both of them. So that must have been. And I'm Sandy Baird and I am here tonight on behalf of the Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement. And I'm here tonight to feature Gene Bergman, who is the counselor for more two in our city of Burlington. And he has been very active, I believe, but he can explain his role and present, he will present tonight on the proposal to create a more or less citizens commission, citizens committee. We call it an independent community board to deal with the discipline of police officers. I guess I will, that's quite a long name. So I'm going to just let Gene introduce the subject tonight and to talk a little bit about it and then welcome your questions and debate. I believe it's fair to say that Gene is very pro this proposal. And next week we will have a presentation that's not so favorable. So for two weeks, we hope to educate the community about this very important proposal. I might say that these these issues about the police in our community is a very important subject nationally as well as here in Burlington. This seems to be a key issue that's going to be in the current elections, both for the president and for all of our other elected bodies. The police seem to be facing some challenges, some criticism, and some real proposals to change the way we police our cities. So here's Gene. I might mention also that Gene and I, as he said, are all comrades that we have worked on a lot of proposals together over the years. I think we've known each other for about 50 years. We've had many fights and many agreements. And here is our very pleasant Gene Bergman. Thanks, Sandy. We've had a long association. So I'm Gene Bergman. I'm the ward two city counselor and I was the former senior assistant city attorney for the city of Burlington for 20 years, retired in 2018. And prior to being elected, I just last time because I was elected actually in the 1980s when Bernie was mayor. I was a staff person for progressive counselors in this at the city council level and had the opportunity to work with a bunch of people around this. So let me actually, because I think you want me to like introduce this. Yes, of course. Okay, is to introduce Tyler Pestore, who is a member of People for Police Accountability. And he can talk about that group and their process and the reason that we are here with a, you know, a ballot item that came by petition. I think he would be the best person between the two of us to do that since the role that I played and I'm very proud of that role was as an advisor to them, but that they, Tyler and others were, you know, critical to making this happen. So did you, did you write it or did penistry? No, I mean, I, well, yeah, we can go in, we can go into this and it would be very helpful for us not to get interrupted. But so let's let's go with with with Tyler in that we can, we can talk about it because it's a little bit more complicated than you might be. My simple mind. No, you said that, no. Okay, well, yeah, so my name is Tyler Pestore. I'm just a member, engaged member of the community. I live and work in Burlington. And so back in 2020, I got involved with a Black led movement that sort of ended up focusing on police oversight in Burlington. So to kind of talk about the history of this proposal in 2020, Black members of our community led a movement that brought in to focus the fact that our city charter, just kind of like the city constitution, gives the police chief unchecked authority over disciplinary decisions in the police department. And this movement focused on some pretty disturbing use of force cases with public body cam footage where members of our community sustained life altering injuries and even death. And because of our charter, the best the city could do at the time was pay one of these officers $300,000 to resign. And so this movement as that became evident that nobody in the city besides the police chief has authority over disciplinary cases. The movement shifted to focusing on changing that part of the city charter to establish a board of community members that in cases of police misconduct could conduct investigations and make actual disciplinary decisions. And so this proposal to answer the question was written kind of in collaboration with Perry Freeman, a city counselor at the time, the Charter Change Committee, Jean, and this group of this movement that was going on at the time. So it's really a partnership between city officials, lawyers, and community members to come up with this proposed board. So just to fill that out, this came up to the Charter Change Committee, part of a process of review that was based on the Mellie brothers and Belivance cases. And Charter Change Committee was taking up a number of oversight models. And there were memos put down by the staff attorney for the Charter Change Committee, which was city attorney Eileen Blackwood. So my role was as the advisor, the staff person to counselor Freeman. So really the person, the lawyer who was involved in that was Eileen Blackwood. And the process of drafting and vetting was in the Charter Change Committee for the most part. So those are public meetings, very well attended, chaired by counselor Shannon, who was not, and I think it is bare to say was not in favor of this from the beginning was not only not in favor of it, but was not in favor of even discussing it. So we spent a long time trying to even get it on the agenda. And she ruled that we couldn't take it up and the committee actually on a two-to-one vote overruled her. I actually have, I was stunned at the use of the power of the chair. But be that as it may, this process really worked through the Charter Change Committee hearings, people testified, committee discussed, Attorney Blackwood made comments about it. And that happened in the fall, I think it was like in late September, early October started, it went through into November. I see Milo Grant is here and hi Milo, police commissioner. And she knows well that we did bring this to get comments from the police commission. She actually was not in favor of it at the time that it was brought forward. But there was a lot of conversation, discussion, deliberations back and forth about that. And then it passed out of the Charter Change Committee on a two-to-one vote with a recommendation to put this on the ballot for 2020, 2021's Town Meeting Day ballot as a Charter Change. And the truth is that what was petitioned this time around is very, very close to what made it through the Charter Change Committee, what was debated at the city council. Wait, that was? Was, it was. Yes, it was made through the Charter Change Committee. And that whole deliberative process, it made it through all of the political machinations that happened between that and getting to the council. It was debated at the council and on December 14th of 2020, it was passed on a seven to five vote. And city council? By the city council. And again, fundamentally the same proposal. So when we say this is a long document, right? This is a document that was looked at by city attorney block would not for policy per se. I mean, you want to make it very clear we're not trying to, you know, to saddle her with that. But in terms of form and coverage was passed by the city council on a seven to five vote. And then in January was vetoed by the mayor. And so they could not go in front of the voters. And the veto was sustained. You have to have a super majority to override it, you know, two thirds. So we needed eight votes. And this is still got seven. So there it sat. So it was not put on the ballot, right? And that's where it sat until the petition drive. And I'd like to, you know, have Tyler because I think it's really important to say. But before I get into this, one of