[0:17] >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS LATONYA REEVES, AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO OFFER [0:23] A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC, THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE [0:29] BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER [0:34] METHOD TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. THEREFORE ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR [0:42] SPEECH SO THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. [0:47] WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THIS REGULAR MEETING [0:54] FOR MONDAY, MARCH 3RD, AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL TO VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. [1:01] >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER NEWMAN IS ABSENT. [1:06] COMMISSIONER CLEMENT IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. [1:13] >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. [1:18] >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. [1:24] >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. [1:30] >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE TEN MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM. [1:36] COMMISSIONERS, THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING IS BEFORE US. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PROPOSED [1:42] AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA. LET ME ASK IF THERE'S ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA FROM [1:48] COMMISSIONERS? >> YES -- >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> YES, THANK YOU. [1:58] >> THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A MOTION TO HAVE ALL WARDS WITH CURRENT [2:04] VACANCIES -- >> POINT OF ORDER. WE'RE ADOPTING THE AGENDA, RIGHT? JUST A POINT OF ORDER. [2:10] >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT ALL WARDS THAT HAVE CURRENT [2:17] VACANCIES LISTED IN THE AGENDA GOING FORWARD JUST AS THEY ARE NOW LISTED IN THE MINUTES. [2:22] SO ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THIS MEETING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WARDS THAT HAVE [2:29] VACANCIES ARE LISTED IN THE AGENDA. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, OUR SYSTEM [2:36] THAT AUTOMATES THE AGENDA WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THAT, I'M SORRY. IT LISTS BY MEMBERS. IF THERE'S A VACANCY, IT'S NOT [2:42] GOING TO PRINT A VACANCY. >> COULD IT SIMPLY BE INSERTED? >> NO, IT PULLS AUTOMATICALLY [2:48] OUT OF THE SYSTEM. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO WHICH IS WHY WE'VE [2:53] DONE THAT IN THE MINUTES, I CANNOT DO THAT. THE SYSTEM IS AUTOMATED. >> OKAY. >> I HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT FOR [2:59] THE AGENDA. JUST LIKE IN THE JANUARY MEETING, AT THIS MEETING MY NOTICE TO HAVE AN UPDATE ON [3:06] ALLISON LUCIER'S CASE HAS BEEN DENIED. THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE MOTION THAT WAS PASSED AT THE [3:12] LAST MEETING IN FEBRUARY. QUOTE GURIAN-SHERMAN MOVED THAT AN EXACT COPY OF WHAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE CHAIR [3:17] AND VICE CHAIR BE SHARED AS PART OF THE MARCH 3RD MEETING, THE CCPO MEETING. [3:24] END QUOTE. YOU CAN'T SHARE SOMETHING IF IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO I AM ASKING SOMETHING, MY MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS, TO AMEND [3:30] THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS AN UPDATE ON THE CCPO MEMO RELATED TO THE [3:37] KILLING OF ALLISON LUCIER AND ANY OTHER UPDATES. >> IS THERE A SECOND? [3:47] THAT MOTION FAILS. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN? >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY, THAT IS [3:53] SO OUTRAGEOUS. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE IF IT'S [3:58] NOT ON THE AGENDA, AND WE PASSED A MOTION THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF THIS MEETING. IT SETS A PRECEDENT AND [4:07] DISTRUST. WHAT ARE WE HIDING? >> I'LL SAY TO COMMISSIONER [4:13] GURIAN-SHERMAN AND TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, IT IS THE PURVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS WHICH THEY HAVE [4:20] DONE. THAT WAS ON THEIR AGENDA AND THEY'VE TAKEN ACTION, SO I WOULD ASK THE PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE [4:26] LUCIER CASE, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I SAID THAT WRONG, TO PLEASE GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHO HAS [4:31] PURVIEW OVER THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE CITY. CCPO DOES NOT HAVE PURVIEW OVER THAT. [4:37] A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR IT TO GO TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. AND THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN ACTION AFTER THAT. [4:42] SO THAT'S THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT IS THEIR PURVIEW. THE CCPO BODY DOES NOT HAVE ANY [4:47] JURISDICTION OVER THAT ANY FURTHER. >> THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE IS TO SEE THAT THE MOTIONS THAT WE PASSED ARE FOLLOWED. [4:54] >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN -- >> WHAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE PRESENTED AT [5:00] THIS MEETING FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE. >> POINT OF ORDER. [5:05] THE MOTION WAS NOT SECONDED, SO THERE'S NO APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT. >> MADAM CHAIR -- [5:14] >> YES. >> I WILL APOLOGIZE, I SENT OUT TO ALL MEMBERS A COPY OF YOUR EMAIL TO THE COUNCIL AFTER THE [5:19] LAST MEETING AND I WILL ATTEMPT WHILE WE'RE IN PUBLIC COMMENTS TO HAVE COPIES PRINTED SO THAT [5:25] THAT CAN BE SHARED WITH FOLKS. THE OTHER THING IS I WOULD OFFER [5:32] THIS UPDATE, YOU CORRECTLY SAID THIS IS THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS COMMITTEE ASKED THE CITY [5:37] COUNCIL TO ASK THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN AFTER TION REPORT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS BODY IS [5:42] AWARE, ON MONDAY OF LAST WEEK, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE APPOINTED THE NEW CITY AUDITOR, SO WE HAVE [5:48] BEEN WITH AN INTERIM AUDITOR FOR ALMOST A YEAR. THE NEW CITY AUDITOR, HIS NAME IS ROBERT TIMMERMAN WAS [5:55] AAPPOINTED BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING LAST MONDAY. I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS AN [6:01] INDEPENDENT GROUP. IT SAYS COMMITTEE, BUT IT'S NOT A COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. IT IS A COMMITTEE OF THE CITY THAT WAS CREATED UNDER THE CITY [6:08] CHARTER. SO IT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DOES NOT REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IT HAS THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY [6:13] TO APPOINT AND SUPERVISE THE [6:18] AUDITOR. AND BASED ON THIS GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY COUNCIL FORWARDED TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE [6:24] A REQUEST FOR AN AFTER ACTION REPORT INVOLVING THE SHOOTING OF DAVIS NOTORI AND ALSO THE DEATH [6:30] OF ALLISON LUCIER. THE REQUEST TO ADD THE DEATH OF [6:36] ALLISON LUCIER TO THAT AFTER ACTION REPORT WAS LITERALLY TAKEN UP LAST MONDAY. THE AUDIT COMMITTEE REQUESTED [6:42] THE AUDITOR TO CONDUCT BOTH OF THOSE AFTER ACTION REPORTS. AND TODAY SOMETIME THIS [6:49] AFTERNOON THE AUDITOR DID SEND AN UPDATE TO BOTH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND COPIED THE CITY COUNCIL AND I'M READING TO YOU, [6:57] THIS IS FROM ROBERT TIMMERMAN, THE CITY AUDITOR. HE SAYS THIS MEMO IS TO INFORM YOU, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THAT [7:02] THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR HAS DECIDED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL [7:08] REVIEWS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO THE SHOOTING OF DAIS NOT ORI AN [7:16] AFTER THE DEATH OF ALLISON LUCIER. SO THE AUDITOR IS PREPARING TO TAKE UP THOSE TWO AFTER ACTION [7:22] REVIEWS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND DIRECT BID THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. UNTIL THEY FINISH THEIR REPORT, [7:27] THAT IS IN THEIR PURVIEW, AS YOU POINTED OUT. BUT AT LEAST TO CLOSE THE LOOP [7:33] PUBLICLY, I WANTED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE. AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING COPIES OF THE EMAIL AND MAKING THEM [7:40] AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. [7:46] >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE AN AGENDA ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE [7:52] AGENDA? SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND. [7:57] ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COUNCILMEMBER SCHANFIELD. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER NEWMAN IS [8:04] ABSENT. COMMISSIONER CLEMENT. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> AYE. [8:10] >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> NAY. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. [8:15] >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> AYE. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> AYE. [8:21] >> THERE ARE TEN AYES AND ONE NAY. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S ADOPTED. [8:28] NEXT WE HAVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM OUR FEBRUARY 3RD MEETING. [8:34] MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND [8:39] TO ACCEPT THAT SET OF MINUTES. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES, I HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND [8:49] THE MINUTES. IT SAYS ON THE FEBRUARY 3RD [8:55] MINUTES UNDER THE ALLISON LUCIER MOTION BEFORE THAT MOTION WAS [9:00] MADE, IT SAYS QUOTE GURIAN-SHERMAN REQUESTED CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE MEMO SHE HAD DRAFTED REGARDING THE [9:06] MATTER OF ALLISON LUCIER AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT MEMO WAS FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, [9:11] END QUOTE. MY MOTION WOULD BE BECAUSE IT IS [9:17] PERTINENT TO FOLLOW UP, THE MOTION IS TO CHANGE THAT PHRASING TO THE MEMO SHE WAS [9:24] TASKED TO DRAFT PER THE NOVEMBER 18TH LUCIER MOTION AND THEN THE REST WOULD REMAIN THE [9:31] SAME. >> QUICK POINT OF DISCUSSION, I THINK YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DO THAT, CORRECT? [9:36] >> NO. I SAID I WOULD DO IT, AND THEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MOTION [9:42] THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAD TO DO. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE [9:47] YOUTUBE VIDEO, IT MAKES IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT WAS AN OBLIGATION I FOLLOWED THROUGH ON. TO BE CLEAR I DIDN'T DO IT IN [9:53] THE WEEK THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT GOT IN THE WAY INCLUDING GETTING IN TOUCH WITH JANA WILLIAMS, [10:00] MS. LUCIER'S AUNT, WHO HAS BEEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAMILY. TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IT [10:05] WAS THAT I PUT IN THE DRAFT WAS [10:11] SOMETHING THAT SHE APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED SINCE SHE IS THE FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. [10:18] >> YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD, SO DID SOMEONE TELL YOU TO DO IT OR YOU VOLUNTEERED AND THEN IT GOT ADDED TO A MOTION TO BE IN THE [10:24] AGENDA? >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT. >> FROM YOUR EXPLANATION, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD DO IT. [10:30] WERE YOU TOLD BY SOMEONE TO DO IT OR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WOULD DO IT AND THEN IT GOT ADDED TO A [10:35] MOTION TO BE APPLIED TO THE AGENDA AND MINUTES? >> WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT. THE MOTION NEVER REALLY GOT [10:40] RESTATED SO I SAID THAT I WOULD DO IT AND THEN IT GOT MADE PART OF THE MOTION OF THE ACTUAL MOTION. [10:46] IF YOU WANT, I COULD READ THAT MOTION THAT WAS PASSED ON NOVEMBER 18TH. >> NO NEED, COMMISSIONER [10:51] GURIAN-SHERMAN. IS THERE A SECOND TO HER MOTION TO CHANGE IT? >> YES, AND I CAN PROVIDE THE [10:57] COPY TO THE CITY CLERK. >> IS THERE A SECOND? [11:04] I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND. THAT MOTION FAILS. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN TERMS OF THE MINUTES? [11:12] ALL RIGHT, CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER NEWMAN IS [11:17] ABSENT. COMMISSIONER CLEMENT. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. [11:22] >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. [11:28] >> NAY. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. [11:34] >> YES. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> YES. >> THERE ARE TEN AYES AND ONE NAY. >> THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN [11:40] ACCEPTED. NEXT IN THE ORDER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC GIVING EACH SPEAKER TWO MINUTES [11:45] TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WE'LL BE TAKING SPEAKERS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY'VE REGISTERED. [11:53] IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT AND YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO, YOU CAN [11:59] REGISTER WITH THE CLERK. IF ANYONE HAS PRINTED MATERIALS, PLEASE GIVE THOSE TO THE CITY CLERK. WE ALSO INVITE FOLKS TO SUBMIT [12:06] WRITTEN COMMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SPEAKING IN TONIGHT'S COMMENT SESSION. [12:12] EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. [12:17] WE HAVE A TIMER TO ASSIST SPEAKERS IN THEIR USE OF TIME. WITH THAT, OUR FIRST SPEAKER, KIM IS IT MILLIARD? [12:26] I HOPE I SAID THAT RIGHT. [12:36] >> GOOD EVENING. I'M KIM MILLIARD, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE [12:42] NETWORK. MINNEAPOLIS ORDINANCE CHAPTER 172 PROVIDES THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. [12:47] ONE OF ITS SPECIFIC POWERS AS YOU KNOW IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE. [12:56] THE ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRES AN ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING ADDRESSING POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES, RULES, SPECIAL PRACTICES AND [13:03] ORDERS. THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE WHICH POLICE DEPARTMENT RULES, POLICIES, SPECIAL PRACTICES AND [13:09] ORDERS SHALL BE SUBJECT OF THE ANNUAL HEARING. AT THE ANNUAL HEARING, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CCPO HAS DECIDED TO TAKE UP THE [13:15] POLICE CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW. MY EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU WILL OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING OUR OPINIONS ON [13:21] THE CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE AND WHETHER HE SHOULD BE RETAINED, FIRED, OR HAVE HIS CONTRACT NOT EXTENDED. [13:28] IF YOU FEEL THAT SHOULD BE ITS OWN MEETING, THEN I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE CCPO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING [13:34] FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS [13:41] CHIEF'S WAYWARD HIRING PRACTICES AS WELL AS HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY. [13:46] WHEN MPD FAILS TO PROTECT PEOPLE IT KNOWS ARE FACING SPECIFIC THREATS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE [13:52] PEOPLE ARE BLACK, BROWN, OR INDIGENOUS. CHIEF O'HARA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR [13:57] HIRING TYLER TIMBERLAKE WHO CAME TO MPD WITH A KNOWN USE OF [14:03] EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST A BLACK MAN IN VIRGINIA. WHEN THAT INFORMATION BECAME PUBLIC, O'HARA LIED PROFUSELY [14:10] ABOUT WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME OF HIRING. WE KNOW HE LIED BECAUSE DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PUBLISHED [14:15] TO PROVE IT. AND SO THAT STUFF DOESN'T GET BROKEN UP, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TURN OVER MY COMMENTS TO [14:22] BILLY JEAN WHO IS NEXT. >> BILLY JEAN VAN KNIGHT. [14:28] >> YES. I'M ALSO WITH THE RACIAL JUSTICE [14:35] NETWORK. HELLO. THE HIRING OF TYLER TIMBERLAKE IS NOT THE ONLY POOR HIRING [14:41] DECISION THAT CHIEF O'HARA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR. IN 2022, LUCAS BELLAMY, A BLACK [14:50] MAN, CRAWLED ON ALL FOURS IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY JAIL BEGGING FOR [14:56] MEDICAL HELP. HE WAS DENIED. WHILE BELLAMY COULD BARELY [15:01] CRAWL, A SHERIFF DEPUTY NAMED LUCAS WEATHERSPOON WAS SEEN ON VIDEO TURNING HIS HEAD SMILING AND TRYING TO STIFLE LAUGHTER. [15:08] LUCAS BELLAMY DIED IN AGONY WHICH WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE HAD [15:14] HE BEEN TAKEN TO A HOSPITAL. LUCAS WEATHERSPOON IS NOW AN OFFICER WITH THE MPD. [15:21] CHIEF O'HARA IS WELL AWARE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE LUCAS [15:28] BELLAMY CASE AND THE $3.4 MILLION HE HAS ALREADY COST THE COUNTY, BUT HAS NOT REVERSED [15:34] HIS DISTURBING HIRING DECISION. [15:41] WE EXPECT AND DEMAND THAT THE POLICE CHIEF HIRE OFFICERS WHO WILL HAVE MORE REGARD AND CARE [15:46] FOR BLACK LIVES THAN LUCAS TIMBERLAKE AND WEATHERSPOON HAVE [15:52] DEMONSTRATED. CHIEF O'HARA HAS ALSO MADE EXCUSES FOR MPD'S FAILURE TO [15:58] PROTECT FOLKS LIKE DAVIS NOTORI WHO WAS SHOT BY A RACIST WHITE [16:03] NEIGHBOR DESPITE MPD'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE THREATS AGAINST HIM. HE HAS ALSO DEFENDED MPD'S [16:09] FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE DEATH OF INDIGENOUS WOMAN ALLISON [16:14] LUCIER AS A MURDER DESPITE 157 PAGES OF POLICE RECORDS [16:19] DOCUMENTING MPD'S KNOWLEDGE OF HER PARTNER'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THREATS TO KILL HER. [16:24] CHIEF O'HARA IS NOT REVERSING OR CHANGING THE RACIST CULTURE OF MPD. [16:29] HE IS PERPETRATING IT. AND THIS SHOULD BE WEIGHTED HEAVILY AT HIS PERFORMANCE [16:35] REVIEW. [16:42] >> LIZZY PALMER. [16:52] >> HELLO, MY NAME IS LIZZY PALMER. I'M WITH TWIN CITIES COALITION FOR JUSTICE. AT THE FEBRUARY 3RD CCPO [16:59] MEETING, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON ALLISON [17:06] LUCIER'S CASE. WE ALL NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED SINCE THEY ADDED ALLISON'S CASE TO THE AUDITOR'S [17:13] AFTER ACTION REVIEW. ALTHOUGH FIVE COMMISSIONERS COWARDLY ABSTAINED FROM VOTING, THE MOTION STILL PASSED. [17:20] LATER THERE WAS NO STRAIGHT ANSWER ON WHETHER A MEMO THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED WAS SENT BY THE CHAIR TO THE CITY [17:25] COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN MADE ANOTHER MOTION TO GET AN EXACT COPY OF WHAT WAS SENT. THIS TIME ONLY ONE COMMISSIONER [17:32] ABSTAINED AND EIGHT VOTED FOR IT, THANK YOU. [17:39] WE KNOW WHAT WAS SENT. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TOLD US THE CHAIR'S SHORT EMAIL DID NOT [17:45] INCLUDE ANY IMPORTANT DOCUMENTED INFORMATION INCLUDING MPD'S FAILURES IN ALLISON'S CASE. [17:51] FAILING TO SEND IT DELIBERATELY KEPT INFO FROM THE COUNCIL, THE AWE AUDITOR, AND THE PUBLIC. [18:00] LATONYA REEVES, YOU HAVE COMPROMISED YOUR INTEGRITY, SHOWING WHAT SIDE YOU ARE ON. [18:05] POLICE COVER UP. NOT POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT POLICE OVERSIGHT. THE FAILURE OF THE CHAIR TO DO HER JOB HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED TO [18:12] HAVE TRUE CONTROL OF THE POLICE IN MINNEAPOLIS NOT ADVISORY COMMISSIONS WITH NO OVERSIGHT [18:18] POWER WHICH IS ALL WE'VE GOT FOR PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. BUT WE DESERVE MORE. FOR YEARS THERE'S BEEN A [18:23] CAMPAIGN IN MINNEAPOLIS TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC LED [18:29] CIVILIAN POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION. THEY WOULD IMPACT HIRING PRACTICES, TRAINING PROCEDURES, [18:35] AND MPD MISCONDUCT CASES. IF CPAC HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED, IT WOULD HAVE HELPED ALLISON LUCIER [18:42] AND COUNTLESS OTHER VICTIMS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT. CPAC IS A TRANSPARENCY AND [18:48] FAIRNESS THAT THE CCPO IS NOT PROVIDING. >> NEXT UP, ALYSSA WASHINGTON. [18:57] >> I'M ALYSSA WASHINGTON WITH THE WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED [19:03] MINNESOTA. WE MAKE SURE CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT ALLISON'S CASE GOT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. [19:09] THANK YOU CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WANSLEY AND CHAVEZ, AND PRESIDENT PAYNE FOR SUPPORTING A [19:17] SEPARATE INDEPENDENT REVIEW FOR ALLISON'S CASE. THEIR MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE ON [19:23] FEBRUARY 13TH, THEN WAS SENT TO THE AUDITOR. LAST MONDAY, OUT OF THE BLUE, [19:29] THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DECIDED TO DELAY ACTION ON ALLISON'S AFTER ACTION REVIEW. [19:34] IT WAS CONFUSING AND FELT LIKE A STAB IN THE BACK. WE EXPRESSED OUR DISAPPOINTMENT [19:40] AT THE COUNCIL MEETING LAST THURSDAY WITH TWO SIMPLE DEMANDS, NO DELAY, NO BCA. [19:48] DESPITE THE CHAIR'S ASSISTANCE TO DENY INFO TO COUNCIL AND AUDITOR, WE GOT IT TO THEM, [19:53] DEMANDED JUSTICE, AND GOT A QUICK APPROVAL. ALLISON IS BEING SEEN AND SO IS THE CCPO. [20:00] WE APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER WANSLEY AND PRESIDENT PAYNE SPEAKING WITH US AT DIFFERENT [20:06] TIMES TO EXPRESS QUICK APPROVAL BY THE AUDITOR. WHAT WAS DONE FOR DAVIS MATORI [20:13] MUST BE DONE FOR ALLISON LUCIER. CHIEF O'HARA ADMITS MPD FAILED [20:24] MATORI, BUT HE CONTENDS THEY FOLLOWED PROTOCOL FOR LUCIER, DESPITE WHAT RECORDS SHOW. [20:30] NO WONDER HER FAMILY CAN'T TRUST FILING A COMPLAINT WITH MPD. IT'S NO WONDER THE CHIEF WANTS A [20:39] NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL DOING THE INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO CAN'T TRUST A BCA THAT [20:45] WORKS AGAINST INDIGENOUS BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE WHETHER THEY ARE VICTIMS OF POLICE ABUSE OR FALSELY ARRESTED BY THE POLICE. [20:51] IF THE BCA GETS INVOLVED WITH ALLISON'S CASE, THEY'LL DO WHAT THEY'VE DONE BEFORE, COVER UP [20:56] AND ABSOLVE POLICE. THIS IS PRECISELY WHY CHIEF O'HARA HAS ASKED THE BCA TO STEP [21:02] IN. NO BCA. >> NEXT UP WE HAVE IS IT BOB [21:09] GONAN. I HOPE I'M SAYING THAT [21:18] CORRECTLY. >> HELLO EVERYONE. I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT SIN CITY, WITH WHOM THE CITY HAS A $500 [21:26] CONTRACT IN CONNECTION WITH ALLISON LUCIER. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS [21:32] USED SIN CITY FOR EVERYTHING FROM CRITICISM OF POLICE DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY [21:37] OUTREACH OVER THE KILLING OF BLACK MEN. THERE IS A DISTURBING PATTERN OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS UTILIZING SIN [21:43] CITY TO MONITOR COMMUNITY REACTION TO THE KILLING BY WHITE POLICE OFFICERS OF BLACK MEN. [21:49] THIS WAS THE CASE IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN. THIS WAS THE CASE IN BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA WHERE POLICE HAD [21:56] KILLED DANTE WRIGHT IN NEARBY BROOKLYN CENTER. IN THE WAKE OF MPD'S KILLING OF [22:03] GEORGE FLOYD, THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONDUCTED A TWO YEAR INVESTIGATION INTO THE MPD. [22:09] IN JUNE 2022, THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND MPD HAD ENGAGED IN A DECADE LONG [22:16] PATTERN OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE USE OF FORCE, TRAFFIC STOPS, [22:21] DISRESPECTFUL AND RACIST LANGUAGE, AND COVERT SOCIAL [22:27] MEDIA SURVEILLANCE OF RACIAL JUSTICE ACTIVISTS. IN JULY OF 2023, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND MDHR REACHED A [22:35] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING SETTLEMENT OF FUNDS TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF THESE SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. [22:41] BUT RATHER THAN DOING SO, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS APPROVED ITS CONTRACT WITH SIN CITY THE [22:49] FOLLOWING OCTOBER. ALL OF THIS RELATES TO THE WAY IN WHICH MPD HANDLED ALLISON [22:56] LUCIER'S CALL FOR HELP AND THEIR LACK OF THOROUGHNESS IN INVESTIGATING HER DEATH. [23:01] THE VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS WOMEN IS VERY CLOSELY RELATED TO THE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE AND OTHER COMMUNITIES OF [23:07] PEOPLE FOR WHOM MPD IS AN OCCUPYING FORCE. THANK YOU. [23:15] >> NEXT UP, JOEL MANU. [23:20] APOLOGIES IF I SAID THAT WRONG. [23:27] >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JO MANU. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SIN [23:32] CITY CONTRACT AS WELL. I WORK AND RESIDE IN MINNEAPOLIS. I WAS IN THIS ROOM WHEN THEY [23:39] REPORTED TO THE AAO COMMITTEE. AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING NOTHING THEY SHARED IN THEIR REPORT EASED MY MIND ABOUT THIS [23:45] ISRAELI TECH FIRM CONTRACTED TO SURVEY US. MY ENDURING QUESTIONS ARE, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO CONTRACT WITH [23:52] AN ISRAELI TECH COMPANY WITH ITS ROOTS IN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE INSTEAD OF A LOCAL COMPANY? [23:58] THE FOUNDER SERVED IN UNIT 8200, THE ELITE CYBER INTELLIGENCE ARM [24:03] OF THE MILITARY THAT ROUTINELY SPIES ON PALESTINIANS AND MAKES THEIR LIVES MISERABLE. FORMER UNIT 8200 OFFICERS HAVE [24:11] GONE ON TO DEVELOP THE MOST INTRUSIVE SPYWARE IN THE WORLD. [24:17] HOW ARE WE TO TRUST THIS COMPANY WITH OUR DATA? [24:24] IS MPD USING THIS CONTRACT WITH AN ISRAELI TECH COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT DECREE? [24:30] SHOULDN'T THE PUBLIC HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT ON HOW THE CONSENT DECREE IS IMPLEMENTED? [24:35] LASTLY, I NEED TO SAY HOW OFFENSIVE IT WAS TO HEAR THE LAWYER BRAG THAT THEY EM [24:41] EMPLOYED PALESTINIANS LIVING IN THE OCCUPIED WEST BANK QUOTE THROUGHOUT THE WAR ON GAZA. [24:46] THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT WASHING AWAY APARTHEID. [24:51] NEVER MIND THEY'RE STATELESS PEOPLE LIVING UNDER MILITARY RULE, DID HE SAY THIS TO MEAN WE SHOULDN'T MIND THAT AN ISRAELI [24:57] TECH FIRM HAS BEEN CONTRACTED BY THE CITY TO SURVEY US? [25:02] I REMAIN DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS CONTRACT AND DEMAND THE CITY CUT ITS TIES. [25:13] >> GREGORY VANDERPLOW. [25:19] APOLOGIES IF I SAID YOUR NAME WRONG. >> THANK YOU. [25:25] I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A CITIZEN OF MINNEAPOLIS. [25:34] THIS IS RETURNING TO THE UNITED STATES NOW. [25:40] WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SURVEILLANCE. THIS IS A ROAD TO TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS. [25:47] THIS WILL LEAD TO A SUPREMIST SOCIETY. WE DO NOT WANT OUR RIGHTS TAKEN [25:55] AWAY. THIS COMPANY IS A SPYWARE COMPANY. THEY ARE USING THIS FOR SOCIAL [26:03] MEDIA. WE DO NOT WANT THAT. YOUR PARENTS FOUGHT AGAINST [26:12] SUPREMACY. YOUR GRANDPARENTS FOUGHT AGAINST SUPREMACY. WE HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST [26:19] SUPREMACY. THIS IS COMING TO THE UNITED STATES NOW. THEY WANT TO HAVE JUST LIKE ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES WILL [26:24] BE JUST LIKE ANOTHER ISRAEL WHERE THEY'RE ATTACKING MINORITIES. YOU'RE QUEER, I'M A QUEER [26:32] PERSON, THEY'LL ATTACK MARGINAL PEOPLES, THEY'LL ATTACK MINORITIES. LET'S STOP THIS. [26:38] I HAVE JEWISH HERITAGE. JEWS HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH [26:45] SUPREMACY HISTORICALLY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THEY'RE NOT SUPREMISTS. [26:53] THAT'S WHAT JUDAISM IS. SAME FOR CHRISTIANITY. DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO USE THESE [26:59] NAMES FOR JEWISH OR CHRISTIANS. [27:04] THIS IS A NIGHTMARE THAT THIS OCCURRED. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH [27:11] JUDAISM. IT WAS AN IDEOLOGY, TRAGICALLY MISGUIDED THAT CAUSED IT TO [27:21] HAPPEN. PLEASE STOP THIS. EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS PEACEFUL, THEY WANT PEACEFUL DISSENT. [27:27] THESE ARE NOT VIOLENT. EVERYONE I MET IS NONVIOLENT. [27:32] THEY WANT PEACEFUL DISSENT DISCUSSION, WE WANT THAT TO OCCUR. >> THANK YOU. >> AND REMEMBER YOUR PARENTS AND [27:38] REMEMBER YOUR CHILDREN. YOUR CHILDREN AS YOUR [27:44] GRANDPARENTS DID, THEY WILL NOT BE SUPREMISTS. [27:50] >> THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'LL COMPLETED ALL COMMENTS, THANK YOU. [27:55] THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS REPORTS. WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF POLICE CONDUCT [28:05] REVIEW WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED BY DIRECTOR FUJISAWA. [28:22] >> GOOD EVENING. TAKING A QUICK LOOK AT OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING, JUST SOME QUICK UPDATES ON THE CCPO [28:27] RECRUITMENT, I KNOW WE'VE TOUCHED ON IT BRIEFLY. OUR USUAL INTAKE UPDATES AS WELL AS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE [28:33] INVESTIGATIONS UPDATES. WE'LL DISCUSS SOME UPDATES WITH [28:38] STAFFING AS WE TRY TO WRAP THAT UP AND OUR MONTHLY REVIEW OF [28:45] REVIEW PANELS. CCPO RECRUITMENT, THE APPLICATION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW IS CURRENTLY OPEN UNTIL THE [28:52] 16th OF MARCH. WE ARE WORKING TO EXTEND THAT [28:58] DEADLINE TO MATCH UP WITH THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS JUST TO ALLOW US ADDITIONAL TIME TO GET MORE MATERIALS OUT INTO [29:03] THE COMMUNITY, ALLOWING TIME FOR [29:09] OTHER APPLICATIONS NOW THAT THE MAIN CYCLE HAS OPENED AND BEGAN. THESE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS IN WHICH WE'VE ENGAGED IN THE [29:15] COMMUNITY TO DATE. I KNOW A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS WERE AT THE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS CONFERENCE AND HAD [29:21] AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC, PROVIDE SOME [29:28] INFORMATION, ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS. THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT HAS POSTED ON ITS VARIOUS SOCIAL [29:33] MEDIA CHANNELS. WE VIEW CITY COMMUNICATION AND [29:39] CHANNELS SUCH AS PRESS RELEASES TO PROMOTE THE UPCOMING CYCLE [29:44] FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SEATS. AND WE'VE PARTICIPATED IN PROMOTIONAL INTERVIEWS WITH [29:49] LOCAL CULTURAL RADIO STATIONS HERE IN MINNEAPOLIS. ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE DISTRIBUTED [29:54] PHYSICAL MATERIALS AND PAMPHLETS AT THESE LOCATIONS. OBVIOUSLY MANY MORE, THIS IS NOT [30:00] A COMPREHENSIVE LIST, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHERE WE HAVE BEEN EXTENDING OUR [30:06] OUTREACH. YOU CAN SEE MINNEAPOLIS MAD DADS, SAMMY'S AVENUE EATERY, AS [30:15] WELL AS THE MINNEAPOLIS AMERICAN INDIAN CENTER. [30:22] TAKING A LOOK AT OUR INTAKE [30:28] UNIT, YEAR TO DATE SO JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, WE'VE HAD 31 COMPLAINTS FILED. OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE FROM THE [30:33] CHART HERE THAT WE'VE HAD MANY MORE INQUIRIES. SO OUR OFFICE CONTINUES TO FIELD A LARGE NUMBER OF CONTACTS FROM [30:43] THE COMMUNITY. WE DO OUR BEST TO TRIAGE ALL OF THESE TO THE APPROPRIATE PLACES [30:48] TO REFER WHERE APPROPRIATE AND THEN TO INVESTIGATE WHERE IT'S NEEDED. [30:54] CURRENTLY WE HAVE 85 COMPLAINTS IN OUR INTAKE QUEUE. OF THOSE 85, 70 ARE OVER OUR 30 [31:01] DAY TARGET AS MANDATED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONSENT DECREE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO [31:07] NOTE THOUGH IN THIS NEXT BULLET, THE AVERAGE DURATION OF OUR INTAKE INVESTIGATIONS CURRENTLY IS 21 DAYS. [31:14] THE INVESTIGATIONS THEMSELVES ARE WITHIN COMPLIANCE, IT'S JUST THE AGE OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT [31:19] IS PUTTING US OVER THAT THRESHOLD RIGHT NOW. SO WE CONTINUE TO CHIP AWAY AT THE REMAINING INTAKE CASES AND [31:25] WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS EVERY MONTH, PRIORITIZING THE CLEARANCE SO THAT WE CAN GET IN COMPLIANCE AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE. [31:32] AS HIGHLIGHTED PREVIOUSLY, WE HAVE 0 COMPLAINTS IN OUR INTAKE [31:37] BACKLOG. [31:43] THE COMPLAINTS THAT DO REMAIN IN OUR BACKLOG ARE THOSE THAT WERE DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVE [31:48] INVESTIGATIONS. SO I THINK IF YOU REMEMBER FROM OUR OCTOBER MEETING WHERE IT WAS PRESENTED THAT THERE WERE 264 [31:55] COMPLAINTS IN THE BACKLOG QUEUE, OF THOSE 264, YOU CAN SEE 120 [32:01] BECAME ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS. THREE OF WHICH ARE CLEARED AND YOU CAN SEE AS YOU LOOK DOWN, [32:09] YOU SEE THE NUMBER THAT ARE CURRENTLY ASSIGNED, PENDING ASSIGNMENT, AND IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE REVIEW CYCLE. [32:14] SO EITHER SITTING WITH THE REVIEW PANEL OR IN QUEUE TO BE SCHEDULED, IN THE SUPERVISORY [32:20] REVIEW PERIOD. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT OF THOSE 117 INVESTIGATIONS THAT [32:25] REMAIN, CURRENTLY 58 ARE ASSIGNED AND BEING WORKED ON AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS ARE IN THE [32:31] REVIEW PROCESS OR READY TO BE REVIEWED BY A PANEL. [32:37] AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS BULLET HERE THAT IT [32:48] HAS GONE THROUGH FINAL REVIEW BY [32:54] THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I MENTIONED THAT WE ARE WORKING TO COMPLETE THE STAFFING WITHIN [33:01] OPCR. CURRENTLY WE ARE RECRUITING FOR THREE INVESTIGATORS. [33:06] THAT WILL BE ACROSS THE INTAKE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION SIDE. [33:11] THIS IS OBVIOUSLY TO FILL OUT THE TEAM, BUT ALSO TO INSULATE [33:17] US FROM SHOCKS AND PUBLIC EVENTS HISTORICALLY THAT HAVE CREATED THIS BACKLOG. SO ONE, IT WOULD HELP US WORK [33:23] THROUGH THE VOLUME THAT WE HAVE NOW. BUT IT WILL ALSO PREVENT US FROM BEING A SITUATION SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE'RE CURRENTLY [33:28] EXPERIENCING. TWO ADDITIONAL OPCR VACANCIES [33:34] HAVE ALSO BEEN FILLED WE'VE [33:39] DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. ONE IS DEVOTED PARTICULARLY TO THE REQUIREMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARTICULARLY TO THE CCPO AND [33:46] THAT POLICY AND RESEARCH COORDINATOR, AS WELL AS A MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR TO SUPPORT THE POLICY WORK, THE [33:52] MANAGEMENT, THE ANALYSIS, AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTERNAL OPCR POLICIES, MPD [33:58] POLICIES AND JUST OUR GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURES. [34:08] IN FEBRUARY, WE HAD 23 CASES IN QUEUE FOR THE MONTH OF WHICH [34:14] NINE BELONGED TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE REMAINING 14 WERE FROM OPCR INVESTIGATIONS. [34:19] WE'VE HAD SEVEN PANEL SESSIONS SCHEDULED, BUT ONLY FOUR SESSIONS WERE ULTIMATELY HELD. [34:25] WE WERE ABLE TO REVIEW THREE CASES FROM OPCR AND ONE FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS. AND THE DISCREPANCY THERE [34:30] BETWEEN WHAT WAS SCHEDULED AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HELD WAS DUE TO A CANCELLATION DURING THE [34:37] HOLIDAY WEEKEND AND SO WE'RE AWARE OF THAT AND THE CHALLENGES THERE IN HAVING CASES SCHEDULED AND PREPARED. [34:42] BUT ALSO I THINK I'VE MENTIONED THIS IN THE PAST, THE ADOPTION OF THE CCPO CALENDAR WITH THOSE [34:49] SET DATES ALLOWS FOR US TO MOVE THESE CASES JUST TO THE NEXT SESSION. IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IT'S THE [34:56] BENEFIT THAT WE HAVE IN HAVING AN ESTABLISHED CALENDAR. [35:01] WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO ADD ADDITIONAL REVIEW PANEL DATES IN BETWEEN THOSE SCHEDULED DATES. JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A MINIMUM [35:07] OF FOUR EACH MONTH DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL ONLY HAVE FOUR WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO FULLY SEE A PANEL. [35:23] WE ARE REQUESTING CCPO MEMBERS TO SIT ON THOSE PANELS. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SIGN UP SO WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL CASES [35:29] LINED UP, GET MATERIALS TO YOU ALL SO THEY CAN BE REVIEWED WITH AMPLE TIME AND SO WE CAN KEEP [35:39] MOVING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION AROUND [35:45] THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE CONSENT DECREE, BYLAWS. I DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THESE LINKS AND GO TO [35:52] THESE LOCATIONS RIGHT NOW. BUT WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS AS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE FOR YOUR [35:57] CONTINUED WORK. I KNOW WE'VE VERY DEEPLY HAVE WORKED WITH AND ENGAGED WITH THE [36:04] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THERE CONTINUE TO BE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE CONSENT DECREE, BUT THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH [36:10] THOSE EFFORTS. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO FAMILIARIZE [36:15] YOURSELF WITH WHAT IS THERE, THE DISTINCTIONS IN ONE AGREEMENT VERSUS ANOTHER, BUT WHAT WE ULTIMATELY ARE WORKING TOWARDS. [36:23] OBVIOUSLY WITH THE ORDINANCE AND ABC ORDINANCE CODES, IT'S ALWAYS [36:29] IMPORTANT TO STAY UP TO SPEED ON THOSE AND OUR OPERATION OF THOSE JUST AS A BODY. [36:34] AND OBVIOUSLY THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN [36:40] PROVIDING THE MATERIALS OR PROVIDE US WITH THE APPROPRIATE [36:47] RESOURCES WHEN NEEDED. HERE'S SOME OF THE CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH WE'VE PROMOTED THE [36:52] CCPO RECRUITMENT AS WELL AS OUR OTHER WORK AND OTHER COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. WITH THAT, I HAVE SOME TIME FOR [36:59] QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> DIRECTOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SPEEDY [37:06] RESPONSE TO MY FAIRLY FREQUENT EMAILS. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. [37:12] THIS IS VERY POSITIVE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT THAT DIRECTOR PHILLIPS IDEA TO SORT OF INCREASE OUR [37:18] POOL FOR PANELISTS WHICH WE HAVE [37:24] ALL TALKED ABOUT, I THINK THERE'S GREAT CONCERN ABOUT, TO TAKE ELIGIBLE MEMBERS FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, [37:30] INSPIRED, FABULOUS IDEA. I JUST WANTED TO ABSOLUTELY BE SURE, IT SEEMED FROM HER EMAIL [37:38] THAT THE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, THAT'S [37:44] A BIGGER GROUP, A NUMBER OF WHICH ARE ATTORNEYS, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE IDEAL [37:49] TRAINING, AND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE IDEAL BACKGROUND CHECK? >> CORRECT. >> WONDERFUL. AND CAN YOU TELL ME, HOW MANY [38:00] PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ARE ACTUALLY NOW IN OUR POOL THAT ARE BUMPING UP OUR POOL? [38:08] >> SEVEN HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, THREE HAVE COMPLETED THEIR BACKGROUND CHECK AND ARE NEARLY [38:14] COMPLETED WITH THEIR TRAINING. I THINK THERE IS ONE REMAINING REVIEW TRAINING TO BE HELD THAT [38:19] WILL ALSO GET OTHERS UP TO SPEED AND ELIGIBLE TO SIT ON THE PANEL AS WELL. [38:24] SO CURRENTLY IT IS THREE HAVE PASSED BACKGROUND AND THERE ARE FOUR REMAIN TO COMPLETE THE REST OF THEIR TRAINING. >> VERY EXCITING. [38:29] THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO WE HAVE COME TO TIME. SO WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE [38:35] CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC? >> I WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE CONVERSATION BY TEN [38:40] MINUTES SO THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AS THE PRESENTATION. >> ALL RIGHT, THERE'S BEEN A [38:45] MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WOULD SECOND THAT OR MODIFY [38:51] THAT DOWN TO FIVE. >> FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS NOT ACCEPTED. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME [38:56] AMOUNT OF TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AND MAKE COMMENTS AS THE [39:01] PRESENTATION. WE DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR ABOUT HOW TO CONTACT THE OPCR, WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOR 18 TO 20 MONTHS. [39:09] WHEN WE HAVE MORE TIME FOR PRESENTATION THAN QUESTIONS, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO OUR JOB. SO MY MOTION IS TEN MINUTES. [39:14] >> YOU'VE MADE YOUR MOTION. TEN MINUTES. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION FOR TEN MINUTES? >> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [39:20] >> I WOULD PREFER FIVE SO I'LL PROBABLY VOTE NO. >> OKAY. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR TEN MINUTES TO EXTEND THE [39:26] CONVERSATION. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER CLEMENT. >> NO. [39:32] >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> NO. [39:37] >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER [39:44] WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> NAY. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> NO. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> NO. >> CHAIR REEVES. [39:50] >> NO. >> THERE ARE FOUR AYES AND SEVEN [39:56] NAYS. >> IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. [40:01] >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. [40:06] >> AYE. >> CLEMENT. >> YEAH, AYE. >> SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. [40:11] >> BASTICK. >> AYE. >> STEWART. >> AYE. >> GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> AYE. >> CANADAY. >> AYE. [40:17] >> WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> AYE. [40:23] >> CHAIR REEVES. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE 11 AYES. >> EXCUSE ME, YES. [40:28] COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> QUICK QUESTION, DIRECTOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR REPORT. WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE DEADLINE [40:36] MIGHT BE EXTENDED COULD YOU JUST SAY TO WHEN AND WOULD THAT APPLY TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TO REPLY [40:42] FOR OUR ROLES AS WELL? [40:50] >> WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF EXTENDING SINCE THE NORMAL PERIOD HAS ENDED AS WELL. WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE [40:56] OF THE MOST ALT OF TIME WE CAN TO HAVE IT OPEN TO HAVE THE MOST ROBUST RECRUITMENT POSSIBLE. IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PART OF [41:01] YOUR QUESTION, I WILL DEFER TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR SOME [41:08] CLARIFICATION ON THAT PIECE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL SAY THAT THE PRIORITY FOR US IS FILLING THE CURRENT THREE VACANT [41:14] SEATS. SO I AM PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO ANNOUNCE THAT JUST BEFORE COMING IN HERE, I CHECKED IN OUR ONLINE QUEUE, AND WE DO HAVE AT LEAST, [41:20] I THINK, 2 OR 3 APPLICANTS IN EACH OF THE WARDS. [41:25] WE'RE CURRENTLY LACKING COMMISSIONER FOR 1, 11, 12. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL NEED TO EXTEND THAT TOO MUCH LONGER. [41:35] WE WILL OBVIOUSLY KEEP THROUGH THE END OF THE RECRUITMENT CYCLE WHICH IS MARCH 31ST FOR THOSE SEATS THAT ARE DUE TO BE [41:41] REAPPOINTED AT THE END OF MAY OF THIS YEAR. AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER SEATS WHO ARE COMING UP ON [41:49] THEIR FIRST ENDING OF AN APPOINTMENT PROCESS. SO THOSE WHO WISH TO BE [41:57] CONSIDERED FOR THOSE SEATS SHOULD FILL OUT A MEMBERSHIP PROFILE AND REPLY. >> THANK YOU. [42:02] COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. I APPRECIATE IT. [42:07] I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT FROM CIVIL RIGHTS DIRECTOR PHILLIPS. [42:12] AND I SEE THAT SHE'S COME INTO THE ROOM SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I [42:18] DON'T THINK THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE ANSWERED SO I'M GOING TO START WITH ONE AND THEN I'LL JUST LIST THE ONES AND I'LL SEND THEM TO YOU. [42:25] I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IN DIRECTOR PHILLIPS' EMAIL THAT SHE SENT TO US, AFTER THE FACT, [42:31] AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE [42:36] SERVE, WHO EXACTLY ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN COMING UP WITH THIS? I'M ASSUMING THAT OUR LINDA [42:42] WESTBROOK WAS ONE OF THEM BECAUSE BACK ON DECEMBER 17TH, SHE TEXTED ME DO YOU HAVE TIME FOR A CALL TO DISCUSS THE [42:48] POSSIBILITY OF CCPO BEING EXPANDED, END QUOTE. I RESPONDED THE SAME DAY, IF [42:54] YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD PASS THE CCPO, THEN YOU SHOULD SEND SOMETHING TO THE [43:00] ENTIRE CCPO, THEN HAVE IT ADDED AS AN AGENDA ITEM TO GIVE A [43:08] PRESENTATION TO FLESH OUT IDEAS AND OPTIONS. I FIND IT INCREDIBLY [43:13] DISCONCERTING THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE CITY THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE SITTING ON REVIEW PANELS HAVE NOT BEEN [43:19] INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION. INSTEAD I SAT IN ON A FULL COUNCIL MEETING, HEARD THIS [43:26] ORDINANCE BEING INITIATED AND FELT INVISIBLE. [43:33] WE ARE THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT AND WE WERE [43:40] BYPASSED. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE SEEING THIS HAVE ANY TRUST THAT WE ARE ACTING TRANSPARENTLY, [43:49] THAT WE ARE BEING INVOLVED, THAT WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS ENGAGING THE PUBLIC AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED ON THIS [43:54] COMMITTEE. SO I WANT TO KNOW WHO WERE THE STAKEHOLDERS. [43:59] I DON'T THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE IT TO US THIS MEETING, BUT I'M EXPECTING IT THE NEXT MEETING. >> I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME AND [44:08] WE HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I'LL LIST MY QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD. WHY WEREN'T CCPO COMMISSIONERS AS A WHOLE INVOLVED, WERE SOME [44:15] COMMISSIONERS INVOLVED AND NOT OTHERS? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THEY CONTACTED? WERE MEETINGS HELD BEHIND CLOSED [44:23] DOORS? MY CONCERN I WANT TO EXPRESS ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH I THINK [44:29] THEY'RE REALLY WELL QUALIFIED AND I LIKE THE IDEA TO GO TOWARDS THAT, I'M CONCERNED. [44:35] THEY WERE NOT VETTED TO REVIEW TO GO INTO DOING REVIEW PANELS. [44:40] >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOUR QUESTION. >> MY QUESTION IS WHY NOT HAVE [44:46] AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS ANY RESIDENT WHO OTHERWISE FITS THE QUALIFICATION FOR CCPO [44:52] COMMISSIONER TO BE ON REVIEW PANELS? WHY IS THAT NOT PART OF WHAT HAS [44:57] GONE TO THE CITY COUNCIL? AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT -- >> COMMISSIONER [45:03] GURIAN-SHERMAN -- ONE MOMENT. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN -- >> POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE. >> I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU HAVE [45:09] A LOT OF QUESTIONS, THAT YOU SUBMIT THEM BY EMAIL. WE WANT TO GET THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO DID NOT GET A [45:15] CHANCE TO ASK A QUESTION. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR TEN MINUTES. >> WE DIDN'T GET TEN MINUTES, WE [45:20] GOT FIVE MINUTES. I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS. [45:25] I WOULD ASK PLEASE SUBMIT THEM BY EMAIL. COMMISSIONER CANADAY THEN COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> CHAIR, IF I MAY REALLY [45:31] QUICKLY AND WE'VE ALREADY ASKED THE CLERK TO GO AHEAD AND STOP THE TIME SO I CAN BE CLEAR ABOUT [45:37] THIS. THERE WERE SEVERAL CONCERNS OVER SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH OF THIS COMMISSION. [45:42] I LISTENED AND I DID TALK TO MANY STAKEHOLDERS AND I'VE SAID [45:47] THAT TO THIS BODY I WOULD BE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AVENUES. [45:54] THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO AMEND ORDINANCES, NOT ME. [46:01] I WENT FORWARD TO CITY STAKEHOLDERS WITH AN IDEA TO HELP WITH THE BANDWIDTH [46:07] UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A BACKLOG IN OPCR AND A BACKLOG IN IA WHICH THEN MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE A BACKLOG AT THE FEET OF [46:14] THE PANEL. WITH THAT SAID, NOBODY THOUGHT [46:22] ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH OF THIS BODY AT THAT TIME. THERE WILL BE CONSIDERATIONS AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND COMMISSIONER [46:28] GURIAN-SHERMAN SAID ELOQUENTLY, THAT THIS IS ONLY ONE PROVISION. THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE IS [46:33] CURRENTLY OPENED AND THERE ARE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL WHO ARE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE [46:41] TO HELP SUFFICE THAT ENSURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE ADDITIONAL BANDWIDTH THAT YOU NEED MOVING FORWARD. I APPRECIATE THE GRACE AND [46:47] PATIENCE AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THERE ARE GROWING PAINS. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM [46:53] WHATSOEVER BEING TRANSPARENT. AND FOR THOSE WHO DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VETTING [47:00] PROCESS, EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONER AS EVERY CCPO COMMISSIONER ELIGIBLE TO SIT ON [47:06] PANELS WILL GO THROUGH THE SAME EXACT PROCESS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DIRECTOR FUJISAWA AND MYSELF [47:12] WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED. [47:17] THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL [47:23] JUST BE VERY BRIEF IN FLAGGING WHAT I WAS SEPARATELY PLANNING TO SAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE WHICH IS [47:28] I WAS NOT PART OF ANY GROUP IF THERE WAS ONE THAT HAD ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. [47:34] I'M KEEPING AN OPEN MIND ABOUT IT, AND I APPRECIATE THE REASONS PRESENTED AS TO WHY THIS CHANGE [47:41] HAS BEEN SOUGHT WHICH IS ARGUABLY FOR OUR PROTECTION. BUT MY CONCERN RELATES TO THE [47:47] FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THIS COMMISSION BEING THAT THIS GROUP IS GOING TO HEAR THE INFORMATION IN THOSE REVIEW PANELS AND WE [47:53] ARE NOW ARTIFICIALLY SPREADING THAT OUT, SO I THINK IT WAS WORTHY OF A DISCUSSION. >> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE DID RUN OUT OF TIME. [48:00] BUT WE CAN JUST LET HER ASK HER ONE QUESTION IF COMMISSIONERS ARE AMENABLE TO THAT. COMMISSIONER BASTICK. [48:07] >> I APPRECIATE IT. ALEFA MONITORS HAVE SHOWED UP AT A COUPLE OF REVIEW PANELS. [48:13] IF YOU COULD JUST QUICKLY CLARIFY THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE THEMSELVES PRESENT. THEY CAN'T BE THERE BEHIND THE [48:19] SCENES AND ARE THEY ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE, ASK [48:25] QUESTIONS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND YES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO [48:31] ATTEND AND THEY ARE THERE TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OBSERVE AS THEY ARE FOR THE REST [48:36] OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO IN TERMS OF REVIEWING THE OPERATIONS AND THE PROCESS, THEY [48:42] ARE THERE TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE THROUGH THEIR OBSERVATIONS IF THEY SEE A [48:48] FAULT IN THE PROCESS OR SOMETHING THAT CAN BE IMPROVED, WE WELCOME THAT FEEDBACK. [48:59] AND THEY ARE VISIBLE PARTICIPANTS, THEY ARE VISIBLE ATTENDEES IN THOSE VIRTUAL [49:05] SESSIONS. THEY ARE NOT BEHIND THE SCENES. SO THEY ARE IN ATTENDANCE. [49:10] >> BUT AGAIN, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY JOIN IN THE DISCUSSIONS? THAT'S WHAT I WAS REALLY GETTING [49:16] AT. SO THEY'RE HERE, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE SILENT? >> SO TO PROVIDE THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN TERMS OF HOW TO [49:24] REVIEW A CASE AND NOTHING SPECIFIC IN NOT PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS ON TERMS OF HOW TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT IN TERMS [49:31] OF LOOKING AT THE CASE AND THE PROCESS AND THE REVIEW PROCESS, PROVIDING GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF HOW PANELISTS CAN AND SHOULD BE [49:38] DOING THAT IN AN OBJECTIVE AND COMPLIANT WAY. [49:43] >> OKAY. >> IT'S A QUALITY ASSURANCE ON [49:49] THE PROCESS BECAUSE THE REVIEW PANEL IS A CRITICAL PART OF THE [49:56] DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. AND TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE [50:01] INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE WRITTEN AND ALEFA IS THERE TO PROVIDE THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR [50:07] TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE OBSERVATION OF THAT. >> ARE THEY SITTING WITH THE FIVE PANELISTS? [50:14] >> ONE MOMENT. WE HAVE WENT OVER TIME, I WOULD ASK THAT -- WE GO ON TO THE NEXT [50:22] ITEM. >> I'M ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, THE ANSWER IS THEY DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN DELIBERATIONS. [50:28] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> CAN YOU ANSWER ARE THEY PHYSICALLY IN THE ROOM WITH THE [50:36] FIVE PANELISTS? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THIS FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. >> I WOULD ASK THAT WE NOT SHOUT [50:43] OUT, PLEASE. I WOULD ASK YOU BE CALLED UPON. WE ALL KNOW ROBERT'S RULES. THEY HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION. [50:49] IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE SUBMIT THEM BY EMAIL. THEY JUST STATED THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE ROOM. [50:54] >> PLEASE TELL ME IF THIS IS OUT OF ORDER, CAN WE JUST ADD AN AGENDA ITEM FOR OUR NEXT MEETING [51:01] TO HAVE MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT ALEFA? >> I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY IN ORDER AND WHEN WE ASK FOR AN [51:07] AGENDA ITEM REQUEST, YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT REPORT. [51:13] NEXT UP IS THE MONTHLY REPORT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION. I'LL INVITE MS. HASTINGS TO COME [51:25] UP AND PRESENT. [51:43] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. HERE'S OUR MONTHLY REPORT FROM MPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS. MY NAME IS LILY HASTINGS, I'M [51:50] THE CASE MANAGER IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS. TONIGHT, JUST GOING OVER OUR TABLE OF CONTENTS. WE'RE GOING TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON [51:57] SOME TRAINING UPDATES. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH BACKLOG UPDATES SINCE OCTOBER 2024 VERY BRIEFLY AND [52:04] THEN TALK ABOUT IA STATISTICS AND TRENDS. JUST ON TRAINING UPDATES, NOW [52:10] THAT WE ARE BECOMING PRETTY CLOSE TO FINALIZING OUR SOP WITH OUR CITY STAKEHOLDERS AND ALEFA [52:19] AND STILL WORKING ON DRAFTING 2-100 POLICY THAT OUR [52:26] SUBCOMMITTEE HAD REVIEWED. WE ARE NOW SWITCHING GEARS TO CREATING A TRAINING PLAN FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS. [52:31] WE HAVE CREATED A TRAINING PLAN FOR EACH OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CREATE A TRAINING PLAN FOR TRAINING ALL [52:37] OF MPD ON THE NEW CHANGES, LIKE ALL OF MPD, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE IN IA THAT ARE WORKING, BUT [52:44] EVERYBODY ACROSS THE WHOLE MPD ENTERPRISE. SO WE'RE WORKING ON DRAFTING [52:49] THOSE TRAINING PLANS. AND JUST SO WE ARE VERY CLEAR ON [52:55] THE PROCESS, THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE THE SAME LEVEL OF REVIEW AND APPROVALS THAT THE SOP AND THE DRAFTED 2-100 POLICY ARE [53:02] REQUIRING. SO WE DO STILL HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR CITY ENTITIES, OUR CITY STAKEHOLDERS, LIKE IA, OPCR, AND [53:10] CITY IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, OUR POLICY WRITERS, ALEFA. [53:15] WE DO STILL HAVE TO HAVE WORKING SESSIONS WITH ALEFA, MDHR, ALL [53:21] OF THOSE SAME THINGS THAT WE DID FOR THE SOP AND THE POLICY WE WILL HAVE TO DO FOR OUR TRAINING [53:26] PLAN. AND WE'RE JUST IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF WORKING ON THAT. [53:33] MOVING ON TO OUR BACKLOG UPDATE; SO BUILDING OFF OF THE GRAPH THAT WE HAVE STARTED TO SEE IN [53:39] THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HERE AT THIS MEETING, WE WERE AT 112 [53:45] BACKLOG ADMIN INVESTIGATIONS BACK IN AND AROUND OCTOBER 2024. AND NOW AS OF LAST WEEK, WE ARE [53:53] AT 39 BACKLOG ADMIN INVESTIGATIONS. [53:58] JUST ADDING SOMETHING HERE AS COMING SOON. I KNOW THERE WASN'T A GRAPH HERE, THAT WASN'T AN ERROR ON [54:04] OUR PART. IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH ALEFA, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SHOW IS THE [54:10] RESPONSIBILITIES THROUGH IA. OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THERE ARE RESPONSIBILITIES BEYOND IA LIKE [54:15] THE REVIEW PANEL, CHIEF'S OFFICE, GRIEVANCE AND [54:22] ARBITRATION, THOSE THINGS. AND THOSE THINGS CONTRIBUTE TO OUR BACKLOG CLEARANCE RATE. BUT BEING ABLE TO SHOW WHEN IA'S [54:28] RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OUR BACKLOG ARE COMPLETED AT THAT POINT. THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE [54:33] ACTIVELY WORKING ON PROVIDING DATA FOR AGAIN THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH ALEFA. [54:39] SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE TO SEE THAT FAIRLY SOON AND WE WILL SHARE THAT WITH THIS BODY AS WELL. [54:46] AGAIN, BUILDING ON A GRAPH THAT WE'VE SEEN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. YOU'LL SEE AGAIN OUR CLEARANCE [54:51] RATE IS STILL 36%. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES US TO GET THE REVIEW [54:59] PANEL, CHIEF'S OFFICE, GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION IF THERE ARE ANY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS KIND OF [55:05] COMBATING THE NEED TO SHOW WHEN IA'S RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DONE VERSUS WHEN THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DONE WITH THESE CASES. [55:13] MOVING ON TO OUR STATISTICS AND TRENDS, YOU WILL SEE LOTS OF NEW STUFF HERE. [55:20] I BELIEVE MANY OF WHICH WERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ASKED BY THIS BODY AND REQUESTS ASKED BY THIS [55:25] BODY AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO INCLUDE. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR [55:31] NORMAL SLIDE. SO WE HAVE OPEN INTAKES AS OF THE END OF LAST WEEK. WE HAD 20 CASES, OUR AVERAGE AGE [55:37] WAS 26 DAYS WHICH IS UP TWO DAYS FROM THE PREVIOUS MONTH. AND THE AVERAGE DURATION TO [55:43] COMPLETE THE INTAKE PHASE IS 25 DAYS AND SIMILAR TO LIKE YOU HAD JUST HEARD FROM DIRECTOR [55:49] FUJISAWA, WE DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE INTAKE. SO WE'RE STILL WITHIN OUR 30 DAY [55:55] RANGE. OPEN INVESTIGATIONS IN IA, AGAIN THESE ARE ADMIN INVESTIGATIONS. SO AS OF LAST WEEK, WE HAD 61 [56:03] TOTAL CASES. OUR AVERAGE AGE IS 335 DAYS WHICH IS DOWN 14 DAYS FROM THE [56:10] PREVIOUS MONTH. WE HAVE 39 OF THOSE 61 THAT ARE CONSIDERED BACKLOG AND WE HAVE [56:16] 22 THAT ARE CONSIDERED CURRENT CASES. 53 OF THOSE 66 ARE ASSIGNED. AND EIGHT OF THOSE 66 ARE [56:22] UNASSIGNED. UNASSIGNED CASES ARE CASES THAT ARE CURRENT. THEY'RE NOT BACKLOG CASES THAT HAVE JUST BEEN SITTING THERE [56:27] WAITING. I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER IS ACTUALLY LOWER. I THINK IT'S ALMOST AT 0, I'M [56:33] NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S QUITE AT 0. BUT I THINK IT'S ALMOST AT 0 AFTER WE'VE DONE SOME [56:38] ASSIGNMENTS THIS WEEK AFTER OUR INVESTIGATORS HAVE TURNED IN THEIR ISR'S FOR THEIR BACKLOG [56:44] CASES. EXPEDITED DISPOSITIONS, AS OF LAST WEEK, WE HAD 126 CASES. [56:51] 87 OF THE 126 ARE CONSIDERED BACKLOG. 39 OF THOSE 126 ARE CONSIDERED CURRENT. [56:56] WE ARE STARTING TO SEND MANY OF THESE CASES THROUGH NOW. WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A [57:01] TEMPORARY SOLUTION WITH CHIEF'S OFFICE TO FIND THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON TO HELP US HANDLE THESE [57:09] CASES UNFORTUNATELY JUST DUE TO STAFFING TURNOVER. WE DO HAVE A SOLUTION IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. WE HAD A MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW [57:16] THIS WAS GOING TO GO, WHAT ARE ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES. SO YOU'LL START TO SEE THAT NUMBER DECREASE HERE VERY [57:22] SHORTLY. JUST WITHIN THE PAST WEEK, I BELIEVE WE HAD SENT TEN CASES [57:28] OVER TO THEM AFTER THIS FEBRUARY 26TH DEADLINE. SO YOU'LL START TO SEE THIS [57:33] NUMBER ACTUALLY LOWER FINALLY. AND THEN THE LAST ONE ON THIS SLIDE IS OPEN ADMIN [57:38] INVESTIGATION CASES AND SUPERVISORY REVIEW. WE HAD 43 CASES THAT ARE IN SUPERVISORY REVIEW, AND JUST AS [57:44] A REFERENCE, THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE OUR EXPEDITED DISPOSITION CASES. [57:49] THOSE 126 CASES STILL NEEDED TO GO THROUGH THE SAME LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY REVIEW. AND WE HAD PRIORITIZED THOSE [57:55] CASES THROUGH SUPERVISORY REVIEW, SO THOSE ARE COMPLETED AND NOW WE'RE WORKING ON OUR [58:01] ADMIN INVESTIGATION SUPERVISOR REVIEWS. MOVING ON, YOU'LL SEE WE'RE [58:07] KEEPING THE SAME TREND ADDING TO THIS GRAPH. SO IN FEBRUARY, WE RECEIVED 22 [58:13] INCOMING COMPLAINTS AND WE ONLY PROCESSED 12 OF THEM IN FEBRUARY. SO THIS WAS A RELATIVELY LOW [58:19] MONTH FOR US. UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD A LOT OF STAFF NOT BE ABLE TO BE IN THE [58:25] OFFICE THIS MONTH. SO YOU'LL SEE WHY THAT NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN USUAL. [58:34] OUR TOTAL NUMBER OF OPEN IA INVESTIGATIONS, THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE [58:39] SPLIT OUT BY CURRENT AND BACKLOG. WE JUST TALKED THROUGH THIS IN THE TWO PREVIOUS SLIDES. [58:46] I'M GOING TO KEEP MOVING THROUGH THIS ONE. NOW WE GET TO SOME NEW STUFF. SO WE'VE GOT OUR INTAKE DATA. [58:53] THIS IS SPECIFICALLY THOSE 12 INTAKE CASES THAT WERE COMPLETED BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1ST AND [58:59] FEBRUARY 26TH. SO WE'VE BROKEN EVERYTHING OUT INTO INCIDENT DATE. SO YOU SEE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE CASES, 50% WERE CASES [59:08] WHERE THE INCIDENT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN JANUARY 2025. THEN YOU'LL SEE SOME OTHER INCIDENT DATES THERE WITH OUR [59:14] OLDEST ONE BEING FEBRUARY 2024. I'M SURE THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO HOW WE CAN BE COMPLIANT WITH [59:19] THE 30 DAYS AND SEE AN INCIDENT DATE LIKE THAT. JUST A REMINDER THAT WE ARE NOT [59:25] THE ONLY CITY ENTITIES, OPCR AND IA, THAT HAVE BACKLOGS. [59:30] WE HAVE BACKLOGS IN OUR TRAFFIC INVESTIGATIONS, WE HAVE BACKLOGS IN PURSUIT INVESTIGATIONS, AND [59:35] WE HAVE BACKLOGS IN OUR FORCE INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL. [59:42] SO AS THOSE INVESTIGATIVE UNITS START WORKING THROUGH THEIR BACKLOG, THE SAME WAY THAT WE [59:47] HAVE, YOU'LL STILL CONTINUE TO SEE CASES WHERE THERE IS A LATER INCIDENT DATE THAN THE MOST RECENT WITHIN 30 DAYS. [59:56] WE DID ALSO SPLIT OUT OUR INCIDENTS BY PRECINCT SO THAT WOULD BE THE LOCATION OF THE ACTUAL CALL. [1:00:05] TYPICALLY SOMETIMES THINGS CAN CHANGE AND THEY MIGHT MOVE A PRECINCT, SO THIS IS A STARTING [1:00:10] PRECINCT. AND THEN JUST A CAVEAT THAT WE HAVE THINGS LIKE OUTSIDE OF [1:00:15] MINNEAPOLIS AND NA. NA IS THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING VIRTUALLY, LIKE A SOCIAL MEDIA [1:00:20] OR AN HOURS WORKED THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE THERE ISN'T REALLY A LOCATION IN MIND. [1:00:27] WE BROKE OUT OUR INTAKE DATA WITH THOSE 12 COMPLETED CASES BY OUR TOPIC CATEGORIES. [1:00:33] THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEW WITH OUR DRAFTED SOP. [1:00:40] SO YOU'LL SEE THESE FAIRLY FREQUENTLY AGAIN WITH OUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT ARE BEING ALLEGED WITHIN THIS [1:00:46] VIOLATION. YOU CAN BE IN MULTIPLE CATEGORIES. SO YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT THE [1:00:51] TOTALS DON'T QUITE ADD UP. THE TOPIC CATEGORY ATTACHES TO EACH ALLEGATION, NOT A CASE ITSELF. [1:00:57] SO YOU'LL SEE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR ALLEGATIONS WITHIN THOSE INTAKES ARE IN VEHICLE OR [1:01:03] DRIVING-RELATED CONDUCT. THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A DEEPER [1:01:10] DIVE INTO THOSE VEHICLE OR DRIVING-RELATED CONDUCT [1:01:15] ALLEGATIONS SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS ARE AND WHAT TYPE. SO JUST TO HIGHLIGHT, WE HAVE A [1:01:21] FOURTH OF THAT WAS PREVENTABLE COLLISIONS MEANING AN OFFICER WAS IN AN ACCIDENT THAT OUR [1:01:28] TRAFFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE HAD DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PREVENTABLE. SOMETHING LIKE BACKING INTO A [1:01:34] POST OR GOING THROUGH A STOPLIGHT OR A STOP SIGN, LIKE ROLLING THROUGH ONE AND ACCIDENTALLY GETTING HIT OR [1:01:40] HITTING SOMEONE ELSE. [1:01:50] >> MADAM CHAIR. >> YES, COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION FOR TEN MORE MINUTES SO THAT [1:01:57] MS. HASTINGS CAN FINISH HER PRESENTATION AND WE CAN BE ALLOWED COMMENT AND QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. [1:02:02] >> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, CLERK CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> YES. [1:02:08] >> COMMISSIONER CLEMENT. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> YES. [1:02:14] >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER [1:02:19] WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR-OLSEN. >> YES. >> CHAIR REEVES. [1:02:25] >> YES. >> THERE ARE 11 AYES. >> THANK YOU. [1:02:31] CONTINUE. >> SO THE LAST PART OF OUR INTAKE DATA IS WE JUST WANT TO SHOW OUR ROUTING DECISIONS SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR INTAKE [1:02:38] CASES KIND OF ALIGNED WITH THOSE VEHICLE AND DRIVING PURSUITS. RELATED CONDUCT IS EXPEDITED [1:02:44] DISPOSITION. THEN WE MOVE INTO INVESTIGATION DATA. SO THIS IS ALL RELATING TO OUR [1:02:51] OPEN ADMIN INVESTIGATIONS. SO NOT JUST OUR BACKLOG BUT ALL 61 OF THOSE OPEN INVESTIGATIONS [1:02:57] AS OF OUR FEBRUARY 26TH DATE. THIS ONE SHOWS GENERALLY OUR [1:03:02] INCIDENT DATE. YOU'LL NOTICE A LOT OF THEM ARE FROM 2024, 2023. [1:03:08] AND AGAIN THERE'S STILL OLDER CASES DOWN THERE BACK IN 2020. THESE ONES ARE FLOATING THROUGH [1:03:15] IN OUR INVESTIGATION BACKLOG. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BEING PRIORITIZED THE HIGHEST ARE 2020, THEN 2021, 2022 AND SO [1:03:22] ON. OH AND JUST TO NOTE THIS IS SEPARATED OUT BY MONTH SO YOU [1:03:29] CAN SEE TRENDS OR ATTEMPT TO SEE TRENDS WITHIN THE COMING MONTHS OF HOW MANY WE'RE GETTING PER MONTH. [1:03:35] WE ALSO DID THE SAME THING WITH INVESTIGATIONS, JUST SEPARATING OUT BY INCIDENT LOCATION [1:03:40] PRECINCT, SO YOU CAN START TO SEE THOSE TRENDING DATA AS WE PRESENT THEM IN THE COMING MONTHS. [1:03:45] AND THEN THE LAST ONE, I BELIEVE, IS TOPIC CATEGORY AGAIN JUST FOR OUR INVESTIGATIONS, NOT [1:03:52] JUST INTAKE. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [1:03:59] ARE THERE ANY -- I'M GOING TO GO TO SMITH-KOOIMAN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. [1:04:04] >> YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING, CAN YOU QUICKLY GO OVER WHAT THE [1:04:10] REVIEW PROCESS IS FOR THE TRAINING BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WOULD BE A SIMILAR PROCESS AS THE SOP IN THE 2-100. [1:04:16] JUST WONDERING QUICKLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? >> AS WE WERE DOING THE SOP AND [1:04:24] 2-100, WE HAD TO -- SOMEONE WAS DESIGNATED AS A POINT PERSON TO START DRAFTING. WE HAD TO THEN DO ROUNDTABLE [1:04:31] MEETINGS WITH OUR VARIOUS CITY STAKEHOLDERS. ONCE WE WERE SOLID AS OUR CITY [1:04:37] STAKEHOLDERS WITH A GOOD DRAFT, THEN WE SEND OVER INFORMAL DRAFTS TO ALEFA TO START SOME [1:04:42] WORKING SESSIONS. ONCE WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE AT A GOOD STAGE, THEN WE START TO [1:04:49] INVITE IN OUR FORMAL WORKING SESSIONS THAT WE DO WITH ALEFA [1:04:56] AND MDHR. THEN WHEN WE GET TO FINAL A DRAFT, WE GET APPROVALS FROM [1:05:02] ALEFA AND AND SAM, YOU MIGHT WANT TO HELP ME ON THAT ONE, I DON'T THINK IT'S AN APPROVAL [1:05:07] FROM MDHR. RIGHT. SO WE JUST GET AN APPROVAL FROM ALEFA, WE STILL GET INPUT FROM [1:05:15] MDHR. BUT ONCE WE HAVE OUR STAMP OF APPROVAL FROM ALEFA, THEN WE MOVE FORWARD ON ACTUALLY DOING A TRAINING FOR OUR STAFF ON THOSE [1:05:21] DOCUMENTS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. [1:05:28] QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE EXPEDITING PROCESS WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND I AM QUALIFIED [1:05:33] TO SIT ON A REVIEW PANEL IS WHEN AN OFFICER DOES A VIOLATION AND THE OFFICER GOES MEA CULPA AND [1:05:41] IT SPEEDS UP THE WHOLE PROCESS AND SOME SUITABLE CONSEQUENCE TO THAT. IF YOU KNOW THIS, DID THAT [1:05:49] PROCESS EXIST IN 2020? SPECIFICALLY MORE TO THE END OF 2020? [1:05:54] OR IS THIS A NEWER THING? >> THIS IS A NEWER THING. TO MY UNDERSTANDING, IT EXISTED [1:06:01] SOMETIME AROUND 2022 IN ITS VERY FIRST EXISTENCE AND THEN THAT KIND OF WENT AWAY FOR A PERIOD [1:06:08] OF TIME. AND NOW IT'S BEING RESTARTED AGAIN. IT JUST WASN'T UTILIZED IN 2022 [1:06:14] LIKE THEY HAD ANTICIPATED, THE STRUCTURE WASN'T SET UP CORRECTLY. SO IT WAS THERE, IT WASN'T BEING [1:06:19] UTILIZED AS AN OPTION, AND NOW AS WE COME IN THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT WHICH DICTATES THAT [1:06:25] WE CAN HAVE SOME TYPE OF EXPEDITED DISPOSITION PROCESS, WE RESTARTED, ADDED OUR LANGUAGE [1:06:31] INTO THE SOP AND POLICIES TO COMPLY WITH THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT'S PART OF THE [1:06:37] SOP AND 2-100 POLICY WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR APPROVAL ON FROM ALEFA. [1:06:42] >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW. SO IF I WAS AN MPD OFFICER RIGHT [1:06:49] NOW AND SOMEBODY FILES EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY A COMPLAINT, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT [1:06:54] OFFICERS ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THAT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM? >> I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE. WE HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH THE [1:06:59] FEDERATION AS WELL AND THEY HAVE SENT OUT EMAILS TO WHICH WE'VE SEEN COPIES OF THOSE EMAILS TO [1:07:05] THE BROAD MEMBERSHIP THAT THAT IS AN OPTION FOR OFFICERS. WE WILL ALSO ONCE THE 2-100 [1:07:12] POLICY GETS APPROVED, THERE WILL BE A CHIEF'S MEMO THAT GOES OUT IN A SPECIAL ORDER DETAILING THAT THERE ARE SOME CHANGES IN [1:07:18] HERE. AND THAT GOES OUT TO EVERY SINGLE MPD EMPLOYEE SWORN AND [1:07:24] CIVILIAN. >> SUPER, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. HASTINGS, YOU PREVIOUSLY [1:07:31] WERE WITH THE OFFICE OF POLICE CONDUCT REVIEW AND NOW YOU'RE WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS, RIGHT? >> YES. [1:07:36] >> JUST SO PEOPLE WATCHING MAYBE FOR THE FIRST TIME, OPCR HANDLES [1:07:42] COMPLAINTS THAT COME FROM CIVILIANS. INTERNAL AFFAIRS HANDLES COMPLAINTS THAT COME FROM OTHER [1:07:47] POLICE OFFICERS OR STAFF, BUT OTHERWISE THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS? >> CORRECT. >> SO WHEN YOU WERE WITH OPCR, [1:07:53] YOU WERE IN A HIGH LEVEL POSITION, DID YOU SIT IN ON REVIEW PANELS? >> I CAN'T SPEAK VERY HEAVILY TO [1:07:59] MY TIME AT OPCR. I WAS A SUPERVISOR FOR A BRIEF [1:08:05] PERIOD AT OPCR, AND I DID DO REVIEW PANEL WORK AT THAT TIME. >> DID YOU ACTUALLY SIT IN ON [1:08:11] THE REVIEW PANELS? >> I CANNOT ANSWER TO THAT PART. >> NOW THAT YOU'RE WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS, DO YOU ACTUALLY SIT IN [1:08:16] ON THE REVIEW PANELS LIKE ALEFA DOES? >> IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW [1:08:25] PANEL PROCESS. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE, OPCR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW PANEL, WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHIEF'S OFFICE SIDE OF IT. [1:08:31] SO JUST THE SAME AS HOW OPCR HELPS AND FACILITATES THE REVIEW PANEL, WE DO THE SAME FOR THE [1:08:37] CHIEF'S OFFICE. >> I REMEMBER THAT YOU DID REVIEW PANELS THAT I SAT ON AND YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT OPCR [1:08:43] WILL NOT EVER SIT IN ON A REVIEW PANEL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE PUBLIC POLICY WAS AROUND THAT AND WAS [1:08:50] IT AROUND THE FACT THAT IF YOU HAVE STAFF INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW PANELS THAT IT'S PIERCING [1:08:57] THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND CAUSING A CHILLING EFFECT FOR ANY OF THE PANELISTS, THE THREE CIVILIANS [1:09:03] OR THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE POLICY AT THAT POINT. [1:09:09] UNFORTUNATELY I AM NO LONGER EM EMPLOYED WITH OPCR, SO I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO CURRENT POLICY [1:09:15] THAT REGARDS IA. >> DO YOU KNOW OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING ON WITH ALEFA, ARE THEY FORMER POLICE OFFICERS? [1:09:21] >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ALEFA MEMBERS ARE PRESENT OR NOT PRESENT. [1:09:26] >> GOING TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC ENTIRELY AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY CLERK, DO [1:09:32] WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN APPLYING FOR THE CCPO POSITIONS AND BY WHAT WARD? [1:09:38] >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL JUST SAY WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME APPLICATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS [1:09:44] WARDS THAT ARE OPEN BOTH IMMEDIATELY THE THREE VACANCIES AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL SIX THAT END IN MAY. I DON'T HAVE A TOTAL NUMBER THAT [1:09:50] I COULD SHARE. >> OKAY, AND THEN JUST ANOTHER QUESTION AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF [1:09:56] THIS IS FOR MS. HASTINGS OR THE CLERK, FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO APPLY TO THE CCPO BUT DO NOT LIVE IN THE WARDS WHERE THERE IS [1:10:03] AN OPENING, ARE THEY BARRED FROM APPLYING? IN OTHER WORDS CAN YOU ONLY APPLY FOR A WARD THAT YOU LIVE [1:10:11] IN? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL TAKE THAT ONE. NO, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE [1:10:18] IN THE WARD. THE WARD BASIS IS FOR THE NOMINATING PROCESS, NOT FOR THE [1:10:27] RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. >> THANK YOU, THAT'S A HUGE QUESTION I'M GETTING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION, I [1:10:32] APPRECIATE YOUR GRAPHS. I THINK WE ALL LEARN DIFFERENTLY WHEN I READ YOUR REPORTS, WHEN I CAN SEE THE GRAPHS, I CAN REALLY [1:10:39] SEE THE CORRELATION. AND LET ME JUST SAY THAT I LEARN EVEN MORE AFTER THE MEETING WHEN I GO BACK AND REVIEW THE [1:10:44] MATERIALS AFTER HEARING WHAT YOU'VE SAID. SO APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH AND ALSO WANT TO SAY THE SAME TO THE [1:10:51] OPCR DIRECTOR. THESE MATERIALS ARE VERY HELPFUL, THEY'RE VERY DENSE AND IT DOES TAKE ME SEVERAL TIMES TO [1:10:56] REALLY GET THROUGH WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. AND I APPRECIATE YOU BOTH KEEPING AT IT. [1:11:01] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU. I ALSO CONCUR, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INTAKE DATA AND [1:11:08] INCIDENTS BY PRECINCT IS HOW YOU BROKE THE INFORMATION DOWN IN TERMS OF WHAT'S OUT THERE IS VERY HELPFUL. [1:11:13] ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, THANK YOU. I'LL DIRECT THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT REPORT. [1:11:18] NEXT WE'LL TAKE UP REPORTS FROM OUR STANDING COMMITTEES. I'VE ALLOCATED 15 MINUTES TO EACH COMMITTEE. [1:11:24] THE FIRST REPORT IS FROM OUR POLICE POLICY RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE, THAT [1:11:30] REPORT WILL BE GIVEN BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR. [1:11:36] I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO CELEBRATE. THE ENTIRE PPRR COMMITTEE IS HERE TONIGHT. SHOUT OUT TO YOU, THANK YOU. [1:11:42] AND THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK. EXCITED TO HAVE SOME MEATY REPORTS TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT [1:11:47] WE'VE BEEN UP TO. AND IF THERE IS ANY TIME AT THE END, PERHAPS WE CAN START THE [1:11:54] DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CYCLE OF REVIEW BETWEEN THE COMMITTEES. THAT'S SOMETHING I'M HOPING THAT [1:11:59] WE CAN EVENTUALLY FIGURE OUT. [1:12:04] SO FIRST, A BIG SHOUT OUT TO COMMISSIONER BASTICK, CANADAY, OLSEN, AND WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR [1:12:11] PARTICIPATION FOR YOUR HELP IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS AND ALSO A BIG SHOUT OUT TO CLERK [1:12:17] CARL AND MS. STAR FROM OPCR AND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE. [1:12:22] THEY HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL AND MR. WALDMAN FOR HELPING US MAKE [1:12:31] THIS COMMITTEE, EXECUTE THIS COMMITTEE. A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO LIEUTENANT ROBINSON FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS IMPLEMENTATION UNIT. [1:12:37] HE ATTENDED OUR LAST MEETING AND IT WAS REALLY POWERFUL TO HAVE HIM THERE IN PERSON. WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE [1:12:43] AND FIGURE OUT WHICH POLICIES AND THE TIMING OF WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO OUR JOB OF POLICY REVIEW. [1:12:51] SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PACKET HERE IS OUR, IT SHOULD SAY DRAFT [1:12:58] ALL OVER IT BECAUSE IT'S A DRAFT. IT IS OUR COMMENTS ON THE FOUR POLICIES THAT WE REVIEWED. [1:13:04] I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE WERE EXPERIMENTING. SO THE FIRST MONTH IN JANUARY WE [1:13:10] REVIEWED POLICIES THAT WERE UP FOR REVIEW AS YOU'LL REMEMBER ON THE PUBLIC WEBSITE. [1:13:15] AND LAST MONTH, WE THOUGHT WELL WE DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES ARE COMING UP AND WE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES AND WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS [1:13:22] UNKNOWN WHICH WERE NEXT SO WE JUST TOOK A SHOT OR TOOK A GUESS AND WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE [1:13:28] ACTIVE POLICIES. AND WE STARTED REALIZING BY GETTING THE BALL ROLLING, WE'RE [1:13:34] ABLE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FROM THE [1:13:41] IMPLEMENTATION UNIT AS WELL AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT ORDER [1:13:47] IN MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROCESS. HOPEFULLY WE'LL FINISH IT IN OUR MEETING IN MARCH OF LAYING OUT [1:13:53] WHICH POLICIES WE'LL REVIEW WHEN SO THAT PEOPLE CAN KNOW, PEOPLE [1:13:58] CAN PROVIDE INPUT AND THERE WILL BE SORT OF A STANDING APPROACH OR METHODICAL APPROACH TO HOW [1:14:04] WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS. SO THE FEBRUARY DRAFT IN YOUR PACKETS IS THE FOUR POLICIES, IN [1:14:13] PARTICULAR THE LONG AND REALLY MEATY POLICY IS 7-805 FOR CROWD [1:14:20] MANAGEMENT. AND WE HAD A LOT TO SAY. AND I WILL SHOUT OUT PEOPLE WHO WERE PART OF THE POLICE POLICY [1:14:26] RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS GROUP LAST YEAR AS WELL BECAUSE A LOT OF THE WORK WE DID IN [1:14:31] LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES CAME IN REALLY HANDY. SO WE WERE ABLE TO COMPARE POLICIES MPD IS PUTTING FORWARD [1:14:38] OR HAS IN ACTION RIGHT NOW WITH SOME OTHER CITIES, ESPECIALLY CITIES UNDER CONSENT DECREE AND CITIES OF A SIMILAR SIZE SO THAT [1:14:45] WE COULD REALLY SAY THIS IS IN THIS POLICY AND IT'S NOT IN MPD'S. HERE'S WHERE WE THINK THERE [1:14:50] MIGHT BE SOME PLACE FOR IMPROVEMENT. SO YOU'LL HAVE THIS FOR REVIEW. [1:14:57] MY HOPE IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE WILL NEXT BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, [1:15:06] THE JANUARY REPORT, AND THE FEBRUARY REPORT, AND PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK TO US SO WE CAN SUBMIT IT APPROPRIATELY. [1:15:11] WE SUBMITTED THE JANUARY 1 BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEADLINE. THE GOOD NEWS WE HEARD DIRECTLY [1:15:17] FROM LIEUTENANT ROBINSON IS THAT MPD IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW ANY FEEDBACK WE PROVIDE AT ANY TIME. [1:15:23] SO EVEN THOUGH WE MISSED A DEADLINE ON THE PUBLIC-FACING WEBSITE, IN FACT THOSE ARE WHEN [1:15:29] THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW FOR THE OVERSIGHT MONITOR. BUT THAT ANY FEEDBACK COMING IN [1:15:35] IN AN ONGOING MANNER FROM US WILL BE CONSIDERED SO WE WERE REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT AND THAT GOES FOR THE PUBLIC AS [1:15:41] WELL. SO AT THE END OF OUR REPORT, I PROVIDED A QR CODE AND A LINK FOR ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO [1:15:47] WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE POLICY, WE WELCOME YOU TO DO THAT. AND PLEASE KNOW IT WILL BE [1:15:58] CONSIDERED. IT'S A BIT LABORIOUS TO GO THROUGH THE POLICIES LINE BY [1:16:03] LINE, BUT THERE'S BIG REWARD IN HELPING TO MOVE POLICE WORK FORWARD. [1:16:08] WITH THAT, ANY COMMISSIONER HERE TONIGHT IN GENERAL WHO SIT ON THE DISCIPLINE PANELS, I'M GOING TO SET UP A SHARED FOLDER FOR US [1:16:15] THAT IF YOU ARE IN A REVIEW PANEL AND YOU NOTICE A POLICY THAT SEEMS UNCLEAR OR IS POORLY [1:16:21] APPLIED OR DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT [1:16:29] OR IS TOO SHORT, TOO LONG, YOU'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT IT, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PUT IT [1:16:35] IN THE FOLDER SO THE COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE TO PRIORITIZE AND TO LOOK INTO. [1:16:42] I HOPE THAT THAT IS -- WE WANT TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY IN THE POLICY REVIEW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT IS THE NEXT STEP. [1:16:51] AND THEN I HAVE A REMINDER, TALK FAST, GOOD. I HAVE A REMINDER FOR THE [1:16:57] MEETING, IT'S PROBABLY IN THE AGENDA LATER ON, BUT THERE IS AN ALEFA POLICY INFORMATION SESSION [1:17:03] BEING HELD NEXT WEDNESDAY AT 6:00 P.M. AT THE UKRAINIAN AMERICAN CENTER, 301 EAST MAIN [1:17:09] STREET. AND THE PPRR WILL BE REPRESENTED THERE, BUT WE INVITE EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE [1:17:14] COMMISSION, ANYONE IS WELCOME. AND WE WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AFTERWARDS [1:17:20] WITH YOU. SO BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT, FIRST I'D LIKE TO INVITE ANY OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO SHARE [1:17:26] ANYTHING I FORGOT AND THEN PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE A SHORT, SHORT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS AND WE'LL GO IN [1:17:33] ALPHABETICAL ORDER. BASTICK. >> THANK YOU. YOU DO AN AMAZING JOB CHAIRING [1:17:39] THIS. AND ALSO SHOUT OUT TO THE CITY CLERK WHO TAKES OUR MINUTES. I HAVE NO CLUE HOW YOU FOLLOW [1:17:45] ALONG AND YOU GET THOSE MINUTES OUT TO US BECAUSE IT'S TRULY, TRULY REMARKABLE AND MUCH [1:17:50] APPRECIATED. I HAVE A COMMENT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD [1:17:56] LET US KNOW. WE CURRENTLY HAVE FIVE MEMBERS [1:18:04] AND THERE'S ROOM FOR MORE MEMBERS, I THINK WE'RE ALLOWED TWO MORE, BUT I'M NOT SURE? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> FANTASTIC. [1:18:14] SO THE POINT THAT MARA MADE, IF YOU'RE ON A REVIEW PANEL AND THERE'S A POLICY THAT YOU'RE NOT [1:18:20] CLEAR ON, OR CLEARLY ONE OF THE OFFICERS BEING REVIEWED IS NOT CLEAR ON AND YOU FORWARD IT TO [1:18:25] US, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS, THAT THE BIGGEST GAIN THAT I [1:18:30] HAVE BEING ON THIS COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK, IT'S A LOT OF EXTRA TIME, IS AS A PANELIST, I HAVE FOUND IT [1:18:39] ENORMOUSLY USEFUL TO BE PART OF THIS PROCESS. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM [1:18:44] TAKING A LOOK AT THESE POLICIES AND I CAN TAKE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME ONTO A PANEL AND I CAN [1:18:50] MUCH, MUCH BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. AND IT'S JUST SUPER HELPFUL. [1:18:56] SO WE WOULD LOVE MORE HELP AND REALLY IT'S A SUPER PLUS IF YOU'RE ON A REVIEW PANEL, IT [1:19:01] REALLY IS HELPFUL. >> CANADAY. >> NOTHING TO ADD EXCEPT MY COMPLIMENTS. [1:19:09] >> OLSEN. >> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. [1:19:17] >> I AGREE WITH EVERYONE. >> I THINK THEY'RE SAYING TEAMWORK MAKES THE DREAM WORK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. [1:19:24] I WILL SAY, COMMISSIONER BASTICK, YOUR COMMENTS REMINDED ME TOO THAT WHEN MS. HASTINGS WAS UP HERE AND SHE WAS TALKING [1:19:31] ABOUT THE 2-100 POLICY, I HAPPEN [1:19:37] TO REMEMBER THAT IS AN INVESTIGATIONS SET OF POLICIES. SO WE ARE LEARNING A LOT. THOSE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE [1:19:43] PUBLIC, THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY POPULAR, BUT WE WELCOME ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DIG [1:19:49] IN AND REVIEW POLICY WITH US. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT [1:19:54] REPORT FROM THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME COLLABORATION. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT REVIEW CYCLE [1:20:00] COULD LOOK LIKE. SO WOULD LOVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW I CAN BE HELPFUL AS THE PPRR [1:20:06] CHAIR, WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE TO THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMISSION, THAT CONVERSATION I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. SO PERHAPS YOU'LL TOUCH ON THAT, [1:20:12] COMMISSIONER SMITH, WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN. YES, PLEASE. >> FIRST, I JUST WANT TO SAY, [1:20:19] COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD, WHEN YOU STARTED CHAIRING THIS COMMITTEE WHICH WAS FIRST THE WORK GROUP, IT WAS LIKE HERDING [1:20:26] CATS. SO CONGRATULATIONS. YOU HAVE LEARNED HOW TO HERD CATS. I JUST THINK THIS IS AN [1:20:32] EXCELLENT REPORT. I LIKE THE PROCESS WHERE WE CAN GET IT, WE CAN STUDY IT. I DO WANT TO MAKE A SPECIFIC [1:20:38] COMMENT ABOUT THE CROWD MANAGEMENT. AND I WANT TO PREFACE THIS WITH [1:20:45] SOMETHING SOMEBODY CAME TO ME AS A COMMISSIONER AND RELATED A VERY DISTURBING EVENT THAT HAPPENED IN DECEMBER. [1:20:51] A GROUP OF PEOPLE WENT TO SENATOR KLOBUCHAR'S OFFICE TO MAKE A POINT USING THEIR RIGHT [1:20:56] TO FREE SPEECH. THE MPD SHOWED UP. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE NUMBER OF 50 [1:21:01] WAS EXAGGERATED. THE PEOPLE WERE LEAVING SO THEY WERE ABIDING BY THE ORDER TO [1:21:10] LEAVE. ONE PERSON WAS ARRESTED ON FELONY RIOTING CHARGES. [1:21:16] I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT AN ARREST, NOT EVEN A CONVICTION [1:21:23] ON YOUR RECORD FOR FELONY RIOTING HAS WHEN YOU'RE A YOUNG PERSON, ANY PERSON. [1:21:28] THE REASON THEY DID THAT WAS SO THEY COULD HOLD THIS PERSON FOR TWO DAYS AND TEACH THEM A LESSON ABOUT EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO [1:21:34] FREE SPEECH. SO WHEN YOU HAVE IN THE POLICY ABOUT CROWD MANAGEMENT AND HOW [1:21:41] CIVIL DISTURBANCE CAN BE HARD TO RELATE WITH CIVIL UNREST AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, I THINK WE [1:21:47] NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FREE SPEECH, AND I [1:21:54] DON'T SEE THAT HERE. I'M NOT CRITICIZING IT, BUT I THINK THAT WHEN WE ONLY TALK TO [1:22:01] POLICE OFFICERS ABOUT CIVIL DISTURBANCE AND WE ARE NOT TEACHING THEM AND MAKING CLEAR [1:22:07] THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO [1:22:15] LIKE THE SPEECH, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO ARREST SOMEBODY AND TEACH THEM A LESSON AND BASICALLY SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO [1:22:21] GO THROUGH WITH THOSE CHARGES. AND BY THE WAY, THOSE CHARGES HANG OVER THIS PERSON AND CAN BE INITIATED INTO CHARGES AT ANY [1:22:28] TIME. THE ONE THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT JUST THE PROCESS AS A [1:22:35] WHOLE, I'M STILL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT MISSING DEADLINES. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE [1:22:41] SAYING THAT IT'S GOOD THAT MPD AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS WILL CONSIDER FEEDBACK AFTER A DEADLINE GOES. [1:22:47] BUT MY UNDERSTANDING AS A LAWYER AND READING THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS THAT IT IS HENNEPIN [1:22:55] COUNTY DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THAT HAS THE FINAL SAY ON WHETHER THESE POLICIES ARE GOING TO PASS MUSTER. [1:23:03] YOU SEND THIS TO THE JUDGE AND THEN LATER ON THERE'S FEEDBACK. [1:23:09] I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF LUCK GETTING THAT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK BEFORE THE JUDGE. AT THAT POINT, THIS JUDGE WHO [1:23:15] HAS MANY OTHER CASES, COMPLEX CASES, AND THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX ISN'T [1:23:21] GOING TO TAKE KINDLY TO REVIEWING SOMETHING THAT SHOULD [1:23:26] HAVE BEEN DONE AND ONLY BEEN ASKED ONE TIME. SO I STILL REMAIN INCREDIBLY [1:23:32] CONCERNED ABOUT THE 120 DAYS AND THE 40 DAYS. AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS HOW IT [1:23:38] IS THAT WE GET FEEDBACK AFTER IT'S GONE AND BEEN APPROVED BY THE JUDGE. [1:23:43] I'M GLAD THAT MPD WILL LISTEN TO IT, BUT IT LITERALLY HAS NO EFFECT IF THE JUDGE SAYS UH-UH, [1:23:50] YOU WASTED MY TIME BY COMING TO ME WITH SOMETHING AFTER THE FACT. WE HAVE TO GET A HANDLE ON THAT. [1:23:55] SO I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER JOB FOR THE COMMISSION OF HERDING CATS THAT WE HAVE TO [1:24:02] REALLY SETTLE. I DON'T THINK IT IS. >> I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE A REAL ISSUE IN OUR [1:24:08] TIMELINE. I DON'T THINK THINGS ARE GOING TO THE JUDGE. WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME TO [1:24:13] PROVIDE OUR INPUT BEFORE MPD FINALIZES THEIR VIEW OF THE POLICY THAT THEN GOES ON FOR [1:24:20] APPROVALS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING INVOLVED AFTER A JUDGE APPROVES A POLICY. [1:24:26] >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND ALSO WHAT WE LEARNED IS THAT THE POLICIES, I BELIEVE, UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAVE TO [1:24:32] BE REVIEWED REGULARLY. SO THE IDEA WAS IF IT DOESN'T GET IN THIS YEAR, IT WILL GET IN [1:24:38] THE NEXT ROUND. SO THE FEEDBACK IS ALWAYS BEING COLLECTED BECAUSE THE POLICIES AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN WE'RE [1:24:45] SERVING ON PANELS, IT WILL SAY WHEN IT WAS LAST UPDATED AT THE TOP OF THE POLICIES. SO IT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS. [1:24:50] AND THAT REMINDS ME, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP, COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. [1:24:56] IN THE THIRD TO LAST PAGE, PAGE FOUR IN OUR COMMITTEE REPORT AND [1:25:02] THEN THE VERY, VERY LAST PAGE OF YOUR PACKET, THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST VISUAL. WE DO HAVE A VISUAL BECAUSE THE [1:25:07] CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINED TO US THE TIMELINE FOR POLICY REVIEW AND WHAT THE DIFFERENT DEADLINES [1:25:12] AND TIMES MEAN. SO WE KINDLY ASKED THEM OR THEY KINDLY AGREED TO MAKE A VISUAL FOR US. [1:25:18] SO THERE'S AN EXPLANATION AT THE END OF OUR REPORT AS WELL WHICH [1:25:24] ESSENTIALLY CLARIFIED TO US THAT MOST OF THE POLICIES THAT MPD IS [1:25:30] PUTTING UP FOR REVIEW BECAUSE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE FOR 30 DAYS. AND THAT THEY ARE ELECTING TO [1:25:36] PUT, THEY'RE CHOOSING TO PUT UP MORE POLICIES AND THOSE [1:25:44] VOLUNTEERED POLICIES WERE POSTED AS WELL. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT BECAUSE TIME IS [1:25:50] RUNNING OUT. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ITEM TEN ON THE AGENDA AND THERE'S A WHOLE TIME FOR THAT. >> I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THERE. [1:25:57] STAY TUNED FOR MORE. THANK YOU FOR THE TITLE OF CAT HERDER. I THINK I WILL YIELD MY TIME, THANK YOU. [1:26:03] >> I'LL JUST SAY, THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY, VERY DETAILED REPORT. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT [1:26:09] THERE IS ONGOING POLICY REVIEW AND THAT IS NOT A STAGNANT TIME. AND IF IT GOES IN FRONT OF [1:26:15] WHOMEVER IT GOES IN FRONT OF, WE CAN CONTINUOUSLY ADD INPUT AND PROVIDE INPUT TO MPD ON POLICY [1:26:23] RECOMMENDATIONS WHETHER THEY COME THROUGH THE PPRR GROUP OR PROVIDE FEEDBACK PER THE QR CODE [1:26:29] WHICH IS A NICE 2025 ADDITION TO THE AGENDA. BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE POLICIES ARE, THAT THEY [1:26:35] HAVE INPUT. SO THIS IS A GREAT THING. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE HAVE 35 SECONDS. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. [1:26:41] >> THIS IS JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON ACRONYMS. FEW, I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY [1:26:46] IMPORTANT. THAT'S WHY WHENEVER I TALK ABOUT OPCR, I ALWAYS TRY TO SAY OFFICE OF POLICE CONDUCT REVIEW. [1:26:53] IT'S NOT INTUITIVE. I WOULD SAY THAT THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL IS STILL [1:27:01] BEHEMOTH. AND I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT -- IF I READ IT WRONG, LET ME NO -- THAT THERE WOULD BE ACRONYMS AT THE BEGINNING OF [1:27:09] EACH SECTION. I THINK THAT MIGHT ADD A LOT OF EXTRA PAGES AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS ANOTHER [1:27:14] WAY OF REFERRING TO THE LIST OF ACRONYMS LIKE ACRONYMS IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OR BY NUMBER [1:27:19] AS OPPOSED TO LISTING THEM JUST SO THAT WE'RE REALLY CAREFUL [1:27:24] ABOUT NOT ADDING TO MORE PAGES -- I THINK IT'S 700 PAGES [1:27:30] THE MPD POLICE AND POLICY REVIEW. >> IT IS. NOTED. >> ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO OTHER HANDS UP AND WE ARE OUT OF TIME [1:27:37] I'LL DIRECT THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT REPORT IS FROM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE. [1:27:42] THAT REPORT WILL BE GIVEN BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER [1:27:49] SMITH. >> MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? WE HAD A MEETING WITH ALL OF OUR [1:27:59] MEMBERS PRESENT I BELIEVE AND COVERED A LOT OF GROUND. THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS WAS FOR US TO ELECT COMMISSIONER STEWART AS OUR VICE CHAIR OF THE [1:28:05] COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE. SO THAT WAS IMPORTANT. [1:28:11] SECONDLY, WE TOOK UP A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ANNUAL [1:28:17] PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COMMISSION. AND WE HAD A PRETTY WIDE RANGING DISCUSSION REFLECTING ON LAST [1:28:24] YEAR'S HEARING ON OPTIONS SUCH AS HOLDING MULTIPLE HEARINGS IN [1:28:31] MULTIPLE LOCATIONS, NORTH SIDE, SOUTH SIDE, VARIOUS POINTS AROUND THE CITY. I THINK WE CAME TO A CONSENSUS [1:28:37] AS A COMMITTEE THAT THE LOCATION NOT IN THIS BUILDING, BUT THE [1:28:42] NEWER, NICER PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING IS A VERY GOOD CENTRAL [1:28:48] ACCESSIBLE LOCATION THAT HAS THE [1:28:53] EQUIPMENT TO TELEVISE THE CITY COMMUNITY RESOURCES. SO THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HAVE [1:29:00] ONE HEARING WE MIGHT LATER IN THE YEAR FIND OTHER OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THAT WE FOCUS ON ONE. [1:29:09] THAT WE COME WITH A NICE PREPARATION OF A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ROLE OF CCPO. [1:29:16] AND SOME REFLECTION ON OUR WORK AND HOW WE FIT WITHIN THE [1:29:23] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE AS WELL AS OUR ROLE IN [1:29:28] COMMENTING ON POLICY. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT RESOURCES CAN BE PRESENT AT THAT HEARING BOTH WITHIN THE [1:29:34] CITY OR OTHER COMMUNITY RESOURCES AS OFTEN. [1:29:42] I THINK WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCES IN THESE SETTINGS OF COMMENTS THAT REFLECT A WIDE VARIETY OF EXPERIENCES, SOME TRAUMATIC AND [1:29:49] HOW CAN THERE BE RESOURCES IN PLACE WITHIN REASON OF WHAT'S [1:29:55] AVAILABLE. ALSO HOW CAN THE RESOURCES OF THE CITY ENTERPRISE HELP SUPPORT THE COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH [1:30:01] TO PUBLICIZE THIS PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE HAVE STRONG PARTICIPATION. [1:30:07] AND WE ALSO THOUGHT THAT AGAIN, [1:30:13] CCPO'S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR ROLE IN COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT [1:30:19] SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY HELP BE CLEAR ABOUT. [1:30:28] THE REPORT SUGGESTS THAT I SCHEDULED THE HEARING, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT WAS A COMMITTEE DISCUSSION. AND IT IS A RECOMMENDATION TO [1:30:34] THE FULL COMMISSION THAT WE HOLD THAT HEARING ON TUESDAY, MAY 13TH AT 6:30 P.M. IT WAS [1:30:41] BASED IN PART ON LOOKING AT OUR GENERAL SCHEDULE AND ALSO [1:30:46] KNOWING WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT ROOM 100 IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER OR BUILDING OR [1:30:52] WHATEVER THE NEW ONE IS CALLED. [1:30:57] SO THAT'S OUR REPORT ABOUT RECOMMENDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13TH AT 6:30 P.M., A TIME [1:31:04] WHEN WE THOUGHT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING DURING THE DAY CAN STILL GET THERE AT A REASONABLE TIME IN THE EVENING. [1:31:10] WE THEN TOOK UP SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POLICY REVIEW PROCESS, [1:31:18] AND WE DECIDED THAT FIRST OF ALL WE WOULD GO TO OUR MARCH MEETING [1:31:26] TO HOLD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON PPRR'S WORK IN JANUARY AND NOW YOUR MOST [1:31:33] RECENT FEBRUARY REPORT SO THAT THOSE POLICIES AND THE COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF THOSE [1:31:39] POLICIES CAN BE PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS SUCH FOR OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING WHICH I [1:31:45] BELIEVE IS MARCH 18TH. WE ALSO THEN GOT INTO THIS SAME [1:31:51] DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF [1:31:58] POLICIES AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THAT REVIEW. [1:32:04] AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS REASSURING TO HEAR THAT THERE'S A FLEXIBILITY ABOUT WHENEVER THE [1:32:09] COMMISSION OFFERS COMMENTS THAT THOSE CAN BE TAKEN IN AND WE [1:32:15] DIDN'T, WE HAD A PREVIEW OF THIS [1:32:23] FLYER THAT WE'LL DISCUSS MORE IN MORE DETAIL. IT WAS GREAT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS [1:32:29] AND KNOW THAT THEY WOULD BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED AT ANYTIME. BUT WE ESPECIALLY WANT TO BE [1:32:38] RELEVANT TO THE PROCESS OF ALL OF THE OTHER ACTORS OF THE PROCESS AND CONSENT DECREE. [1:32:43] SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP COORDINATING. AND I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PRIORITIZING [1:32:50] POLICIES FOR REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING IS TIMELY AND RELEVANT TO THE WORK OF OTHERS. [1:33:00] THEN, WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD HOLD THAT MARCH 18TH MEETING FOR [1:33:07] THE POLICIES THAT PPRR REVIEWED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. THEN WE NOTED THAT THE CITY [1:33:13] STAFF HAD PREPARED A DRAFT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN FOR CCPO. [1:33:20] AND WE WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD GET OUR HANDS ON THAT DRAFT PLAN AND CONSIDER IT AS A COMMITTEE AT OUR MARCH MEETING AND BRING [1:33:28] THAT BACK THEN TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE ENGAGED IN COMMUNITY OUTREACH IN A PLANFUL [1:33:36] WAY. SO WE'LL PLAN ON BRINGING THAT FORWARD AFTER OUR MARCH MEETING. AND WITH THAT, LET ME TURN TO MY [1:33:42] OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO SEE WHAT OTHER PIECES I MIGHT BE [1:33:48] MISSING. I SEE -- >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> YES, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE RECAP. [1:33:55] I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST, I LOVE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE MARCH 18TH MEETING, INVITING [1:34:02] THE PUBLIC TO SPECIFICALLY COMMENT ON THE POLICY. HOW DO WE GET THAT OUT? HOW IS THAT BEING GIVEN TO THE [1:34:09] PUBLIC OTHER THAN US SAYING THIS HERE AND NOW? [1:34:15] WHAT ARE WE DOING TO SAY TO THE PUBLIC, AT THE PARTICULAR PPRR MEETING OR THE COMMUNITY [1:34:20] ENGAGEMENT MEETING WE'RE GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THIS IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS OR IDEAS. HOW ARE WE GETTING THAT OUT? [1:34:26] >> WE SPOKE ABOUT HAVING IT ON LIMS. WE SPOKE ABOUT BRINGING IT TO THE NEXT ALEFA COMMUNITY [1:34:32] MEETING. WE SPOKE ABOUT ALL OF US SHARING IT ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA [1:34:39] PLATFORMS. AND THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DRAFT FLYER POSSIBLY MADE THAT WE COULD SHARE. [1:34:45] >> THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHO'S MAKING UP THE DRAFT FLYER, THE TALKING POINTS SO THEY'RE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE SOCIAL MEDIA THAT WE SHARE AND WHAT WE [1:34:51] PUT ON LIMS. SO IT'S THE NUTS AND BOLTS I'M TALKING ABOUT. WE DON'T WANT TO BE PUTTING OUT [1:35:01] SEPARATE VERSIONS OF THIS. WE WANT ONE UNIFORM THING. IS THERE STAFF THAT DOES THAT, DO WE DO IT ON OUR OWN? [1:35:08] HOW DO WE GET THAT DONE? >> COMMISSIONER STEWART, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? [1:35:13] WHAT I'LL SAY AND IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF THE CITY CAN HELP WITH THE FLYER WITH THAT [1:35:20] COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING ON MARCH 18TH. PERHAPS COMMISSIONER SMITH CAN HELP AND THE COMMITTEE CAN DRAFT [1:35:26] SOMETHING TO GET OUT BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW. PERHAPS THEY CAN PUT IT OUT ON THEIR TIKTOK IF THEY HAVE [1:35:31] VARIOUS WAYS TO GET IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC WHICH IS HELPFUL. I THINK THE COMMITTEE CAN WORK TO GET THAT INFORMATION OUT. [1:35:39] IN THE NORMAL CHANNELS THE CITY HAS TO PUT OUT PUBLIC MEETINGS. [1:35:48] COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> I DID BRING UP -- CITY AND I [1:35:54] DON'T SEE THE PHRASE IN THE NOTES. I FIND THAT FRUSTRATING. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. [1:36:00] I BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THERE WAS A [1:36:11] CONTRACT PASSED FOR $500,000. AFTERWARDS WE HAD THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS IN [1:36:18] IT A SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH THAT REQUIRES THERE TO BE A COMMUNITY SURVEY AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE BEEN BEING ASKED BY THE [1:36:26] PUBLIC IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT $500,000 CONTRACT IS BEING USED TO CHECK OFF THE BOX AND SAY [1:36:31] THAT WE'VE GOT THAT COVERED. AND SO, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO COME UP AND GET AN ANSWER TO [1:36:37] THAT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PROPERLY REFLECT THIS IN THE NOTES OF OUR MEETING. [1:36:43] WE HAD SOME VERY TROUBLING PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY ABOUT IT. AND I WILL NOTE TODAY THAT I [1:36:50] ALSO LEARNED GOING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, I HEARD THE PRESENTATION FROM THEM AND I HAD [1:36:57] SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THERE IS NO COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN WHAT [1:37:02] THEY'RE DOING AND ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T COME OUT AT THE AEO MEETING, I LEARNED TODAY THAT [1:37:08] THEY HAVE NOW GOT A CONTRACT TO DO THE SURVEY AT GEORGE FLOYD SQUARE. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT GOT [1:37:15] DONE, IT WASN'T PUBLIC NOTICED AND I WAS TOLD IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE. SO THERE ARE SOME REAL CONCERNS [1:37:21] GOING ON INCLUDING THE FACT WHAT WE HEARD TODAY THAT THERE IS AN ISRAELI SURVEILLANCE COMPANY THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN [1:37:29] APARTHEID AND GENOCIDE FOR DECADES AND WE NEED TO TAKE WHAT THE PUBLIC BRINGS TO US SERIOUSLY. [1:37:35] SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE COULD AMEND THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NOTES TO SHOW THAT [1:37:42] THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON THAT. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> MADAM CHAIR, I DO AGREE WITH [1:37:47] COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN, THAT THE QUESTION OF THIS COMMUNITY SURVEY CAME UP AT THE [1:37:53] END OF THE MEETING ABOUT CCPO COMMUNICATIONS GENERALLY AND THEN HOW THAT FIT WITH THE [1:38:00] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND I BELIEVE WE HAD A COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO AT LEAST [1:38:06] ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT WHEN WE HAVE OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING WE'LL BE REVIEWING THE MINUTES [1:38:12] OR THE SUMMARY AND WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS APPROPRIATE TO [1:38:18] REFLECT THAT. BUT MAYBE THERE'S ALSO MORE NEWS TO OFFER HERE. >> THANK YOU, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE SOME OF US WERE NOT AT THE MEETING SO WE'RE [1:38:25] NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED AT YOUR COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN CAN [1:38:30] BRING UP WHAT MAY BE MISSING AT THE MINUTES AND YOU CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION AND BRING THAT [1:38:38] BACK. >> THANK YOU BOTH. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER [1:38:43] GURIAN-SHERMAN. MAYBE A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR FOLKS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CITY [1:38:49] ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IMPLEMENTATION UNIT. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON [1:38:55] COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN'S QUESTION. IT CAME UP IN RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY SURVEY THAT IS [1:39:00] REQUIRED UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO WE TOOK A PEEK AND LOOKED BACK AND IT'S IN SETTLEMENT [1:39:08] AGREEMENT PARAGRAPH 415 SPECIFICALLY. AND I CAN KIND OF GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT SO Y'ALL [1:39:13] DON'T HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT IT. IT'S SPECIFICALLY AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR REQUIREMENT. [1:39:18] SO THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY ITSELF TO DO THAT SURVEY. SO ALEFA AS THE CITY'S [1:39:27] INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR IS REQUIRED TO DO A COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY, AN ANNUAL SURVEY EACH [1:39:35] YEAR BOTH TO THE COMMUNITY BROADLY AND INTERNALLY WITHIN MPD. SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> THANK YOU. [1:39:43] >> IT DOESN'T FULLY ANSWER THAT. BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MY READING OF THAT PARAGRAPH IS [1:39:52] IT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE $500,000 CONTRACT THAT WAS [1:39:57] GIVEN PRIOR TO THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEING [1:40:02] AFFECTUATED IS GOING TO BE USED TO CHECK OFF THE BOX FOR THAT. AND WHAT I LEARNED TODAY AT THE [1:40:07] AEO MEETING WAS VERY SPECIFIC. THE LAWYER SAID ALL OF THE DATA GOES TO MPD, ALL OF IT GOES TO [1:40:15] ALEFA, AND SO THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN THAT AND IF THEY'RE INVOLVED IN THAT, THEN [1:40:20] THAT CONTRACT, THAT SPECIFIC CONTRACT MUST BE BEING USED TO CHECK OFF THE BOX. AND I WILL SAY ONE OF THE THINGS [1:40:26] THAT ALARMED ME IS COUNCILMEMBER [1:40:31] RIGHTLY POINTED OUT WHAT KIND OF MEASURES ARE BEING USED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THE DATA THAT THEY GIVE, THE INFORMATION [1:40:37] THAT THEY GIVE WILL BE PROTECTED AND THEY PROVIDED AN ANSWER FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALEFA IS [1:40:43] DOING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MPD IS DOING. AND IN FACT THEY MADE IT A POINT OF SAYING MPD OWNS THE RIGHTS TO [1:40:49] THIS. SO THAT MEANS THEY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE IT'S PROTECTED AND WE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THAT. [1:40:54] AND OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW AT ALL WHAT ALEFA IS DOING WHEN THEY GET THE INFORMATION, HOW THEY'RE PROTECTING IT. [1:41:00] SO I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS AROUND THIS BOTH IN TERMS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND JUST [1:41:07] PRACTICALITY. >> CHAIR REEVES, COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN, TO ANSWER THAT [1:41:12] QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DISTINCT SETS OF THINGS. THE CONTRACT THAT YOU'RE [1:41:17] SPEAKING OF IS WITH MPD AND THE CITY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT WITHIN 415 IS [1:41:24] SPECIFICALLY WITH ALEFA. SO ALEFA IS ABLE TO SET UP THAT COMMUNITY SURVEY HOWEVER THEY [1:41:30] SEE FIT. I THINK COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD GAVE A SHOUT OUT FOR THE ALEFA MEETING ON MARCH 12TH. [1:41:36] I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION THAT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO ASK THERE AS WELL, BUT THIS IS NOT A CITY REQUIREMENT. [1:41:41] THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JUST TO FOLLOW UP THOUGH, IT [1:41:46] IS A CITY CONTRACT THAT WAS MADE BEFORE ALEFA WAS EVEN BORN. [1:41:52] AND MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE IS A MIXING OF APPLES AND ORANGES. THAT WE ARE USING A CITY [1:42:00] CONTRACT FOR ZEN CITY TO MAKE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT LOOK GOOD KIND OF SURVEYS AND THAT THAT IS [1:42:06] BEING USED TO CHECK OFF THE BOX. SO WHEN YOU PASS IT OFF AND SAY IT'S ALEFA, IT'S A CITY CONTRACT [1:42:13] THAT PREDATED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET AN [1:42:21] ANSWER FROM ESPECIALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT WHETHER THAT CONTRACT IS BEING USED TO [1:42:26] PAY FOR AND IMPLEMENT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVISION. >> I THINK I CAN ANSWER [1:42:32] DIRECTLY, NO. SO THIS CONTRACT IS SPECIFIC TO THE CITY AND MPD. ALEFA, AS THE INDEPENDENT [1:42:38] EVALUATOR AS STATED IN 415, HAS ANOTHER PROCESS THEY HAVE TO DO [1:42:44] INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLSEN. >> THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO LET THE TIME [1:42:49] EXPIRE, WE HAVE EIGHT SECONDS LEFT. AND I DON'T WANT TO EXTEND IT. >> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE ONE ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT WE DO NEED TO DO HOWEVER [1:42:55] FROM THIS COMMITTEE. >> WE DO NEED TO PASS THE MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON [1:43:01] MAY 13TH. SO COMMISSIONER SMITH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY MAKE THE MOTION. >> YES, SO MOVED. [1:43:07] >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? >> I'LL SECOND. >> THANK YOU. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A [1:43:13] SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> CAN IT BE REPEATED WHAT DATE AND TIME THE MEETING IS? [1:43:18] I HEARD THE LOCATION, BUT NOT THE TIME. >> 6:30 P.M. >> AND THEN WOULD WE STILL HAVE [1:43:23] THE TRADITIONAL CCPO MEETING IN MAY AS WELL? OR WOULD THAT BE REPLACING OUR MEETING? [1:43:28] >> SEPARATE. TWO MEETINGS IN MAY. >> TWO MEETINGS IN MAY, GOT IT. [1:43:36] >> MAYBE JUST FOR DISCUSSION'S SAKE, CAN WE ADD THAT TO OUR CALENDAR. WE NEED TO UPDATE THE CALENDAR [1:43:41] ANYWAY, SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT CAN ALL BE ON THERE. >> THANK YOU. CLERK CARL. [1:43:46] >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER CLEMENT. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. [1:43:52] >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. [1:43:57] >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. [1:44:03] >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> AYE. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> YES. >> THERE ARE 11 AYES. [1:44:09] >> WE NOW HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING MAY 13TH AT 6:30 P.M. AT THE [1:44:14] PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING. THIS IS WONDERFUL AND I HOPE THE COMMUNITY COMES. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. WE'LL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE [1:44:20] AND FILE THAT REPORT AS WELL. SO WE ARE DONE WITH THE REPORTS ON THE AGENDA. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS [1:44:26] UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND WE HAVE ONE ITEM. WE HAVE AN UNFINISHED AGENDA ITEM FROM LAST WEEK OR LAST [1:44:32] MONTH, EXCUSE ME, RELATED TO CCPO INPUT ON THE POLICE CHIEF EVALUATION. I WILL NOW INVITE COMMISSIONER [1:44:38] BARNETT WITH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR HAVING ME, I'M TODD [1:44:46] BARNETT, THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMUNITY SAFETY FOR THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. [1:44:52] I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT CCPO'S [1:44:59] INPUT TO THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF'S EVALUATION. AS YOU KNOW, THIS BODY, THIS [1:45:07] COMMISSION IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY THAT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICE OVERSIGHT. [1:45:15] AND THEREFORE THIS BODY HAS BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE [1:45:23] REVIEW. AND THIS AUTHORITY IS DERIVED FROM YOUR BYLAWS, ARTICLE 9 A5. [1:45:31] I TAKE YOUR ROLE IN THIS PROCESS VERY SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE YOUR [1:45:37] ROLE IS ESSENTIAL TO FOSTERING A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMUNITY, [1:45:43] ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS, AND COMMITTED TO ONGOING IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM. [1:45:49] THIS BUILDS TRUST, AND IT ALSO GIVES ME A DIVERSE PERSPECTIVE. [1:45:54] IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOUR INPUT CAN HELP GUIDE ME IN PRIORITIZING THE INITIATIVES [1:46:03] THAT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AS WELL FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. [1:46:08] WE'VE MET INTERNALLY AND DISCUSSED AND ARE FORMULATING A [1:46:13] PROCESS IN WHICH I BELIEVE WILL BECOME THE NORM FOR THE POLICE [1:46:19] CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW, ANNUAL REVIEW, I SHOULD SAY AS FAR AS YOUR ROLE IN HAVING INPUT [1:46:26] INTO THAT. WE'RE WORKING TO FIND THE BEST [1:46:31] MECHANISMS IN WHICH TO ATTAIN FROM EACH OF YOU YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND INPUT ON THE CHIEF'S REVIEW. [1:46:39] SOME OF THE AREAS THAT, AND IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE YOU HAVE INPUT ON HIS OVERALL [1:46:45] PERFORMANCE, POLICE REFORM, ACCOUNTABILITY, PRACTICES AND [1:46:51] POLICY IMPLEMENTATION, ALSO LONG-TERM PLANNING AND THE VISION LONG TERM FOR THE [1:46:56] MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT IS MY INTENTION TO HAVE A FINAL PLAN FOR THIS PROCESS [1:47:02] REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, [1:47:10] AND OF COURSE OUR HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT BY THE END OF THIS [1:47:15] MONTH. SO THAT IS THE UPDATE, HOPEFULLY THAT WAS BRIEF ENOUGH FOR YOU, CHAIR. [1:47:22] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? [1:47:28] COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. I'M SORRY? [1:47:38] DID I MISS SOMEONE? >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BARNETT. I APPRECIATE THAT. [1:47:44] I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS COMMISSION HAS A ROLE IN DEFINING THIS PLAN THAT YOU'RE [1:47:50] GOING TO PUT OUT? FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP A PLAN AND GIVE IT TO [1:47:56] US. I THINK WE SHOULD BE SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN THAT PLAN. [1:48:02] CAN YOU DISCUSS THAT? >> CHAIR REEVES, COMMISSIONER [1:48:07] GURIAN-SHERMAN, THE WAY I READ YOUR BYLAWS IS THAT YOU HAVE [1:48:15] INPUT INTO THE CHIEF'S OVERALL EVALUATION, ANNUAL EVALUATION. [1:48:25] IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL WAY IN DOING THAT. [1:48:31] THAT'S WHY INTERNALLY WE'VE REALLY DISCUSSED WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GET THE INPUT BECAUSE [1:48:38] THIS IS A PERSONNEL ISSUE. AND I SAY PERSONNEL BECAUSE IT'S NOT, HIS EVALUATION IS NOT [1:48:43] PUBLIC. SO HOW DO I GET THAT INFORMATION FROM EACH ONE OF YOU, HAVING [1:48:48] THAT DIVERSE PERSPECTIVE THAT [1:48:54] COMPLIES WITH OUR HR RULES AND ALSO MEETS THE STANDARDS THAT [1:49:00] THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE COMING UP WITH THE PLAN. >> SO CAN I JUST FOLLOW UP ON [1:49:06] THAT? >> YES. >> SO YOUR GOAL IS TO MEET WITH EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY? >> NO, I SAID TO GET INPUT, YOUR [1:49:14] INDIVIDUAL INPUT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. [1:49:20] >> I KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT SOMEBODY DID BRING UP THE EVALUATION OF THE CHIEF IN [1:49:27] REGARDS TO THE HIRING DECISIONS THAT THE CHIEF HAS MADE REGARDING OFFICER TIMBERLAKE WHO [1:49:35] WAS HIRED AFTER HE HAD USED A HOLD THAT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT [1:49:41] MURDERED GEORGE FLOYD. THERE WAS COMMENTARY ABOUT HIRING A PARTICULAR POLICE [1:49:47] OFFICER, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. WITHERSPOON WHO WAS INVOLVED [1:49:52] IN THE SOUNDS LIKE TORTUROUS DEATH OF LUCAS BELLAMY THAT RESULTED IN A $3.4 MILLION [1:49:59] LAWSUIT AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE ANOTHER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS PERSON SAID AND I JUST WANT TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS IS [1:50:06] THAT THE CCPO SHOULD HAVE A [1:50:12] PUBLIC HEARING SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING MAY 13TH IF I [1:50:17] HEARD IT RIGHT MAYBE THEY WERE SAYING IT SHOULD BE PART OF MAY 13TH OR THE ALTERNATIVE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HAVING A [1:50:23] PUBLIC HEARING THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SPEAK TO [1:50:28] ONCE YOU HAVE A PLAN LAID OUT ABOUT WHAT THE PLAN IS AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE COMMENTING ON? [1:50:34] HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CHIEF'S [1:50:43] EVALUATION? >> CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A [1:50:48] PUBLIC HEARING, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE BE? [1:50:54] >> TO BE NOTHING BUT GETTING THE PUBLIC'S COMMENT ON WHETHER THEY FEEL THE CHIEF HAS MET OR NOT MET STANDARDS FOR BEING [1:51:02] RECOMMENDED FOR RECONTRACTING. >> CHAIR REEVES, COMMISSIONER [1:51:08] GURIAN-SHERMAN, THE WAY THAT I READ YOUR ROLE HERE IS THAT THIS [1:51:16] BODY REPRESENTS THE PUBLIC. AND SO FROM MY VIEW, YOUR INPUT [1:51:23] IS THE PUBLIC'S VIEW. CITIZENS, RESIDENTS, VISITORS, [1:51:32] WHOEVER, THERE ARE OTHER CHANNELS FOR THEM TO FILE COMPLAINTS OR GIVE THEIR VIEWS. [1:51:42] AND THAT HAPPENS QUITE FREQUENTLY. SO IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I'M NOT [1:51:48] THE ONE TO TELL THIS BODY WHETHER THEY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT. BUT I VIEW EACH MEMBER AS [1:51:54] REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC. THAT'S THE WAY I READ YOUR ROLE. >> THANK YOU. [1:51:59] >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I KNOW YOU'RE STILL FIGURING OUT [1:52:06] THE PROCESS. AND I'M JUST IMAGINING SOMETHING [1:52:17] ONLINE. AND YOU ARE THINKING THROUGH WHAT THOSE SORT OF CATEGORIES OF [1:52:23] FEEDBACK ARE AND THAT MAKES SENSE. MY ONLY CATEGORY OF FEEDBACK WOULD BE THAT WE PERHAPS BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE YOU [1:52:29] FINALIZE THAT PROCESS, MAYBE A LITTLE UPDATE AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE BECAUSE YOU SAY [1:52:35] YOU'RE HOPING TO ACTUALLY FINALIZE THE PROCESS BY THE END OF THIS MONTH. I THINK IT WOULD BE ENORMOUSLY [1:52:42] HELPFUL FOR THIS BODY TO RECEIVE A LIST OF THE CATEGORIES, I [1:52:50] IMAGINE AN ONLINE FORM SENT INDIVIDUALLY, A LIST OF THE CATEGORIES SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE GET TO COMMENT ON. AND I WOULD REALLY, REALLY, [1:52:56] REALLY RECOMMEND AS A PROCESS PERSON THAT AT THE VERY END THAT YOU GIVE US A CHANCE TO HAVE [1:53:04] ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. MAYBE LIMIT IT, BUT THAT WOULD BE ENORMOUSLY HELPFUL JUST IN [1:53:09] CASE YOU DON'T HIT ALL OF THE POINTS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE INTERESTED MAYBE IN DIFFERENT THINGS. [1:53:15] THANK YOU. >> CHAIR, COMMISSIONER BASTICK, [1:53:26] MY PAST EXPERIENCE WITH PERFORMANCE REVIEWS HAVE ALWAYS INCLUDED SORT OF ANY COMMENTS [1:53:33] THAT YOU HAVE. SO I THINK THAT WILL DEFINITELY BE IN THERE AS WELL. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. [1:53:39] >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> YEAH, I JUST HAD TWO QUESTIONS. [1:53:45] ONE, DO WE KNOW AND IS IT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHEN THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CHIEF IS HAPPENING? AND THEN TWO, I JUST WANTED TO [1:53:52] CLARIFY THAT IF THIS BODY WERE TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON IT, WE COULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING [1:53:57] WHERE PEOPLE GIVE THEIR OPINION OF THE CHIEF'S PERFORMANCE? >> SAY AGAIN YOUR SECOND [1:54:03] QUESTION. >> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IF THIS BODY DECIDED TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON IT, WE COULD DECIDE [1:54:08] TO DEDICATE A HEARING TO HEARING THE PUBLIC'S FEEDBACK ON CHIEF [1:54:15] O'HARA'S PERFORMANCE? >> YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE [1:54:22] TIMELINE, I PRETTY MUCH HAVE DELAYED THE EVALUATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS INPUT IS GIVEN [1:54:29] AND SO IN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS THAT -- I'M [1:54:36] SORRY, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE IS [1:54:45] ONE THAT WOULD BE THE NORM GOING FORWARD FOR THE FUTURE. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT IF THAT'S HELPFUL. [1:54:51] AND THAT'S BEEN SORT OF THE DELAY HERE. >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY THERE [1:54:56] HASN'T BEEN A DATE DETERMINED WHEN THAT IS HAPPENING? >> NO, NOT EXACTLY. >> AND THEN TO THE SECOND QUESTION, JUST WANTED THE [1:55:04] CLARIFICATION. >> ON THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> YES. >> WHETHER OR NOT -- >> JUST CLARIFYING FROM WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER THAT IF THIS [1:55:12] BODY, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THIS BODY FROM DISCUSSING AND VOTING ON THAT -- >> NO, I WAS SAYING THAT I DON'T [1:55:20] FEEL LIKE THAT I PLAY A FACTOR ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS BODY HAS A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT. [1:55:27] I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S [1:55:34] POSSIBLE. MY ONLY COMMENT WAS JUST THAT I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS MY [1:55:39] PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST ADD WHEN YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TIMELINE OR WHEN WE [1:55:45] CAN GET THAT INFORMATION, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN START TO GENERATE THAT INFORMATION. [1:55:50] IT WOULD BE NICE TO HEAR FROM ALL INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS WHAT THEY THINK AND IT'S A GOOD TIME FOR EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY. [1:55:56] I PREFER THAT THAN HAVING TO COME AS A BODY AND A COMMISSION SO EVERYONE CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY. [1:56:02] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> COULD I JUST ASK ONE I GUESS IT'S A TECHNICAL QUESTION. [1:56:09] WHEN IS THE CHIEF'S CONTRACT UP? WHAT IS THE LAST DAY? [1:56:15] >> I AM SO SORRY -- CHAIR. >> CAN WE JUST GET IT IN AN EMAIL OR SOMETHING? [1:56:22] I'M JUST CURIOUS. >> I WILL HAVE TO FIND OUT, I THINK HE SIGNED A FOUR YEAR [1:56:28] CONTRACT. >> I DO BELIEVE YES THAT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. [1:56:36] >> THANK YOU. >> WE'LL RECEIVE AND FILE THAT REPORT AS WELL. NEXT UP WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS AND WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. [1:56:41] WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE TIMELINE FOR A POLICY FEEDBACK SUBMISSION. WE HAVE 15 MINUTES FOR THIS [1:56:46] ITEM. ATTACHED YOU'LL FIND A ONE PAGER OUTLINING ALL OF THE RELEVANT [1:56:52] TIMELINES FOR POLICY FEEDBACK AS PRESENTED AT THE PPRR MEETING IN FEBRUARY. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO [1:57:00] EMPHASIZE A TIMELINE AT THIS MEETING. I'LL INVITE STAFF TO BRINTRODUC [1:57:07] THEMSELVES AND START THAT PRESENTATION. [1:57:12] >> SAMANTHA ALSO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. >> AND A QUICK THANKS. I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT IT A BIT [1:57:18] AT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING. BUT THANK YOU TO OPCR WHO MADE IT. [1:57:24] OPCR WAS THE ENTITY TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT MADE IT SO THANKS TO THEM FOR THAT. WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN [1:57:30] OPPORTUNE TIME TO SPEAK DIRECTLY KIND OF TO CLEAR CONFUSION UP [1:57:35] SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TIMELINE PROCESS, THE FEEDBACK PROCESS, AND SO WITH ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE OUT THERE, OPCR WENT AHEAD [1:57:43] AND DRAFTED THIS DOCUMENT TO PUT EVERYTHING, COMPILE EVERYTHING INTO ONE PLACE. AND SO KIND OF JUST GIVING YOU [1:57:49] ALL A REFRESHER AND TO NOTE AS WELL SO NOTHING ON THIS, I BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY IN THE [1:57:55] LAST PAGE OF YOUR DOCUMENTS. BUT NONE OF THIS IS NEW. SO THIS IS ALL NOTHING HAS [1:58:02] CHANGED SINCE THESE DEADLINES HAVE BEEN OUT THERE. SO AGAIN THIS IS JUST KIND OF A REFRESHER. I WILL PULL IT UP HERE ON MY [1:58:08] END. [1:58:15] I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO IS A BIT EASIER. AND SO THIS SPECIFICALLY IS THE [1:58:23] 45 DAY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRED DEADLINE. AND SO MPD HAS A SETTLEMENT [1:58:28] AGREEMENT REQUIRED. SO THAT'S WITHIN PARAGRAPHS 27 AND 28. [1:58:35] DEADLINE OR TIMELINE FOR COMMUNITY TO SOLICIT COMMUNITY [1:58:40] FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY BROADLY. THOSE ARE FOR SPECIFIC [1:58:45] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CALLED OUT POLICIES. SO THOSE ARE I THINK FOR YOUR EASE OF USE, KIND OF OUR [1:58:51] MISSION, VISION, VALUES, AND GOALS ARE USE OF FORCE, [1:59:01] NONDISCRIMINATORY POLICING, AND STOP AND ARREST. THOSE ARE POLICIES IN THOSE LARGE BUCKETS THAT THE [1:59:07] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CALLS OUT FOR THAT 45 DAY POLICY TIMELINE. TO MOVE ON TO BULLET POINT [1:59:12] NUMBER ONE, SO THEN AS I THINK COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD ALSO NOTED AS WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT, IT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR [1:59:19] US. FOR THOSE POLICIES THAT ARE NOT CALLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, SO THOSE THAT ARE NOT [1:59:25] IN THOSE FOUR LARGE BUCKETS, MPD IN THE INTEREST OF ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND UNDERSTANDING THE ADVANTAGE [1:59:32] OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK HAS OPENED THAT UP BROADLY TO ALL OF THE POLICIES THAT THEY'RE REVIEWING. [1:59:39] AND SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE POLICE WEBSITE NOW FOR THE POLICY WEBSITE, YOU'LL SEE SPECIFIC [1:59:45] AREAS THAT DON'T TOUCH THESE FOUR. SO THEY'RE KIND OF KEEPING THAT OPEN TO POLICIES BROADLY. [1:59:50] SO THAT SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO THE DEADLINE. SO THEY PACIFIC 30 DAYS SO FAR [1:59:56] HAS BEEN THE GENERAL USE. BUT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE REQUIREMENT THAT MPD HAS TO FOLLOW IN REGARDS TO [2:00:02] THOSE POLICIES. THEY ARE DOING SO AND HAVE [2:00:07] CHOSEN TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE OF SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT. SO WHEN YOU SEE THE POLICIES, [2:00:12] OKAY WHY ISN'T THIS 45 DAYS, THEY'RE PROBABLY POLICIES THAT DO NOT FIT WITHIN THOSE. [2:00:18] I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MY [2:00:24] COLLEAGUE, SAM. >> SO JAMESON TOUCHED ON THOSE FIRST TWO WHICH ARE FEEDBACK TO [2:00:30] MPD. THE THIRD AND FINAL FEEDBACK TO MPD CATEGORY IS THIS LAST ONE, NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE [2:00:35] ANYTIME NO DEADLINE. SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED A COUPLE OF TIMES [2:00:41] TODAY. SO THIS HAS BEEN IN EMAILS TO THE COMMUNITY, EMAILS TO ALL OF YOU. AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY MPD SAYING [2:00:47] LOOK, WE WOULD REALLY LOVE YOU TO HIT ALL OF THESE DEADLINES BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE CAN GET IT DONE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. [2:00:53] WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST TAKE THIS FEEDBACK AND THROW IT TO THE WIND IF WE DON'T GET IT WITHIN THAT TIMELINE. THEY'RE COMMITTED TO WHEN YOU [2:00:59] DON'T SEND THEM FEEDBACK, IF THEY DON'T GET IT IN TIME FOR THIS IMMEDIATE REVIEW, AS YOU MAY KNOW IN THE SETTLEMENT [2:01:05] AGREEMENT THERE'S AN AREA THAT TALKS ABOUT THERE'S AN ANNUAL REVIEW THAT'S CONDUCTED ON THESE POLICIES THAT ARE CONTINUOUSLY [2:01:10] REVIEWED OVER AND OVER TO MAKE SURE THAT FEEDBACK IS BROUGHT IN. SO MPD HAS COMMITTED AND THEIR LANGUAGE WAS THAT THEY ARE [2:01:16] COMMITTED TO REVISITING FEEDBACK AT A LATER DATE TO ENSURE ALL VOICES ARE HEARD. BOTTOM LINE, THAT FEEDBACK IS [2:01:22] GOING TO BE READ, IT'S GOING TO BE INPUT AND A PART OF THAT VERY NEXT REVIEW THAT'S DONE OF THE POLICY. [2:01:27] SO THAT IS THE ANYTIME. SO THEN THE FINAL ONE, CATEGORY NUMBER FOUR OR EXCUSE ME [2:01:32] CATEGORY NUMBER THREE ABOUT THE 120 DAYS, SO THAT'S THE SEPARATE ONE, RIGHT. SO JAMESON RAISED THE FIRST TWO, [2:01:38] AND THEN MINE WAS THE THIRD. THAT'S ABOUT POLICY FEEDBACK TO MPD. THE FOURTH AND FINAL ONE IS [2:01:44] POLICY FEEDBACK OR EXCUSE ME, POLICY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS BODY [2:01:50] TO THE PUBLIC. SO DIFFERENT AUDIENCE HAPPENING THERE. AND SO THAT IS ABOUT AS YOU MAY [2:01:55] KNOW, YOUR ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THE 120 DAYS FROM THE TIME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THEN YOU ALL [2:02:01] HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, LOOK AT THOSE POLICIES, TALK ABOUT IT, ANALYZE IT, RECOMMEND IT AS YOU [2:02:07] SEE FIT AND TURN THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. SO THAT IS NOT A TO MPD. WE'RE GOING THE OTHER CORRECTION [2:02:13] THERE, THAT'S A TO THE PUBLIC CATEGORY FROM YOU ALL. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THIS [2:02:18] GRAPHIC HAS BEEN MADE. SO AGAIN OUR THANKS TO OPCR FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER FOR US. BUT THAT'S KIND OF OUR HOPE THAT [2:02:24] WE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARITY ON THAT FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? [2:02:32] OKAY. IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CCPO CALENDAR BECAUSE THIS IS [2:02:39] VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION REGARDING THE TIMELINES. WOULD COMMISSIONERS BE OKAY WITH THAT? COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. [2:02:45] >> YES, I DID HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIMELINE. [2:02:51] I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE WHAT COMMISSIONER OLSEN AND COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD SAID EARLIER ABOUT WHEN I BROUGHT UP [2:02:58] THAT IT'S THE STATE JUDGE THAT ACTUALLY PASSES OFF ON THIS. [2:03:03] HER NAME IS NOWHERE SEEN ON THIS IN HER AUTHORITY. SO I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY [2:03:09] IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT EVEN IF FEEDBACK COMES IN AFTER SOME OF THESE TIMELINES IT WILL [2:03:16] BE CONSIDERED AND HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AND I THINK IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT WHAT COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD [2:03:21] SAID THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES REPEATED REVIEW. I THINK WE NEED TO SEE THAT [2:03:30] PARAGRAPH NUMBER. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY [2:03:36] IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT'S HARD TO GRASP ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE [2:03:41] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS A DEFINED LIST OF POLICIES, NOT EVERY POLICY THAT'S IN THE [2:03:46] POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL IS COVERED BY THE SETTLEMENT [2:03:52] AGREEMENT. BUT CONVERSELY, ALMOST EVERY [2:03:57] POLICY THAT IS COVERED BY THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL WOULD BE COVERED BY THE 120 [2:04:03] DAYS. SO WE HAVE A PURVIEW THAT ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WE HAVE TO [2:04:11] LOOK AT. SO THE 45 DAYS, WHAT IT COVERS IS ALSO WHAT THE 120 DAYS [2:04:17] COVERS, RIGHT? SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WORD [2:04:23] COURTESY COMES IN, AND I'M CONFUSED IN NUMBER ONE, WHAT'S [2:04:28] AN EXAMPLE OF A COURTESY POLICY THAT APPARENTLY DOESN'T HAVE TO COME UNDER EITHER ONE OF THESE [2:04:34] THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT FOR REVIEW. OR ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING THAT [2:04:42] IS IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF A POLICY THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT THAT'S BEEN DONE AS A COURTESY [2:04:48] THAT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE 45 DAYS, DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE 120 DAYS? I FIND THIS TO BE KIND OF [2:04:54] CONFUSING. AND I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF CLARIFY, THIS WORD COURTESY REALLY JUMPS OUT AT ME. [2:05:00] I DON'T SEE IT ANYWHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MAYBE I'VE MISSED IT AND I [2:05:06] APOLOGIZE IF I HAVE. WHEN YOU ADD SOMETHING LIKE THAT INTO THE MIX, AND I CAN'T FIND A DEFINITION FOR IT, AND THEN WE [2:05:14] DON'T HAVE HOW ALL OF THIS FITS IN WITH THE ROUTINE REGULAR REVIEW AND THE FEEDBACK AND THE TIMELINE AND THE JUDGE, I THINK [2:05:20] WE'RE PAINTING AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE. TO ME THIS IS ONE PAGE OF WHAT SHOULD BE ALMOST LIKE A THREE [2:05:25] PAGE TYPE OF DOCUMENT. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED. [2:05:30] I DO GET AND I'LL USE IT AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE HERDING CATS, IT'S NOT AN EASY CONCEPT TO PUT THIS ALL TOGETHER. [2:05:36] BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HERD A FEW MORE CATS INTO THIS. [2:05:41] >> WOULD IT BE EASIER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHEN YOU HAVE POLICY REVIEW, AT WHAT POINT AND [2:05:47] HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE JUDGE TO GET TO IT? ARE WE TALKING IN MONTHS, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? [2:05:54] BECAUSE YOU HEAR THE TIMELINE THE JUDGE, YOU CAN COME THE NEXT [2:06:01] TIME, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW LONG THAT TAKES? >> JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY A [2:06:07] COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, SO CATCH ME IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING. FIRST OF ALL THE JUDGE IS NOT SIGNING OFF ON EVERY SINGLE [2:06:13] POLICY THAT'S COMING IN. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOW THE PROCESS IS LAID OUT. [2:06:18] SO ON AN ANNUAL REVIEW, MPD OR EVEN RIGHT NOW, MPD IS REVIEWING POLICIES AND THEY'RE GETTING [2:06:23] FEEDBACK ON THAT. AND THEY'RE TALKING TO MDHR AND THEY'RE TALKING TO ALEFA AND THEY COME UP WITH THIS FINAL [2:06:29] POLICY. AND THEN THE POLICY GOES INTO EFFECT. SO THERE'S NOT A STEP WHERE WE'RE THEN ALSO TAKING THE MDHR [2:06:36] FEEDBACK, THE ALEFA FEEDBACK, THE CITY PEOPLE FEEDBACK, CCPO FEEDBACK, ET CETERA, AND THEN [2:06:42] WE'RE GOING TO THE JUDGE AND WE'RE SAYING CAN WE MAKE THIS A POLICY AND THE JUDGE IS SAYING YES AND THEN WE'RE MAKING IT A [2:06:49] POLICY. THE JUDGE IS PRIMARILY, SO THIS IS A SIGNED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE JUDGE IS FOR LACK OF A [2:06:56] BETTER TERM BABYSITTING. SHE IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE CATCHING EVERYTHING THE WAY THAT [2:07:02] WE NEED TO BE DOING IT, THAT WHEN WE'RE FINDING SOMETHING COMPLIANT, THE JUDGE IS [2:07:07] REVIEWING IF IT IS OR IS NOT COMPLIANT, BUT THE JUDGE IS NOT INVOLVED IN EACH MINUTE PIECE GOING FORWARD. [2:07:13] SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE POLICIES GOING FROM DAY-TO-DAY OR YEAR TO YEAR, THE JUDGE IS NOT READING EVERY WORD [2:07:18] OF EVERY POLICY AND SIGNING OFF AND SAYING THAT EVERY SINGLE POLICY I THE JUDGE FIND [2:07:24] COMPLIANT. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOW THE PROCESS IS WORKING. [2:07:30] AND THEN SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> DOES ALEFA KIND OF HAVE THAT ROLE? >> YEAH, AND I'M HAPPY TO GRAB [2:07:37] THESE PARAGRAPHS AND GIVE THEM TO YOU AS WELL. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION. BUT YES, ALEFA IS IN THE [2:07:44] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND IN THE HOPEFULLY FORTHCOMING CONSENT DECREE AS WELL, THEIR ROLE IS AS IT STATES IN THERE, THE APPROVAL [2:07:51] ROLE. >> SO ESSENTIALLY FOR THE PUBLIC, IF ALEFA DETERMINES THAT MPD IS NOT FOLLOWING A POLICY BASED ON SOME RECOMMENDATION, [2:07:58] THEY CAN GO TO THE JUDGE AND SAY THEY'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING. THAT WOULD BE THE JUDGE'S ROLE IN THIS? >> SURE, THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE. [2:08:04] I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR SECOND QUESTION AS WELL. WHICH WAS JUST TO GO BACK FOR A SECOND AND BE CLEAR, SO THIS [2:08:11] COURTESY THING, THAT'S COMING FROM ME JUST TO BE FAIR. [2:08:16] SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE 45 CALENDAR DAYS IS THAT HARD LINE. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING THROUGH FROM THE SETTLEMENT [2:08:22] AGREEMENT SAYING YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE AT LEAST 45 DAYS ON X, Y, Z CATEGORIES. [2:08:28] THESE HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC IN AT LEAST 45 DAYS WORTH OF TIME THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO [2:08:34] REVIEW THEM. IF THAT POLICY IS NOT OUTLINED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS [2:08:40] THESE MUST HAVE 45 DAYS, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, MPD DOES NOT HAVE TO PUBLICIZE THEM. [2:08:47] THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS CHOOSING TO PUBLICIZE ALL OF THEM AS A COURTESY. SO THAT'S WHERE I CAME UP WITH [2:08:52] THAT WORD, I'M HAPPY TO USE A DIFFERENT WORD INSTEAD. BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THEM OUT IN THE INTEREST OF [2:08:58] TRANSPARENCY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN STILL FEEDBACK EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GET FEEDBACK ON THOSE. [2:09:03] SO RIGHT NOW, THAT'S PRIMARILY BEEN LIKE A 30 DAY BLOCK. BUT THEY WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE [2:09:09] TO HAVE MORE AND HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE THAT'S THE CASE. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO GET [2:09:15] THEM OUT TO MAKE SURE LET'S GET FEEDBACK EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT MANDATED TO LET'S DO IT ANYWAYS. [2:09:25] THE 45 DAYS IS THE HARDLINE. AND THEN PLEASE ANYTIME SEND [2:09:31] FEEDBACK ON ANY POLICY, IT'S GOING TO BE REVIEWED AND PART OF THAT PROCESS WHEN THAT POLICY IS [2:09:36] BROUGHT UP AGAIN. >> I SAW A HAND. COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >>HANK YOU. [2:09:42] EVERY TIME I SEE THIS OR HEAR IT I UNDERSTAND IT EVEN DEEPER. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT [2:09:47] THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS. SO I REMEMBER YOU AND LIEUTENANT [2:09:53] ROBINSON TALKING ABOUT ALEFA AND [2:10:01] MPD AND IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, IN THE ROOM HASHING IT OUT. WHAT HAPPENS THEN, WHAT'S THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT BECOMES AN [2:10:09] ACTION? >> SO I THINK LILY ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED A LITTLE EARLIER, BUT IT ALL STARTS WITH WORKING [2:10:14] MEETINGS. THESE ARE MPD POLICIES, SO MPD GETS TO LEAD THE TRAIN BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. [2:10:20] THEY SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ALEFA HAS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ROLES IT CAN PLAY. [2:10:26] SO THE ROLE THAT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER TODAY, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, THAT'S REALLY USING [2:10:32] ALEFA FOR EXAMPLE AS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS TO SAY WHAT IS BEST PRACTICES IN THIS CITY OR THIS DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. [2:10:37] SO THEY WILL GIVE INPUT THERE. AND THEN THE SAME THING WITH MDHR ALSO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS [2:10:42] GIVING GOOD ASSISTANCE. SO THEN THERE'S A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF INFORMAL AND FORMAL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, WORKING MEETINGS [2:10:49] WHERE MPD IS TRYING TO GET THOSE POLICIES GOING, GET THEM INTO A FINAL PLACE. AND WHEN THEY THINK THEY'VE GOT [2:10:55] A FINAL DRAFT, THEY'RE PUBLISHING AND SAYING MORE, GIVE US FEEDBACK, LET US FIGURE THIS [2:11:00] OUT. FROM THERE, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD AGAIN, TAKING THAT FEEDBACK, INCORPORATING IT [2:11:06] ONCE AGAIN. I TOLD COMMISSIONER BASTICK RECENTLY THAT SHE FOUND A MISSING S, A WORD WAS MEANT TO [2:11:12] BE PLURAL AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. SO THEY'RE INCORPORATING IT RIGHT AWAY, TRYING TO GET THAT [2:11:17] FEEDBACK BUILT IN. AND IT SLOWLY BUT SURELY WORKS ITS WAY INTO THE FINAL [2:11:23] SUBMISSION PROCESS WHICH IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WHICH IS THE CITY ESSENTIALLY [2:11:29] SENDING TO ALEFA SAYING WE HAVE A FINAL DRAFT BASED ON ALL OF [2:11:34] THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MPD, ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT IT, THIS IS THE DRAFT [2:11:39] WE'VE GOT, HERE YOU GO. [2:11:45] FINAL FORMAL COMPLIANT SUBMISSION, AND THEN ALEFA WILL DETERMINE THEIR LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE FROM THAT. AND THEY MIGHT COME BACK AND SAY [2:11:51] GOOD TO GO, OR THEY MIGHT SAY YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE. >> THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL AND [2:11:57] THAT'S ANNUAL? WITH ALEFA, THAT CHECK IS ANNUAL? >> THAT'S ALL THE TIME RIGHT NOW. [2:12:04] >> ALL THE TIME. SORRY, THAT MAKES ME WONDER THOUGH THEN IT MAKES MOST SENSE FOR US TO BE REVIEWING THE [2:12:11] POLICIES THAT ARE RED LINED OR BLACK LINED THAT ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AS DRAFT; IS THAT [2:12:17] RIGHT? >> SURE, YES. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I WOULD PRIORITIZE OBVIOUSLY THE [2:12:23] 45 DAY HARDLINE ONES FIRST BECAUSE THOSE HAVE DEADLINES MANDATED UNDER THE SETTLEMENT [2:12:28] AGREEMENT. >> IF WE CAN GET A MOTION TO EXTEND JUST TO GET THIS AND THE CALENDAR CONVERSATION IN. [2:12:33] >> I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION? [2:12:38] CLERK CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> YES. [2:12:43] >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART IS [2:12:50] ABSENT. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. [2:12:55] >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> YES. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> YES. >> THERE ARE NINE AYES. [2:13:04] >> COMMISSIONER -- >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE OBSERVATION AND PLEASE CORRECT [2:13:10] ME IF I'M GETTING IT WRONG. BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, OUR [2:13:15] POLICY REVIEW ROLE IN THE ORDINANCE PREDATES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THAT WAS DEVISED BEFORE THE [2:13:20] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAPPENED AND IN SOME SENSES, THE [2:13:25] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUPERCEDES WHATEVER IS IN THE ORDINANCE. AND GIVEN THAT, YOU CAN TELL ME [2:13:31] HOW ACCURATE THAT IS, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY OUR EXPERIENCE ON THIS POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS [2:13:38] BEEN REALLY ENCOURAGING AND ENLIGHTENING BECAUSE OF THE [2:13:44] AMOUNT OF INTEREST EVERYBODY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM HAS BEEN SHOWING AND HEARING OUR INPUT. [2:13:51] I TOTALLY GET THE SENSE THAT THE [2:13:56] IMPLEMENTATION TEAM WHETHER IT ENCOMPASSES ALEFA OR EVERYBODY ELSE REALLY WANTS TO HEAR FROM [2:14:02] THE PUBLIC AND FROM US AND I GET THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE VALUING OUR INPUT, AND I FIND THAT [2:14:07] REALLY ENCOURAGING, AND I AM HAPPY WITH THE PROCESS AND I [2:14:13] THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON IT. [2:14:18] >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. JUST TO ANSWER YOUR BRIEF QUESTION, YES. SO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CAME [2:14:25] AFTER THE ORDINANCE, BUT IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, WE CAN TALK [2:14:32] ABOUT CONFLICTS. I AM NOT IDENTIFYING ANY RIGHT NOW. BUT WHAT I'LL POINT YOU TOO SPECIFICALLY IS JULY 8TH OF [2:14:40] 2024, JOEL SENT EXCUSE ME, ATTORNEY FUSSI SENT ALL OF YOU AN EMAIL GOING IN HEAVY DETAIL [2:14:45] ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS AND HOW THINGS ARE OUTLINED AND WHAT TAKES PRECEDENT, BUT YES, YOU'RE [2:14:51] EXACTLY CORRECT AND YES, WE DO VALUE AND READ ALL OF YOUR FEEDBACK. [2:14:57] MPD IS VERY IN TUNE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> SO I JUST WANT TO ASK A VERY [2:15:03] CLEAR QUESTION. IS IT THE POSITION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THE 120 [2:15:10] DAY REVIEW IN THE CCP ORDINANCE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT BECAUSE IT'S PREEMPTED BY THE 45 DAYS IN [2:15:17] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? >> NOT AT ALL. 120 DAYS IS FULLY IN EFFECT AND AGAIN THE 120 DAYS IS NOT ABOUT [2:15:23] FEEDBACK TO MPD. THE 120 DAYS IS ABOUT THE CCPO GIVING ITS REVIEW AND ANALYSIS [2:15:31] TO THE PUBLIC. >> SO THERE'S NO PREEMPTION ISSUE? 120 DAYS IS IN EFFECT? [2:15:38] >> YEAH, NOT AT ALL. 120 DAYS IS IN EFFECT AND AGAIN THAT'S ABOUT YOU GUYS SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO YOU [2:15:45] GUYS PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO MPD. NOT TOUCHED BY THAT. [2:15:51] >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> ATTORNEY FUSSI, I WOULD LOVE [2:15:56] TO SEE A COPY OF THAT MEMO THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED. [2:16:01] I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUPER USEFUL. THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER NEWER COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THAT [2:16:06] MIGHT BE A GREAT RESEND IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THAT, PLEASE. >> I WILL DO SO, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. [2:16:13] >> YES. I'M WONDERING HOPEFULLY THIS WILL PUT TO REST OUR CONFUSION ABOUT THE TIMELINES. [2:16:20] THE 120 DAYS, I THINK WHAT IS STILL CONFUSING ABOUT THAT IS FROM WHEN? THERE'S NO START DATE. SO THE START DATE IS EVERY TIME [2:16:26] THE POLICY GETS POSTED IN DRAFT FORM. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THOSE DATES AHEAD OF TIME. [2:16:32] WE AREN'T ABLE TO CALENDAR THAT OUT. SO I THINK WE JUST DO IT AS REGULARLY AS WE CAN AND WE [2:16:38] PROVIDE THE PUBLIC OUR FEEDBACK AND WELCOME THAT AT ANYTIME. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT 120 DAY [2:16:45] NUMBER NEEDS TO MEAN A WHOLE LOT TO US GOING FORWARD. I WOULD BE CURIOUS IF ANYONE [2:16:53] DISAGREES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> I'M TRYING TO LISTEN AS CAREFULLY AS I CAN, AND I'VE READ ALL OF THIS STUFF A MILLION [2:16:59] TIMES. AND I PRACTICED LAW FOR 36 YEARS. I'M STILL CONFUSED. [2:17:05] BECAUSE TO ME THE POINT OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT SIMPLY FOR THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC. [2:17:13] THE POINT OF THAT IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED [2:17:19] POLICIES, AND IS CONTRIBUTING IN ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN THE [2:17:25] REVIEW SO THAT MPD CAN CONSIDER THEM TO BE ADOPTED. IF ALL WE'RE DOING IS SENDING [2:17:32] OUT A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT'S IT, THEN WE'RE NOT VERY [2:17:37] RELEVANT. SO I'M HOPING THAT IN PRACTICE WE HAVE EVOLVED TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE FITTING WITH THE 45 [2:17:47] DAYS AND WE'RE SHOWING THE PUBLIC HOW WE'RE REVIEWING POLICIES, WE'RE ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN THAT PROCESS. [2:17:54] AND OVER TIME, 120 DAYS DOESN'T MATTER TOO MUCH BECAUSE WE'RE ON [2:18:02] A REALLY REGULAR BASIS REVIEWING POLICIES, DOING THE WORK AS COMMISSION MEMBERS TO DO THAT. [2:18:08] PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE WITH US AT THE [2:18:15] COMMITTEE LEVEL, REFINING OUR COMMENTS AND WE SEE THEM GET IMPLEMENTED OR ADOPTED AND [2:18:20] CONSIDERED AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY COUNTS. [2:18:26] THANK YOU. >> I'LL JUST SAY MY APOLOGIES FOR BEING CONFUSING. [2:18:32] THE 120 DAYS I'M JUST MENTIONING ONLY BECAUSE IT'S A NUMBER. BUT ABSOLUTELY, POLICY FEEDBACK [2:18:37] IS ALSO A PART OF YOUR ROLE THAT'S ENVISIONED UNDER YOUR [2:18:47] RESPONSIBILITIES IN SECTION I. SO THAT IS ABSOLUTELY A PART OF YOUR ROLE. THE ONLY REASON I HIGHLIGHTED 120 ON HERE WHICH PERHAPS I CAN [2:18:52] DO THAT DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME WAS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER [2:18:59] WAS. AND THAT IS A TO THE PUBLIC NUMBER AS OPPOSED TO A TO THE [2:19:04] MPD NUMBER WHICH WE WOULD ADVISE WOULD BE THE 45 DAYS OR LESS [2:19:10] THAN 45 DAYS NUMBERS. >> AND QUICKLY COMMISSIONERS FOR [2:19:16] THAT, I THINK IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT FOR ANOTHER RESEND OF A MEMO, AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT HOW DO THESE POLICIES STAY [2:19:22] RELEVANT WITHIN THE 45 DAY PERIOD. AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY COMING UP AGAIN AROUND THE [2:19:28] CALENDAR PROCESS. SO I KNOW CLERK CARL ALSO SENT [2:19:33] OUT A MEMO SPECIFICALLY IN RELATING TO THESE POLICIES AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU ALL PUT [2:19:38] FORWARD ARE RELEVANT. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOUR NEXT DISCUSSION AS WELL I BELIEVE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA. [2:19:43] >> COULD I JUST QUICKLY ADD, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR USING THE WORD COURTESY, [2:19:50] IT'S USEFUL. WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS IT'S NOT MANDATED BY THE 45 DAYS AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAYBE PUT IN [2:19:56] A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES OF POLICIES THAT COVER THAT. I THINK GIVING EXAMPLES WOULD BE [2:20:02] VERY HELPFUL. AND JUST A QUICK DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT MEANS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL [2:20:07] WITH IT. >> THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE EXPIRED TIME AGAIN. I WANT TO GET TO THE CALENDAR DISCUSSION. [2:20:13] SO IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO DO FIVE MINUTES FOR THE [2:20:18] CALENDAR. MOTION FOR FIVE MINUTES SOMEONE? >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, MOTION AND SECOND. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [2:20:27] I KNOW HE WANTS IT OFFICIALLY ON THE RECORD. [2:20:33] [CHORUS OF AYES] >> THANK YOU. SO HAVING THIS CONVERSATION [2:20:38] ABOUT THE CALENDAR, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER IS [2:20:44] BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE NEXT MONTH THAT OUR APRIL MEETING THAT WE CANCEL [2:20:51] THE APRIL 7TH CCPO MEETING, THAT WE FOCUS ON THE PANELS ON THAT DAY, SO THAT APRIL 7TH I BELIEVE [2:21:00] IS A MONDAY. I BELIEVE IT'S A MONDAY, THAT WE WOULD DO PANELS ON THAT DATE. AND THEN THE COMMITTEES WOULD [2:21:05] STILL MEET. THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND PPRR WOULD STILL MEET AND DO THEIR BUSINESS IN PREPARATION [2:21:10] FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13TH. BUT THAT WE CANCEL THE APRIL 7TH MEETING AND JUST DO PANELS. [2:21:16] AS YOU SAW ON THE REPORT, THERE ARE SEVERAL PANELS THAT ARE UP COMING DUE AND WE CAN GET THOSE [2:21:22] DONE BECAUSE ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THAT DATE FOR TWO AND A HALF, THREE HOURS OR WHATEVER IT IS, AND WE WANT [2:21:29] EVERYONE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE PANELS DONE. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO [2:21:36] DISCUSS. >> I THINK WE SHOULD BECAUSE WE [2:21:42] HAVE A LOT DUE ON OUR PLATE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE CANCEL THE APRIL 7TH MEETING SO [2:21:49] WE CAN WORK ON OUR PANELS AND THAT WAY WHEN IT COMES TO THE 13th, PEOPLE COME AT US, WE HAVE [2:21:58] INFORMATION TO GIVE THEM. >> SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WILL YOU FORMALLY MAKE THE MOTION? [2:22:04] >> I MAKE THE MOTION OR WHATEVER WE HAVE TO SAY. >> THE MOTION TO CANCEL THE APRIL 7TH MEETING. [2:22:09] >> YEAH, I MOTION TO CANCEL THE APRIL 7TH MEETING. >> THANK YOU. AND I HEARD A SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION [2:22:16] FOR THAT? COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> I APPRECIATE THE FOCUS ON THE [2:22:21] PANELS AND GETTING TO THE CASES. I OPPOSE THIS. I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO [2:22:26] WALK AND CHEW GUM. WE MEET ONCE A MONTH. WE ARE PUTTING ON THIS AGENDA [2:22:33] TEN MINUTES TO DISCUSS THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE AGENDA. WE BARELY HAVE TIME TO SQUEEZE THAT IN. [2:22:38] WE ARE THE ONLY ENTITY IN THE CITY THAT ALLOWS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE POLICE OVERSIGHT. [2:22:44] AND I THINK IF WE TAKE THAT AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND WE TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH [2:22:49] THINGS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO JOIN THIS COMMISSION IF WE CANNOT GET THE [2:22:56] WORK DONE AND ALSO DO IT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO REVIEW [2:23:01] THINGS THOROUGHLY AND DO THE REVIEW PANELS? I JUST FIND THE NOTION -- WE [2:23:09] CANCELED THE DECEMBER MEETING TO HAVE A TRAINING, NOW WE'RE CANCELING THE APRIL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN DO REVIEW PANELS. [2:23:14] I THINK IT SENDS THE ABSOLUTE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC. [2:23:20] AND IF WE CAN'T DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS THEN WE NEED TO THINK [2:23:25] ABOUT AN ENTIRE RESTRUCTURING OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> I WOULD JUST MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT ONE, THERE IS AN [2:23:31] ENTIRE RESTRUCTURING THAT'S HAPPENING. THERE'S A NEW CONSENT DECREE THAT'S BEING IMPLEMENTED RIGHT [2:23:36] NOW. AND THIS COMMITTEE IS UNDERGOING A LOT OF CHANGE AT THE MOMENT. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN APPLICATION SESSION WHERE A LOT [2:23:42] OF THINGS ARE HAPPENING. BUT THEN TWO, DISCLAIMER MY DAY JOB, I WORK AROUND PEOPLE WHO [2:23:48] ARE ON COMMITTEES ALL THE TIME. THEY CANCEL THINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE TIME FOR OTHER THINGS. [2:23:53] I DON'T THINK IT'S OUT OF THE NORM FOR ONE MEETING TO GET CANCELED TO DO OTHER NECESSARY WORK THAT IS BACKLOGGED AS WE [2:24:00] HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT. SO I SUPPORT THE MOTION IF IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GET THESE [2:24:07] REVIEW CASES THAT ARE ON THE BACKLOG OUT AND THE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE CAN THEN [2:24:12] SHARE MORE EFFECTIVELY. SOMETIMES I'M IN THESE MEETINGS AND I'M LIKE WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY SHARING OUT IF WE'RE [2:24:18] NOT ACTUALLY HAVING THE WORK DONE. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD S■AY. THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE [2:24:23] GRACE TO THE FACT THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS UNDERGONE MANY, MANY CHANGES IN THE LITTLE OVER [2:24:29] A YEAR THAT IT'S EXISTED. [2:24:36] >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON [2:24:43] THE MOTION FOR APRIL 7TH MEETING TO BE CANCELED AND PANELS TO BE DONE THAT DAY. THANK YOU? >> DID WE GET A SECOND? [2:24:49] >> WE DID GET A SECOND. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. [2:24:54] >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEWART IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> NO. [2:25:00] >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. [2:25:05] >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> YES. >> CHAIR REEVES. >> YES. [2:25:10] >> THERE ARE EIGHT AYES AND ONE NAYS. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD, WHAT DID YOU WANT IN TERMS OF THE [2:25:16] CALENDAR? I WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY AND THE DATES YOU BROUGHT UP. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. [2:25:21] I DID JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING THE PPRR MEETINGS A WEEK LATER THAN [2:25:27] THEY ARE IN THE CURRENT CALENDAR. JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO BE AWARE, WE'LL GET A NEW CALENDAR AND ALL OF THAT, BUT I DIDN'T WANT THAT [2:25:34] TO SOUND LIKE IT HAD BEEN DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, BECAUSE IT ISN'T. ANY OF THE PPRR COMMITTEE [2:25:40] MEMBERS HERE, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET COPIES OF THE POLICIES TO REVIEW FOR THAT NEXT MEETING [2:25:45] TONIGHT. SO DON'T LEAVE. >> WOULD YOU MIND STATING THE DATE -- >> TWO OF US ARE KIND OF [2:25:52] CONFUSED. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'M JUST GOING TO REMIND FOLKS THE CALENDAR WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE, WE DON'T GET [2:25:58] TO JUST ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE DATE. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF YOU COULD SAY THE DATE THAT YOU'RE [2:26:04] TALKING ABOUT MOVING IT TO. >> I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW DO WE SET THE DATES FOR THE [2:26:11] COMMITTEES? >> THERE HAS TO BE A NEW CALENDAR ADOPTED BY THE WHOLE BODY. CHAIRS OF COMMITTEES DON'T GET [2:26:17] TO JUST CHANGE THE DATES OF THE MEETINGS THAT WERE ADOPTED BE I THIS BODY. [2:26:23] SO IF YOU WANT TO PROPOSE THAT YOU CHANGE EITHER THAT INDIVIDUAL MEETING OR YOU WANT TO MAKE A PROPOSAL FOR A [2:26:28] DIFFERENT CALENDAR, THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED. [2:26:33] >> EXCELLENT, MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THE PPRR MEETINGS BECAUSE THE TIMELINE RIGHT NOW [2:26:38] FOR US IS TOO TIGHT TO GET THE STUFF BACK TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND TO WRITE THE NOTES REALLY [2:26:45] QUICKLY. SO WE DISCUSSED THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT I HAD TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION HERE SO [2:26:50] THAT'S MY MOTION. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY THE MOTION TO [2:26:56] SAY IT'S NOT THE FIRST MONDAY AFTER THE CCPO MEETING, BUT THE SECOND MEETING, CAN YOU CLARIFY [2:27:02] THAT? >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE THIRD MONDAY OF THE MONTH. >> THIRD MONDAY, THANK YOU. [2:27:08] I'LL JUST SAY, IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE FIRST MONDAY OF THE MONTH FOR THE MEETINGS IN THE CALENDAR. SO CAN WE CLARIFY THAT YOU WANT [2:27:17] IT THE SECOND WEEK AFTER THE CCPO MEETING -- >> TWO WEEKS AFTER THE MEETING. >> THERE'S A COUPLE OF MEETINGS [2:27:22] THIS YEAR THAT IT'S THE SECOND WEEK. SO TWO WEEKS AFTER THE CCPO MEETING SHE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT -- >> POINT OF INFORMATION VERY [2:27:29] QUICKLY. AND IT'S DIRECTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO PROPOSE FOR A NEXT AGENDA OR IS [2:27:36] THAT SOMETHING WE CAN VOTE ON TONIGHT TO MOVE IT? >> IT'S ON THE AGENDA. >> YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THIS TONIGHT, BUT YOU'VE PROPOSED [2:27:43] MOVING THE POLICY RESEARCH COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE THE SAME TIME THAT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE IS NOW [2:27:50] MOVING. YOU SAID MOVE PPRR BACK ONE WEEK, THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE SET. [2:27:57] NOT ALWAYS. THERE'S A WHOLE CALENDAR, THIS IS WHY THIS IS DIFFICULT TO DO ON THE FLY IS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. [2:28:03] IS THAT THERE'S A WHOLE SCHEDULE FOR A WHOLE YEAR THAT WE ADOPTED [2:28:10] AND IT'S NOT AS EASY AS JUST WE WANT TO MOVE THAT, WE HAVE TO FIND A SPACE, PROVIDE THE [2:28:16] NOTICE, SO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS MOVE THIS ONE TIME, THAT'S FINE. [2:28:22] BUT THIS BODY NEEDS TO CONSIDER AN ENTIRE CALENDAR IF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS CHANGE [2:28:28] THE WHOLE CALENDAR. WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT JANUARY AND FEBRUARY'S COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE ALREADY [2:28:35] DONE WITH AT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING AT THEIR NEXT MEETING SO THEY ARE NOW STAGGERED TO ALWAYS BE BEHIND [2:28:40] YOU. SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS THAT PRESSURE OF TURNING AROUND REPORTS IN A WEEK TO THAT GROUP [2:28:46] ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY NOW TWO MONTHS BEHIND WHERE YOU'RE GOING. SO YOUR NEXT MEETING, THEY WON'T TAKE UP UNTIL A MONTH FROM NOW. [2:28:54] SO I THINK THERE IS BASED ON THAT WORK WE'VE DONE A STAGGERED EFFECT BETWEEN THEM. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE [2:29:02] MEETINGS, WE SHOULD THINK HOLISTICALLY ABOUT WHAT THAT NEW CALENDAR LOOKS LIKE. >> WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEN AFTER [2:29:08] HEARING THAT, JUST DOING ONE MEETING AND THEN HAVING THE CALENDAR COME UP ON THE NEXT [2:29:14] MEETING? >> THAT'S FINE. WE NEED AT LEAST TWO WEEKS TO REVIEW THE POLICIES AND WE WILL GET THEM AT THE MEETING SO WE WOULD LIKE TWO WEEKS TO REVIEW [2:29:20] THEM, THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. THAT'S WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED A MONTH AGO SO HOPEFULLY WE WILL [2:29:25] BE ABLE TO BRING THAT FORMALLY TO THE NEXT MEETING. BUT MARCH 17TH THEN IS THE MOTION THAT WE'LL HAVE OUR NEXT [2:29:31] PPRR MEETING THEN. >> SO THE MOTION JUST FOR ONE MEETING CHANGED FOR MARCH 17TH [2:29:40] INSTEAD OF MARCH 10TH. THANK YOU. SO THE MOTION IS TO CHANGE THE [2:29:46] MARCH 10TH PPRR WORK GROUP, SUB SUBCOMMITTEE GROUP TO MARCH 17TH. [2:29:52] >> SECOND. >> BEEN MOTIONED AND SECONDED. [2:29:59] ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [2:30:06] COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> QUICKLY GOING BACK JUST [2:30:11] LOGISTICALLY, HAVING UNDERSTOOD THAT OPCR ARE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER THE REVIEW PANELS, WE VOTED TO NOT HAVE OUR [2:30:18] APRIL MEETING AND INSTEAD DO PANELS WHICH I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE [2:30:24] OF. ARE OPCR COMPLETELY IN THE LOOP ON THIS AND ARE THEY READY TO REALLY, REALLY SLAM THAT OUT AND [2:30:30] GET US ALL ORGANIZED SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT DAY? >> I WILL SAY THAT NOW THAT WE [2:30:36] HAVE A PANEL DATE FOR THREE HOURS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE AND ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AVAILABLE, THEY WILL MAKE IT [2:30:42] WORK. >> EXCELLENT. >> THANK YOU. [2:30:47] ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR HAS BEEN MOTIONED AND SECONDED. [2:30:52] NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. CLERK CARL PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER SCHANFIELD. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH-KOOIMAN. >> AYE. [2:30:57] >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GURIAN-SHERMAN. >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER CANADAY. >> AYE. [2:31:02] >> COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS-JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR OLSEN. >> AYE. [2:31:08] >> CHAIR REEVES. >> YES. >> THERE ARE EIGHT AYES AND ONE NAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [2:31:13] ALL RIGHT. I ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE PREVIOUS REPORT. AND NEXT WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON [2:31:18] THE CITY'S CONSENT DECREE WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. I'LL ALLOCATE TEN MINUTES FOR [2:31:23] THIS PRESENTATION AND HERE TO PROVIDE THE UPDATE IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY -- WELL I'M LOOKING [2:31:30] LIKE I DON'T SEE HER, BUT PLEASE WELCOME. >> HI, ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY AGAIN. GOOD TO SEE YOU. [2:31:35] IT IS NOT GOING TO TAKE ME TEN MINUTES, THERE'S NOT MUCH TO UPDATE. ON FEBRUARY 18TH, THE DEPARTMENT [2:31:42] OF JUSTICE ASKED FOR A 30 DAY STAY. ON FEBRUARY 19TH, THE COURT GRANTED THAT STAY, AND THAT STAY [2:31:49] WILL EXPIRE ON MARCH 20TH. SO THAT IS WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? [2:31:57] >> NOT A QUESTION, I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN KEEP TRACK AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC [2:32:03] WITH THIS. AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS THROUGH THE PACER SYSTEM. [2:32:08] AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THAT AND HOW WE AS INDIVIDUALS CAN GET SIGNED UP. [2:32:13] I THINK YOU CAN GET ALERTS ABOUT THE CASES OR AT LEAST YOU CAN PUT IT IN AND FIND OUT IF [2:32:19] SOMETHING IS SCHEDULED. MY UNDERSTANDING THERE ARE AMICUS BRIEFS AND THERE ARE TWO [2:32:25] MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT. SO HOW DO PEOPLE KEEP INFORMED ABOUT THIS? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. SO THE PACER SYSTEM IS A WEBSITE [2:32:32] THAT ATTORNEYS WHO PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURT USE TO PUT THEIR DOCUMENTS ON THAT THE JUDGE CAN LOOK AT AND THEN THEY [2:32:37] CAN PUT THEIR DOCUMENTS ON. SO IT'S LITERALLY A VERY ARCHAIC [2:32:43] LOOKING SQUARE BOX SYSTEM THAT DOCUMENTS ARE FILED ON. I HAVE TO USE A LOG IN, BUT I DO [2:32:49] THINK THERE IS A COMMUNITY VERSION. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT WAY THAT THAT WORKS. BUT I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF [2:32:55] WEBSITES THAT JUST COPY PASTE ON TO THEIRS THAT MAKE IT A PUBLIC SERVICE. I WILL FIND OUT THE ANSWER, I [2:33:01] DON'T KNOW FOR SURE HOW THAT WORKS. >> I DO BELIEVE THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS, I DO HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS [2:33:07] -- >> COULD YOU SEND THAT OUT TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS? >> YEAH, I WILL FIND THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT POSITIVE OFF THE [2:33:12] TOP OF MY HEAD. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BASTICK. >> THANK YOU, THAT WOULD BE [2:33:19] GREAT. BUT ALSO CAN WE JUST ASK, I'D LIKE TO ASK, I DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION, I'D JUST LIKE TO [2:33:24] ASK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE JUST KEEP US UP TO SPEED, THIS [2:33:31] WHOLE BODY. JUST SEND OUT, I READ ABOUT THIS ON FACEBOOK OR SOMEWHERE, I [2:33:36] CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE, BUT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS SO CRITICAL TO [2:33:42] OUR WORK, WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY GET A LITTLE EMAIL, DEAR COMMISSIONERS, IT'S BEEN BLAH, [2:33:49] BLAH, BLAH, LOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE JUST TO KEEP US IN THE LOOP. [2:33:54] WE'RE ALL SUPER BUSY RUNNING AROUND AND I KNOW THAT THAT WOULD JUST MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR US, IT WOULD FEEL VERY [2:34:00] COURTEOUS AND VERY INCLUSIVE. I FEEL THAT YOU'VE HAD TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, WE'RE HERE RUNNING [2:34:06] PRETTY LATE, AND WE COULD HAVE JUST GOTTEN AN EMAIL ON THIS AND SAVE AN AGENDA ITEM. [2:34:13] I FEEL THAT WOULD BE SUPER USEFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I DO SAY I WANT TO HEAR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THAT PART ABOUT [2:34:19] WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE JUDGE, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN THE PROCESS. BUT I DO GET THE POINT, [2:34:24] COMMISSIONER BASTICK. ANY OTHER -- NO. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. [2:34:33] I'LL DIRECT THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT. WITH THAT, WE'VE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS [2:34:39] MEETING. WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION, THE COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED. HAVE A GOOD MEETING EVERYONE. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE IN MAY. [2:34:44] TWO MEETINGS IN MAY, AND THAT WILL BE ON THE PUBLIC WEBSITE. BUT OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS MAY 13TH. [2:34:49] I DON'T HAVE THE DATE ON TOP OF MY HEAD FOR THE NEXT MAY CCPO MEETING. BUT TWO MEETINGS IN MAY, THANK [2:34:55] YOU.