Expanding because expanding effective non-p police crisis response is directly relevant to police reform because every appropriate call diverted to BCR is an intervention that does not unnecessarily require an armed police response and police are kind of expensive right now.

My suggestion is that you ask the clerk if the clerk would be willing to send if it's possible to send those 150 people or or anyone who has applied for this commission over the years an email asking them if they'd like or they'd be willing to have their answers to those questions available to the commission and to the public on an anonymous basis.

We are being treated differently because we made complaints against the police. We are being denied the ability to do what people who have never filed complaints against the police would be allowed to do. we are being retaliated against because we filed complaints against police officers.

Still, during that period, the agency had a 15% sustain and discipline rate. 15%. Nothing like what we see today.

I think you should look at your ordinance and I think you should look that look at the powers in 626.89 subdivision 17 and you should find ways to take more power.

I'm wondering how being at just north of 600 affects the ability to punish because I would think it it would it would greatly reduce the ability to punish an officer.

For those of the new commissioners, our unit investigates internal complaints of misconduct. OPCR investigates external complaints of misconduct. Uh so we are uh sister agencies is what we like to refer to them as.

I do want to um note that that is 62 cases that have come in in just two months. Uh that is uh something that me personally out of the three years that I have been here I have not seen uh numbers that high.

Almost t almost all of the cases that we are seeing are in relation to a very very new policy.

I I'm We have 193 non-compliant and 15 compliant cases. Um, and it it feels like it's sat roughly that proportion for the the year I've been on the commission. What's the plan to get every case into compliance in the future?

a lot of people think the implementation unit is just policy and a major portion of that is policy right now because we're setting up the foundation of uh police reform, right?

We had a virtual reality station set up. Um the department's getting a little bit into into that looking into training our officers that way. And so we are showing the community of some of the tools that we have at our disposal.

We also one of the other reasons we wanted to put this on is um it reduces a stigma around mental health. Um it's okay to not be okay. And you know if there's a crisis or emergency, you know, call 911. We're going to show up and help.

So how we would like for you to use it is basically while you're out, if you're at example at an MSTEP meeting, you have the toolkit available and if someone comes and asks you while you're out or even if you were at the last implementation meeting, you are able to actually reference the toolkit. So, we all again have the same unified messaging and we're not popcorning our message, but it's unified.

So, is this a does it just apply to all neighborhoods? cuz I don't think every community and every neighborhood or every neighborhood association has the same issues or the same need or things to talk about.

Um each of the items on our agenda now have an action item attached to them. Uh we're doing our best to make sure that um concrete uh next steps come from each thing we discuss at PPRR.

You can always submit policy feedback to the email address police feedback at Minneapolis.gov on your own on on any thoughts that you have on policy. So, you don't have to wait for the body to do that.

oftentimes it is framed as a crime reduction tool when really it is a crime response tool.

The issue is that CAD is designed to only have one problem incident code uh per incident. meaning that if shot spotter activation had a 911 call um it is coded only as a shot spotter activation. It can't be both shot spotter and 911 or you know 911 and something else.

This is not I want to be very clear. This is not evidence of discriminatory placement as sensor placement occurred in 2007 um more than 15 years prior.

So when the shots are fired comes in normally on a call, police come really extremely very locked and loaded and ready to fire obviously to either deescalate the situation or to protect themselves. So what prevents that or for and what does this have an opportunity for officers to come in and assess the situation before getting ready to shoot

So, am I correct to conclude that they're just driving to the shot the scene of a shot spotter um, activation? They're not seeing anything and just driving away.

there's a MinPost article um and in 20 2023 when there was the big MPS data leak um there was um it came out that there's a lot of shot spotters located on the roofs of North Side Public Schools um and that shots um MPS was involved in the contract and I think if you're familiar with our North Side public schools they are very racially diverse and so I do I think that we can push back a little bit on the topic of discrim placement just because we have the MPS data leak showing that in like starting in 2014 we were placing shot spotter sensors on the roofs of schools in north side.

We would like CCO CCPO involvement but we really think it's most important for the community to be involved at large.

The ordinance that we operate under gives the CCPO power to participate in the chief's performance review on an annual basis. And in the normal course of an employment relationship, usually your annual review would be by your supervisor. It would be by somebody who was probably involved in your hiring. So I think that ordinance provision connects us as a body to um a role to play at the beginning during the hiring.

I looked at three or four in the last year or two Minnesota school processes. I read their documents and I looked at what they did and I think every one of them that I looked at included one or two uh excuse me, not just one, I think two or three finalists brought in front of public groups where they were asked questions and this was done in public.

is that perhaps all three candidates can come here and present why they should get this job and why we should support them what distinguishes them do how How does their community engagement and practices apply to the city of Minneapolis?

My understanding is that until there are finalists declared, the the process would not be public.

I do not believe that it was a fair process because you're telling the public after it's already pretty much sealed and this this is basically who you get. These are your choices.

The statute that just came up that governs the personnel data for the hiring of the police chief is private until they're a finalist is Minnesota statutes section 13.43. That is what we're going to talk about. And a a suggestion to change that. And so these two items fit together, uh, very well.

This would change that and allow that to be public. So to keep it short um I would just like to invite anybody to provide any comments. will be drafting a resolution as I said for next month. But obviously this would increase transparency into the disciplinary process.

That's the whole point. That's why there's value for us to contribute here because we can point out to the city council why this is important to the complaint process, to the part of the process we see. we can encourage them to develop specific proposals. I mean, the legislative staff in the city who are tracking 322 proposals in there may not have been tracking why we think this one should be at the top of their list, and this is our chance to elevate it.

My own thought is that it would be ideal if we had panels again of five members in those experiences that I had. You're getting more perspectives to review all of these uh cases and I think it's a higher quality process though three members have been adequate.

If it was up to us, it would still be 32.

When we had a fivep person panel, we would schedule around two to three panels a month. Right now with a threeperson panel, we're able to schedule anywhere from five to eight panels a month. And so we're able to review two to three times as many cases with a smaller panel.

I had a better experience on the three too. There's a more diversity of experience. It's a more robust conversation. Um and I think we came to better conclusions. People ask better questions.

I don't know how many lieutenants and above participate, but we I see the same few regularly. Um, and if if if that's the case, if it's a small universe of potential panelists, that would, you know, cause more delays.

One thing that I want to note is that it says three things about sworn. Number one, a sworn member cannot be a member of the panel if they have a sustained violation of D or higher. Two, if they have a sustained policy violation of C within 5 years of the panel date, and three, if they have a sustained policy violation of a level three use of force. They also cannot sit on panels if they have any open case at all.