the things that I'm really sort of proud of is the fact that I was able to advise people about their rights. So how they got this on the ballot is a statutory right that all citizens in Vermont have and yet people don't really know it. And I'm not going to raise right now, although maybe I'd like to the specter of rent control, but you remember the rent control campaign. So we fought for rent control from night together from 1975 to like 1978. And we're told constantly, we don't have the authority in the city of Berlin to enact rent control. They never said unless you bring a charter change, nobody ever told the people anything. And I sat there and my organization packed and yes, and you were part of that and was just clueless about it. So I said to myself, if I cannot use the knowledge that I've got, the experience I've got to help people who are trying to do what I think is really the right thing to do to bring this in front of the people with this other mechanism, then I should just close up shop. And so that is what they did. I think that the good advice was that you can do it on this way and you are not going to be blocked by the intransigence of the mayor and his allies on the city council. And that's what they did. On a voter standpoint, I don't think that's out there anymore. It's on the ballot. Not out there. What it says, I think is more interesting because it's on the ballot now. We're not debating whether it's going to be. No, we're not debating whether it's on the ballot, but it's important to understand how it is that it gets there and is particularly important in this case because we're being accused and I think falsely of it not being vetted, of it not being debated, of staff not having the opportunity to weigh in. The chief had the opportunity to speak at every single charter change committee where this was talked about, at every single commission meeting. And Milo can talk about whether he did because they were sort of watching that. At the city council meetings in all the forums, they had the city attorney working on this, they could have weighed in. The mayor had the same opportunity. So to charge people with not having this vetted by staff, which is actually the first charge in Councillor Shannon. I happen to disagree with her a lot, but I actually like Joan a lot. But it's the first charge is that this wasn't vetted by staff and the administration. I could dig out the charge without reviewer recommendation by city staff. They were either asleep at the wheel or they just chose to ignore it. And that is a really important thing, which is also really important when we're looking at the criticisms and the complaints that are being waged against us. So I told Tyler that he would have to help me in this format because I'm going to get like hyper, not a mad some, but also hyper and passionate about it because it really angers me and that's being as sweet as I possibly can be, you know, when people say this stuff. Okay, can I ask you another question? I think that there is there a difference because this is not an advisory. Is it advisory? That's what I mean. What's the other one? No, I know it, but what I'm saying is when I said I've done this before, like around the Y, if you recall that. All right. But that was advisory. What is the difference between this one and an advisory one? Had we been successful in 1981? Right. Well, tell us the difference. No, no, no. I will. But had we been successful in 1981 in the special election around rent control, we would have adopted a charter change, not an advisory, go ahead and try to figure out how to do the deal with the rent. But we would have created a statutory structure in our charter for rent control. It was defeated, right? It was defeated. The difference is that an advisory says we think you should work on this. This says this is what you got to do. This is a charter change and the people have that right to petition for charter changes in every municipality in the state of. Okay. And that's the difference. The difference between advisory is that this is not advisory. Now it can be adjusted in legislative process. Well, it can be vetoed. Well, it can be killed. Right. It can be killed. It can be many. Yep. So Tyler, go. Well, yeah, I just want to, I'm not sure how much people understand about the charter change process. So just so people have that understanding. Right now this is on the ballot for March. The people of Burlington will vote on it. If it passes the vote in Burlington, then this language goes to the state legislature because city charters are state law. So this goes to the state legislature where they will deliberate and discuss and they can make changes if they decide to and there will be hearings for people to show up to. And then if they, if the state legislature passes it, then it has to go to the governor's desk and the governor has to pass it. If he vetoes it, then they would need a super majority to override it. So, yeah. I believe your whole explanation where you said this went to the council, went through a process, could have been adopted, it was vetoed in the end. It went through the process. What was changed though? I mean, that's the only thing that's on the bubble. What has changed from that process through the petition language? Charlie, you want to? Yeah, so I can speak to some of that and I appreciate the question because, so, and to give a little background on the process of making changes. So this past city council, there were some minor amendments when they passed it. We took the original proposal that came out of the charter change committee and we petitioned for a year on that. And we didn't quite get the 5% of signatures in that amount of time. It's a lot of people to talk to. And so, after that point, we decided, well, are there, like we've, we've talked, we've spent hundreds of hours talking to community members. We've had the feedback of council and other community leaders. And yeah, there's some things we actually might want to change on this, some minor changes. And so we made edits in the winter of 2021, 2022, and then petitioned again with those revisions. And that, that's what on the ballot now. So to answer the question, some examples of those changes. So early in the proposal, it talks about the board established and it talks about compensation for the board. We had originally written in that board members would be compensated the same rate as city counselors. And what isn't, what we feel is important about board members being compensated for this is, you know, you're potentially asking folks who have personally experienced trauma with police violence or family members to do this and, and to dig into and review cases. And so it's really important that we're not asking people to just do that work for free. And, you know, that this is just, so what changed, it was saying compensated at the rate that city counselors are. There were concerns about that static rate of compensation and sort of comparing those two things. So now it just says we'll be entitled to fair compensation for their time spent working on the board through the city's livable wage ordinance. So they'll just be paid by the hour for, for, for time that they spend reviewing cases, things like that. So that's an example of a place where, you know, city council had feedback on that. And yeah, we made a revision. Yeah, yeah. So, so, so the city of the board. Yeah. So diversity original proposal. It was fairly prescriptive in terms of like this number of black indigenous or other people of color. And this number of people who, you know, yeah, have lived experience with houselessness or mental health conditions, domestic violence, that kind of thing. And yeah, so there were some concerns around it being so prescriptive and being baked into the city charter. And so we rewrote that section. And basically this says the board shall have a diverse composite composition and to the extent possible have members that represent a diversity of there's many things listed their age, race, socioeconomic status, gender, geographic residents, long list. But so the language has changed to to the extent possible representation from these groups, individual members may represent more than one of the categories listed above. This is another example. Yeah, by the way, there's a board that the council appoints and that council appoints this board. Am I correct? Correct. We mean that the final actual oversight board. The other I'm sorry. Yeah, the other thing would be the appointment committee is language. I don't even understand what it is. Could you explain what it is? Who can be on this board? What kind of pop? I mean, so one more example for Steve, we'll give one more example, and then we'll go back to this question. And that is the original proposal was very restrictive in terms of a connection to law enforcement. In fact, what it said was that a family member, you couldn't be a family member of a current or former law enforcement employee agency employee. And there was there was a list of all the people is like, including like grandchildren and stuff. That was totally eliminated. The members of the board can't be either not either be employed or have been employed by law enforcement. So has not, you know, so it so that but not their relatives. So you could have the wife of an officer, the husband of an officer be on the board. Even though they're connected with law enforcement. Even though they are connected with law enforcement. That is, that is true. One one one could could say that is sort of meaningless, but it's not really meaningless. And what I think Steven's real point is, you know, what are the changes that occurred? And you know, what does that were say about the, the responsiveness of the group to, you know, the input that they're getting from the community. So let's go back to your question, Sandy. Let's talk about what the board about what the board is said. Well, that's different than the police commission, for instance, okay. And Milo would be great to come up here and could talk about the police commission, but the police commission does not have authority to discipline does not have the authority to investigate the allegations of police misconduct. This board would have that it would change the charter, which right now vests the soul monopoly power to do that in investigate and discipline in the chief only in the chief that that is what the current system is, but there's no one who checks that at all, not under the charter and all the ways that they've tried to work around it. Or, you know, maybe they're consulting with the mayor, maybe they're giving the commission some sort of, you know, like view of, of, you know, of things and to comment about it. It's outside of the charter, it is not therefore not codified in law, it is weak in terms of its ability to be sustained, and it has no teeth or force. Now, how what what the commission under the current system, yeah, could have under the charter is what they call the National Association for of Community oversight of law enforcement talks about as monitoring or auditing, which is we look at the way you operate, we look at the way that your policy what your policies do, all of that stuff under the existing charter. And under, even under this system, even if this were to be adopted, they would still have that authority. And my own personal opinion is that's enough work. You don't need to add the investigation and the discipline to that because there is a lot of work that needs to happen around racial disparities about the use of force about all the trainings and what have you, I, you know, okay, but what what is this board and who gets on it and who appoints it, and who oversees it, if anybody, this new thing, who over, no, no, how do you get on it, you get on it by, so Tyler, let's share this. Yeah, so I'll start with the what is it, I think I sort of alluded to it a little bit, but so this is a board, or this would be a board of Burlington residents that in cases of police misconduct, could conduct investigations and make actual disciplinary decisions. And so who first you asked, selection. Yeah, so who gets on it, great question. So, and I can I'll read a little bit from the the selection process here. Annually, the city council with the mayor, choose a set of seven community based organizations that have an interest in civil rights, immigrant rights, disability rights, mental health, racial equity and social justice, and that also have an interest in the safety of the city and criminal justice reform. Three of the organizations to the extent possible should be Black led or Black or majority Black membership. Each of these seven organizations appoint a representative to an appointment committee. This appointment committee is subject to open meeting law, access to public records act, things like that. And so this appointment committee then appoints people. So sorry, the appointment committee has a representative that's put forth by each of these seven organizations. It also includes one city counselor, and the director of the racial equity, inclusion and belonging office, or their designee. So that appointment committee then appoints people directly to this board. So what are you talking about community organizations like what might the YMCA like AALV, like King Street Youth Center? How do you pick that? The city council. Yeah, the city council with the mayor. So when the criticism is leveled that this has no oversight or no connection with elected officials, that's just patently wrong because it is going to be that body, the city council with the mayor, who will appoint the organizations, right? And these organizations are not individuals. They're not prophets of some kind. They don't have to be an individual. No, I would say they are not individuals. All right, so I have a question about this law. It answers my question. It doesn't answer my concerns, but it does answer my question. Thank you. We'll start with questions and all right. Okay, but before any other questions about what is the board? Yes, people are asking questions. Anybody have any questions thus far? Yeah, I think particularly start with questions about what is the board and, you know, we can go in different directions. Okay, there are two hands up. Have you seen that? I can't see actually because I'm blocked, but could they say who they are? Robert Bristow Johnson is one of the persons and then there's somebody named Timothy. All right, so what about Robert first? Okay, so I asked this on the chat and it turned out that some of this got answered in just the last two minutes, but it's still a concern. The question was why can't we empower or mandate our police commission to have the power to investigate and the power to discipline, including the power to I would say recommend a city council to fire an officer. I believe I don't like the idea of dueling commissions and I don't like the idea of diverting any real power away from our elected officials, which is the mayor and the city council. I really think that the mayor and the city council should have the essentially the final authority to fire an officer. We're a small enough town that we can do that, but I really don't like the idea of dueling commissions. I like the idea of this. I really do believe that every police department needs to answer to their employer and we are their employer. I'm done. So thanks Robert. This would not create dueling commissions. It would actually separate this function from the other functions of the of the police commission. And I think that makes the most sense both for the work of the commission, which is really vital and for this very specialized work. And to be honest, I think that it would be a disaster of major import or whatever the word is that I'm, you know, that turn of a phrase to have the council be engaged in this. I can tell you if you watch all of our meetings, so you know, perhaps you paid attention to the most recent an entertainment permit hearing process that was held for a bar on Lawson Lane. The city council to cut to the chase and I was the city's civil prosecutor for 20 years. The city's the city council, even with the mayor presiding is not a quasi judicial board. It really does not is not comfortable doing that. It doesn't have the expertise and it does not have the time to do that in order to actually do substantial justice in order to make sure that there is just cause for discipline that there is due process. You need to have people who were focused on that. That's actually why I think this is a really great proposal because it does that it focuses that work on people who will get the training, get the, you know, the staff support and will be able to do the job that not only the officers, but the community needs. This is a big thing for rebuilding community trust. So I think that that addresses may not, we may disagree, but I think it addresses the two points that that you made. Hey, well, somebody else has a question. Who? Joan Shannon? Oh, Joan. This is Joan. This is a recipe. But we can't hear her. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, Joan. Yes, since my name came up several times, I would like to address the things that have been stated. First of all, that I would not call a meeting is patently untrue. There were points in time when then the two other counselors on the committee were trying to call a meeting when nothing had been referred to us. There were also points in time where we had other things on our agenda to address and this particular item was not on the agenda. But we were having meetings almost every week on this and it is not the case that I was not willing to take it up. I don't remember if there was a specific meeting where it wasn't on the agenda and they used their supermajority to put it on the agenda, but it was also the case that I was scheduling two hour meetings and at the beginning of the meeting, they used their supermajority to eliminate the end time of our meetings. It was a very hostile environment and I don't think that that can be blamed on me. So in terms of the process, we discussed this. It was what came before the council was vetted by this committee. There were many serious concerns raised by Attorney Blackwood that were not addressed. It went forward to the council and I will stand by the statement that what is before us now is not what was approved by the council and it has not been vetted and we do not yet know what all the changes were and I appreciate that that process started, but it is the first that I have heard of any analysis of what has changed and we can debate whether they are good changes or bad changes, but they have not been vetted by the council and I want to bring to your attention one thing specifically that was discussed at length in the Charter Change Committee, which was that this group should include, in the diversity, it should include victims of domestic violence. I suggested that that be changed to simply victims or victims of violence and I was told that that would not be appropriate because victims of domestic violence have a particular bias against the police because the police commit domestic violence at a higher rate than the general public. So they specifically wanted victims of domestic violence, not just victims, not just victims of violence and they wanted them because of the bias. That has now been changed in this to not say victims of domestic violence, now it says domestic violence implying that both the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence would be welcome on this committee. So that was a change that was made and I have not yet heard why that particular change was made. I would also speak to the council oversight to say that the council that selects three or select seven organizations that then select a board that then selects the board, which the council has no authority to remove people from that board and I know Councillor Bergman has claimed that we do, but the city attorney has claimed that we don't. So we don't know the answer on that. It has not been vetted and I will stand by both that it has not been vetted and that the council has no oversight on this and that I cannot be blamed for not having meetings on this because we had meeting after meeting after meeting. Is there any more questions from the audience? Timothy? Yes, I have a question. Who's Timothy? Can we know your name? Yes, Timothy McGrath. Okay, thank you. All right. You guys are talking about appointing a board that appoints a board that's going to have, I don't know how many members in a staff and a chairman, who's paying for this and how much is it going to cost and why are you asking for a vote if you don't know how much it's going to cost yet? Well, the people who could help vet that are in a serious opposition to this. So I think we need to- Anytime? Yeah. Okay. It'll be about 15 minutes, I think. Okay, but it's fine if it's one minute. Wait a minute. All right. Okay. Since you're so willing to do things, you could open the sun dry windows. I know. Yeah. Okay. Who is talking? We just got to do one of the valid items. It's not needed. Oh, please. I'll get your microphone, please. Okay. I can't remember where we were now. Do you guys? Yeah. Who's paying for this? Who's paying for this? Bottom line. This will- And how much? It is premature to have a budget for this at this point, it seems to me. It's premature because the people who have control over the information about the extent of the numbers and the problem are the chief and the mayor and they're in opposition to this. And so we need to settle the political question of whether this is moving forward or not. Otherwise, it is a sort of an idle exercise. Clearly, what the NACO organization has said is that for it to be effective, if you're going to have real community oversight, you've got to be able to pay for it. And I would just say that the police budget was the only budget in the city that was not cut during COVID. And they did find $75,000 to be able to pay for the Dotson report. So is there money to pay for this? I believe that there is. From the taxpayers? Are you certain about that? I believe that we are generating enough money and we are giving that money to the police department right now. There were significant savings over the last few years and they are using that money and they're also sitting on that money. They've been doing that. So it would be great if we had partners to work through this. We have not had them. Just to elaborate a little bit on what Gene is talking about. So the board, they have authority to take up any misconduct case that they choose. The new one? Yes. This new board, they would have the authority to take up any misconduct case that they choose. So they could take up all of them, which would cost a lot of money and is not likely to happen. So if the board does not choose to take up the case, it follows the existing disciplinary process through the police department and those investigations and the chief. This new board would be able to have oversight in those investigations and they can take up cases at their discretion. And so I think what Gene is getting at is that because of limited transparency that exists now, we don't know what that process is like and how much the board would be engaged. If the investigations that are going on and disciplinary decisions are largely sufficient by the board, then they may not need to get up off the couch that often to do this. But yeah, that's uncertain and we don't have the goal. And one final thing, the current system is not cost-free. Bellavance was paid $300,000. People don't know who you're talking about. Sergeant Bellavance was accused of excessive force in the Melly Brothers case. And he was paid $300,000 to leave. And that case is still pending in the district court. And who knows what that will cost out there. In 2013, Wayne Brunette had a case, I think this was the case out in the north in North Avenue, and he settled that for $270,000. Corey Campbell's case was settled for $45,000. The use of force or the misuse of force cost the city of Burlington right now. So just to make it seem like this is a new cost. And that's in dollars, but it doesn't take into account the untold cost and the lack of trust that people have. And a significant proportion of the community, I believe, have serious trust issues. Okay. Other questions from? Yes. Can I speak a little bit? This is Councillor Yang. Yes, thank you, Councillor Dang. No, you didn't. Yes. And just wanted to address a little bit the question from Timothy. Timothy, thank you for your question, which I believe is an interesting question. And at our last City Council meeting, it was not really clear how much this will cost. But I believe that Burlingtonians understand that in terms of public safety, let's not worry about the cost. When we think about nearly $500,000 is being spent in the city. And I'm talking about general fund money to just do events. What? For events, such as racial equity inclusion, belonging events. Those are great events, but let's think about it. It's not, it's only going to inspire people for a couple of days. And then after people will go back to their natural lives, right? $500,000. If you think about it, I am confident that it will not pass over the City Council budget, which is around $175,000. Each City Council, we are 12 right now, each one of us will receive just $5,000 a year. You know, you put them, time 12 is 120. You add another $50,000 for just Council initiative. If people have Council initiatives. What I'm saying is in terms of public safety, the cost should not be an issue. We should all show up on Town Meeting Day and vote in support of this valid item, number seven, because it is critical, especially to people of color in the City. Thank you. This is Nathan Larkin. I have a question as well. I was just kind of inquiring on what guidelines this board would be using to provide either discipline or judgment on any particular events. Is this something that's like outlined or is this more of a subjective opinion based? No. Actually, the standards are exactly the same as exist in the Charter today. It has to be just cause and there are lists of them that we just took directly from the existing Charter change, incompetence and efficiency, incapability from any cause, negligence, and then there's a list of particular matters for the board itself. Again, remember that the Chief is going to have significant disciplinary authority and going to be doing, I think, the bulk of discipline for officers. What comes to my mind is somebody is late all the time or there's some issues with paperwork. This board absent it being extraordinary. I don't believe it's going to take that up unless there are going to be really systemic issues that need to be dealt with and it's being pushed under the board. But excessive force, abusive authority, unlawful arrest stops searches, other unlawful acts, discuracy, disrespect, offensive language, theft, discrimination, and untruthfulness. Those are so standard. If you look at other boards, other discipline process, that language is in them. We took the language for the just cause directly from the existing Charter and moved it in to this. Are there other questions? I do have a question. Sorry, unless somebody else has a question. Two things concern me probably because I'm a lawyer, I guess. I don't see this. This is a quasi-judicial body, isn't it? Yes. I don't see that there's any recognition that citizens should be self-appointed that are implementing legal standards or that they're not particularly citizens, I guess, but they're not part of the judicial branch and yet they are interpreting the law. It really feels quite uncomfortable to me if that's the case. Not that I totally love the judicial system, but really, in effect, that's all we've got to interpret the law and it worries me when people other than those appointed to the judiciary are going to interpret the law and meet out punishment. It does not sound even constitutional to me. Well, the constitutionality depends on due process and there has to be a process here. So it's got to be built in and the just cause provisions and the notice and hearing provisions here and the rules will all make that happen. We have right now in the city we have in the city right now a housing board of review. That is a quasi-judicial board. It meets out declarations about rent deposits and whether they've been withheld. In fact, they can issue a punishment. If they find that withholding is intentional under the law, they can give double the damages. So we've got that right now. There are lots of boards that we have not the least of which is the city council on entertainment permits, on liquor licenses, which allow us to suspend this the same sort of thing. Suspend licenses can close establishments for periods of time. And I can tell you as the prosecutor of several bars, I was a lawyer, but this board will have the benefit of lawyers. And just like the council does there or not, as I said before, I am not an advocate for the council doing this because I think it is because they're doing all this other stuff. But this board does not do that. And it's in a way akin to hearing officers in other civil contexts. So you've got other agencies that have these boards that rule on stuff, including violations of like welfare law. So that's the beauty of the training. That's the beauty that's required. That's the beauty of there being legal representation. Okay, I will point out, however, there is a big difference when you're talking about city council and commissions. Those the city council for better or for worse are elected by the citizens. This thing is not elected by anybody. It is appointed by a bunch apparently of nonprofits, which are not totally neutral about anything that I can tell. The council is the one who picks those screws. But they pick another board. And the mayor and through the REIB and the city council through the president have positions on there. I happen to trust that the range of organizations that exist in our community can bring forward people who will be fair in that process. And the current selection process for commissions, as you know, is highly politicized. It's very unsavory. I think this is a much better. Unsavory? City council are elected. Can I jump in? Just to get, I think we're getting sort of into the lawyer weeds. And I think this is like a community. That takes weeds. Sure. And yeah, I think this is a community conversation. So this part of the broader national issue that we're dealing with right now is that significant portions of our population, public safety systems do not serve them. The processes for filing complaints and dealing with that do not serve them. And I'm getting kind of a puzzled face right now. I think we've experienced how great of an issue this is. And I've heard this from my neighbors over and over again. And you cannot solve that without getting the community directly involved in the oversight of the people who have some of the most serious authority of any sort of institution. And yeah, I think this has been offered up by the community that represents those people. And so this is an opportunity to establish a body that people would look at and be like, Oh, like, those are members of my community that I trust and the knowledge that they have have insight into these this disciplinary process and have the authority to say like, Hey, we as a community, we do not trust this person to respond to crises that are happening armed and with the authority to arrest and hurt people. You know, if the community has the feeling that, you know, we don't trust this person to respond to those kinds of incidents. I mean, that, you know, there should be the authority for the community to decide to take that authority away from someone. And yeah, I don't know what community you're talking about, actually, but Steve, I mean, were you around in town in 2020 when course, I've been around a long time. Yeah, yeah, I know. And I like, you know, these are my friends and neighbors who that I guess we have different. Yeah, well, I think, you know, you and I have not. Yeah, please. Yes, exactly what you said. Yes. And excuse me for, please. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a very diverse community in the city of Burlington. We are very different from the rest of Vermont. Yes. And we are changing very rapidly. When we take a look at the percentage of global majority kids in our school system, on average, it's 38%. But if we look at IAA, they're like 62%. And sustainability academy is that 50%. Some of the other elementary and middle school rules are in their 30s to 40%. And the overall average is 38%. So we are looking at a very, very different city in the next 10 years. And we have already been diversifying. And we have found as we further diversify, there's a backlash that is occurring. We have more and more racism because we have more and more people that look different. Now, depending on where you live, who your family is, who your friends are, who is in your immediate community, different things are going to affect you differently. And we do have a part of the community that is not aware of some pretty serious injustice that is in fact occurring in Burlington. And that is why it makes these issues so difficult to talk about because there is a group of people who feel like all of this comes out of left field. They don't understand the need or the movement. And then you have the other group of people who are affected and do understand the need for the movement. So what we need to have in our community is we need to have more empathy. We need to be willing to speak to each other. I think we've had parts of the community just ignore the issue because they don't want to believe that certain things are going. It's kind of like Stop and Frisk in New York City, where I was born and raised. Stop and Frisk is just a pretty name. There had been rampant profiling going on forever in that city. But people didn't understand that if you were black or brown, you were being stopped for nothing. People couldn't believe that. You had to have been doing something. They literally could not wrap their head around the fact that people were stopped because of the way they looked. That they were treated a specific way because of the way they look. And we've had ongoing racial disparities, not just these traffic stops, but a pattern of behavior toward BIPOC people in our city. And we're having very, very difficult incidents, which is why people got together, had these conversations, and we are where we are. And the last thing I will say because I actually have to leave is that I've served on the police commission. I thought with the work that the police commission was doing would work toward being able to take on some of these responsibilities. But we've had the department head and acting Chief Marad and we've had the mayor of the city actively attack the police commission. And now the mayor says that the police commission can do this work. He can't have it both ways. He relies on people not watching all the meetings and he relies on people not tracking timelines in order to get away with these falsehoods. And it's very deeply disturbing to me. Thank you very much. Thanks for me. Steven, if this were a pass, I think we heard this before, the police union has a collective bargaining agreement and lays out a disciplinary system. How does this affect that? Statute trumps the contract. So this would supplant that. But where this is silent, then the existing contract would stay in effect. So for example, when the chief would issue discipline under this, then because it doesn't change the appeal of the chief's decision, then the union contracts at the grievance and the arbitration system would continue. If it goes to the board, there's still due process that's required, but an appeal, unlike a grievance of the chief's decision, an appeal would go to Superior Court. You know, Tyler can speak to the reasons why the proposal does that, makes it direct. And I would argue that that does give due process, but there is going to be, if this does pass, a legislative process. And they could decide that the grievance procedure is more appropriate than going to the courts. You know, that's part of the process. I personally think that a board, even if it had that, would be an improvement. So, you know, if that change, the same thing may be true of the, you know, allowing there to be a law enforcement presence on the board. I don't advocate for that, but I think the most important thing is to get a, an independent community board with these powers and these functions to operate. I think we're nearing it. What time is it? Oh, Sandy, we still have 15 minutes. I would like to ask if this initiative is only about, you know, either spanking the cops or, you know, but I don't see anything about preventing crime. I have the feeling that the debate about, you know, policing in our communities is either to castrate the cops or, you know, the cops beating more, you know, people. There are new Americans, I mean, new Americans that are coming here that are, you know, prone to become, you know, you know, to have like criminal activities because they're coming from backgrounds and an environment that are not addressed. So is this commission going to also be about finally talking about these mothers, these fathers that are having trouble navigating throughout the, you know, the court system? Are we going to talk about preventing crime one day? I mean, we put out progressive counselors, put out a platform on public safety that included, as at its core, exactly that. We need to have that conversation. This board will not do that, but the commission is a place that still would allow that to happen. All of the work that we're trying to do through the RAIB process that Councilor, and what Councilor Dane was talking about is all part of that. So I think I stand with you on that. This will not be successful if we do not put the resources in to prevent crime, that the article, warning shots that folks were highlighted in really speaks to the need to do that. And we have been advocating for that for a long time. I think we're making some progress, but it is still too slow. Can I say something in response to something that Eric said? There's a certain assumption, I think, behind all of this, the distrust of the police, which everybody probably shares. But I'll tell you what I really find troublesome is the fact that there's never an emphasis on when cops have to be trusted. And our cops have to be trusted, particularly in regard to domestic violence. When a woman is being hurt, and this woman who's on the commission actually had no idea what I was talking about when I said community. My office is in this building, which is the Association of Africans living in Vermont. This is my community. And every new American or white American, poor American who comes in here, I regard as my community. And I live also in the North end, in the college on Loomis Street, right near piles of students who probably should be disciplined severely, but not, I don't mean that really, because I rather like them. However, the thing I see mostly is the damage that could be done by people who do not understand that there are real issues that have to be addressed and can only be addressed by the police. And that is particularly in terms of crimes against women and battered women. When a woman is being hurt in her house, mainly women, there are men who are also hurt, of course, but I'm talking about 96% of the victims of domestic violence are female. And I see almost, I see a lot of them here in this office who have to depend on a cop coming to the door and making an arrest, not just talking to people, but actually making arrests. So I sense in this proposal, and I hope I'm wrong, a deep distrust of the police. I share of that, some of that. But I also know that there are actually essential at times. And it's essential that that trust be built by decent cops and by in our community. And that has, and I sense this, this criticism, this proposal comes rather from a deep distrust of our, of the police officers. And that is not a great thing. We can make them reformable and we can make them accountable without fostering distrust people who are going to protect real victims of crimes. Thanks, Sandy. Yeah, I appreciate the point that you're making and the opportunity to clarify here that this proposal is not about punishing the police department. And this proposal, in fact, acknowledges that the police, whether folks like it or not, are a critical part of our public safety system right now. And it is about having that foundation where people can trust that who shows up to their door in a domestic violence case is someone that has been vetted by the community and that people trust to be in that role. And I mean, there's no question that there have been officers on the force like Officer Bellavance, who have, you know, a history of violence and that the city has agreed should not be on the force and had to pay $300,000 to address that. And so, yeah, I just I think it's really important to acknowledge that this this proposal acknowledges the important role that police play in our current public safety system, whether that's what people envision or not, and is here to, yeah, to attempt to rebuild some of that that lost trust. And Sandy, let me be clear from the progressives on the council. You mock it. So you've seen then how the progressives, you've seen that the progressives for every proposal that the chief and the mayor asked related to the rebuilding of this department, up until this proposal here for the board has been supported by the progressives, you understand that. So all of the while you're talking in terms of partisan, I didn't say anything about I'm just saying, so all I can do is speak for myself and our cause, right, right. And as proponents of this, right. So we have done that, right. We have been promoting for years. The idea that finally got some traction in this last budget season, of which I was then a part of and supported to increase the number of community service officers and community support liaisons. And we're finally starting to get some traction on this, you know, this health safety intervention program, right. So there has been not only the support for the the officers and retention and the recruitment, right, and the contract, but also support for recognition that in many cases, just like our teachers, we ask our officers to do too much. And because they have to do, you know, they're not mental health officers. Okay, so they need other resources out there, the shooting on Manhattan Drive, which I happen to have been on a run and ran into this summer, you know, an example of some really hard stuff, right. So I know it would not be fair. I'm not going to accuse you of making this, but I would just say that it would not be fair to say that the proponents of this proposal are promoting an anti police movement and bias in here. What we're trying to do is actually rebuild trust all the way around. And I believe that with with good leadership, we can we can do that. And I'm hopeful, regardless of what happens, and I hope that this this passes that will continue to move along that every single voice that spoke at the city council meeting this last Monday spoke about the need to reform the oversight system. Every single one, even though there was a six to five vote on the resolution, in terms of this proposal. So there is, and that includes the mayor, there is a broad consensus that the oversight system for discipline is broken and needs significant fixing. And I happen to think that this is an appropriate way to do it. I think it's a way which is actually quite practical and sensible and allows us to do all of the things that the gentleman mentioned in terms of reaching out to the community and doing the getting at the root causes talking to people and trying to deal with the families and the issues that are happening. Just got savvy job's a question. Oh, hi. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Great. I have I have two questions. They're short. But maybe your answers won't be one is a these types of citizen oversight boards have been created across the country. So this isn't the first of its kind. Can you talk about how that has played out in other cities, especially those of our size? And two, can you talk more about the process? If the citizens of the voters of Burlington approve this ballot item, what can or what will happen and what could happen next with the process that as it would work its way through the legislature and up to the governor's office? Thank you. What do I think? I can answer the process one quickly. So if voters pass this proposal, then it will go to, I don't know the exact details of the state legislature, but there will be sort of committee hearings that folks can testify at and deliberations at that point where revisions can be made. And I imagine, you know, negotiations around like what people would and won't vote for. And then it gets voted on by the whole legislature. If it passed there would go to the governor. So in answer to the second question, what what Nicole has said is that it's not Nicole, it's the National Association for Community Oversighted Law Enforcement. And they're the the premier organization, they work with departments, they work with community organizations, they work with governments. And what they have advocated for is not a best practices approach, but a best fit approach. So I can tell you that there are a lot of components of what we have, what we are proposing here. But you know, the attack that nobody else is doing it like this is, I mean, it's factually correct. We are doing something that the people who brought this forward believe is the best fit for the city. That being said, there are absolutely pieces throughout the country that where it works, the the city of there are very few smaller cities that are, you know, looking at this, although we are the biggest city in the state. So I think that it's and most diverse. So I don't know that that comparison Davis, California has got a board, but it's not exactly this board. All I can say in that regard is there are pieces that seem to be working the the the investigation and the the recommendations around discipline in New York since like 2012 have been handled by a board San Francisco has got a more complicated system that involves its police commission and its ability to to to meet out discipline. So it's it's a quasi judicial quasi judicial citizen commission. Those are bigger institutions. But what Nicole has said is that they're really interested in this idea that we're promoting here and they have a number of communities that would be interested in exploring what we're doing if we are successful in doing it. So I hope that answers the the question directly. I think that we're about to wrap up. If anybody I guess it's time to do that I get a final comment. Yes. Well, I just wanted to see if there are any questions to it. Are there any last questions? Okay, this is it. Can I speak to Jessica's question also? I don't know. I mean these guys want okay but quickly okay. But these guys want the final word and they because they're special guests. We're going to let them do that. Why thank you. I've read this proposition that's being put forward on the ballot. And it seems to me that you don't have a clue as to how this board is going to be composed. You don't even know if it's entirely legal. I don't understand why stuff like this comes up for a vote in front of the city when it's been so badly prepared. Okay. Is that a question? Not a question. We could argue to the cows come home but we won't. You have said so yourself that you're not sure whether this is legal. No, I've never said that. No, absolutely not. So maybe you miss her. That is the question. Is it not? Wait a minute. I think what Gene said is that he believes it is legal. Oh, absolutely. So do we need to go further than that? I think this is a closing moment. Yeah, I would think that this is the debate of the city attorney before you go ahead and put it on the ballot. Okay. I think they have said they have consulted the city attorney. Right. Many times. Okay, Joan. Thank you. So I think Jessica's question was an important question. What are the other models? And one of the really important things that is different about this proposal as opposed to other models that we've been compared with is the other models do, they don't take all the authority away from the police chief, which this does. And while the police chief still can discipline somebody under this model, this board has the authority to vacate that decision. So the police chief thankfully does have the ability to take a police officer off the street. Something really bad happens. Police chief doesn't think that that officer should be on the street. The police chief can be removed by the police. The officer can be removed by the police chief. This board can vacate that decision, put that police officer back on the street. Actually, Joan, that's inaccurate. If you look at the section right underneath that one that you're referring to around the vacation, you'll see the administrative suspension provision. It's number three administrative suspension. And so the chief has the authority in their discretion to suspend an officer. So if the chief under this proposal believes that an officer should not be on the street, then the chief under this proposal has the authority to remove that. So I agree with that. But let me say that after that, it says that the board has the authority to vacate those decisions of the chief. You're going to get your last word, Jean. So just let me finish what I'm saying. The other cities that we're being compared with, these are cities with millions of people. And they have police departments with thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of officers. And so they can support having an entirely separate board as this is designed to do. Burlington currently has 29 officers on patrol and a total of 59 officers. At our high, we have 105. This is creating an entirely new department of the city to discipline police officers with a paid board and an investigative office. So you know, Jean did acknowledge there isn't anything like this. But in terms of the scale, this is way out of scale when you look at the scale of our police department. And comparisons, they don't really compare because in every case, the police chief still retains authority in those other models that they do not have in our model. Okay, so we should give these guys the last word. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you all. Wait a minute. I have one more thing to say. You guys are talking about setting up a quasi judicial board. This is it. Okay, go ahead. You guys are talking about setting up a quasi judicial board. Who's going to represent the police officer? All right. They have a union, I think. But they will get represented because they have to have due process and that means they get the right to representation. And absolutely. I want to say that there are fair arguments to fight about. Okay, so the fact that there's nobody that I have found actually that and that could be out there, but I haven't found it yet that actually invests the entire disciplinary right in the board as opposed to the chief, instead of recommending the chief, that's absolutely true. It goes back to the question of whether this is a good fit for the city of Burnington. I think it is. I think it is. I think it is an appropriate thing to do. The arguments that Joan just made about the size, also the flip side of that is that that will definitely decrease the cost because it's just the nature of things. So like somebody was saying, you can't really have it both ways in that regard. But we have, and you acknowledge this, Sandy, we've got a lot of serious problems with public safety and one of them is the need to reestablish trust. Personally, I believe that a community board can reestablish the trust in the community and do it right, do it fair with the resources that are necessary to do that. And we would, it is not a cure and it does not address the root causes that we need to do. So it is something that I think is necessary, but it is not sufficient if we're going to have the type of society, the type of city that we all need and I believe deserve. Tyler? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So in 2020, when the mayor vetoed this proposal, he himself acknowledged that the charter is a real problem. He said that the current charter is problematic and there is urgency to amend it. He further stated that such monopoly of important authority is an aberration in our democratic system and we are likely to face continued disputes over future disciplinary actions until this issue is addressed and he was right. At the time, he promised to address these issues with our charter. Since then, racial disparities and policing have persisted and here we are two years later and even the mayor's latest public safety plan has no mention of addressing this fundamental and agreed upon issue with our city charter. We've talked to thousands of our neighbors and have found overwhelming support for this proposal from individuals and local and statewide organizations alike. We as voters put this on the ballot together and we have a rare opportunity to decide for ourselves to make our current policing system incrementally better for all people. I hope everyone will join me in voting yes for community oversight and in sending a clear message to our elected officials that we deserve public safety systems that will keep everyone safe. If you'd like to read about the proposal yourself, the full proposal and other information is online at peopleforpoliceaccountability.com. Thank you all for being here. Next week, remember, counselor Traverse Traverse will be here to discuss. I believe he's an opponent of this proposal. So please join us for similar questions of that counselor as well and we'll see you. Thank you again for all being here and thank Gene and Tyler very much for being here. Thank you, Sally.