Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Largely, I think this is just a huge distraction. You know, when we talk to people in our community, what we're looking for, is a conversation to strengthen The relationship between our police department and our community, we have to have that line of communication open, which was the whole point or part of the point of the creation of this board by by single handedly wiping out half the board. Because of a difference of opinion, I think this board will lose all credibility moving forward. And it may not have a purpose at all. But I do want to just stick to the options before us today. Taylor bureau. First off was not on the agenda tonight what was on the agenda is two very appointments. And then there is an open seat on this board. Mr. Bishop has volunteered to serve, I would support you, if you applied for this board and would like to serve because I do think we should have all viewpoints represented on this board. And we have an open seat coming up. And anybody can apply. All viewpoints, to me are welcome. Because we need to have a diversity of viewpoints, they come up with a consensus. And we need to have a relationship between all aspects of our community and our police department. If we don't forge that relationship. We're just spinning our wheels. This board serves no real purpose at all we need to push for conversations about how are we going to reduce gun violence? Why do we still have ongoing troubles of people getting their gun stolen from their unlocked cars? And we're not locking up cars? How is it that we have situations where you know more than 15 individuals are open caring in our community. There's real problems in Tallahassee and there's a I think what we should be discussing, so I want to put the motion on the table. I will make a substitute motion for options. One, two, and three. And I really do encourage everyone to apply for that open seat.
Okay, there's substitute motion on the table made by Commissioner Matlow. For options, one, two, and three. Is there a second to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Porter Commissioner Porter.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I want to acknowledge I think we all probably agree that this has been a frustrating and confusing situation, I understand why members of the public and members of our law enforcement are offended her upset over this, I understand as well that there are other members of the community that are upset for different reasons. I think we can all agree when we're speaking about perspectives or biases, that there are certain perspectives that we as a society, do not agree should be given a platform. We as a society have said, you know, racism is not a perspective that we will entertain sexism, you know, when we're talking about a perspective on a class of people, because of their race, their religion, their nationality, that is totally different to me than having a perspective about an institution. If I were to say, which, by the way, I don't support charter schools, if I were to say, I don't support charter schools, I don't think anyone here would think that I hate teachers, that I hate teachers that charter schools that I hate people who support charter schools that I hate the parents who send their students, their kids to charter schools. Um, you know, one of our speakers said himself that he has a bias in that he considers himself to be pro law enforcement. I think that's a fair perspective, to have a fair perspective to be represented on this. On this board. I would not consider removing someone because they had a blue lives matter. sticker on their cup, though, I know that that would be offensive to to plenty of people. I think if we really are honest with ourselves, every single one of us here has a perspective, especially on an issue as political or close to home, as as policing and as criminal justice as the police. I mean, law enforcement officers as well as the system at large of public safety. But I think we would also if we're being honest with ourselves, acknowledge that there have been times where we have been in a role or position where we bring that perspective and are able to be open minded, able to be respectful, I think of you know, I was a legal assistant, and I know we can make comparisons and they're all They're not all direct comparisons, but I was a legal assistant for a public defender's office. I was doing work, that there were aspects of that work that I was uncomfortable with. I did not that Job was not an endorsement of the entire system of our criminal justice system. So I think that we acknowledge ourselves that we've been in those situations where we might not agree with everything our job entails. But we know that we've signed up to do a job and we are willing to do it. I spoke to a lot of people who are involved in this probably over 10. And I will say that and of all, you know, people who are board members, people who are in law enforcement, people who are staff, and from, you know, I will let those people if they wish to speak for themselves, but I'll just say, at least for the board members, and and others close to this board, not a single person said that Miss Bureau has exhibited a bias in her work, that she has been disrespectful, that she has been disruptive, this would be a totally different conversation. If that were the case, if someone would just say this person is acting as an obstacle to the mission of the board, we are not able to do this work with this person. I think that's a totally different conversation. And in that case, we should probably go ahead and remove that person, no matter the board, I think it's important to recognize as well, that Miss Barrow is one of nine members, she is not the staff person who is the only person charged with you know, this is not the person who's leading internal affairs or whatever. For, for TPD. This is someone who sits on a nine member board, or we're including every single other member said just about said that they did not they did not agree with Miss Bureau on this issue or other issues. There there is we can discuss whether we want more diverse viewpoints on that board. But I have to say from what I saw, there were a diversity of viewpoints, a diversity of membership, have perspectives of backgrounds, of professions, there's a lot of diversity on that board. I do think as well, as a commissioner I think about and I encourage all of us to think about, you know what it might say about us, and I know things change, people change their minds, people do things, you know, when we make these, when we make these appointments, or I'll speak for myself, you want to balance people who you know, and trust personally, to do a job with the fact that you don't want to just appoint people, you know, because you want to consider other ideas and give everyone a fair shake. So that's all true. But I think it's also true that I want to think about what does it say about me, if we've appointed a board, that of people that supposedly we trust, to carry out this mission, or else we wouldn't have appointed them in the first place, I hope, and that they have unanimously said, We don't want this person's removal. Under the strongest terms. And feeling very, very strongly about this. It seems clear that this is at least the conversation about the board, and how we review their annual reports or their recommendations. There's clearly unmet expectations, you know, on both sides here. Finally, you know, I would ask that the people today, here today that are opposing Miss Spiro, I do wonder, and I mean, this with all due respect, you know, if any of you have actually watched a meeting, or attended a meeting in person, to see her demeanor, to, to see how she approaches these issues, no matter what you think about it, but I'll tell you, I haven't heard a single person say that she has been anything but thoughtful and respectful. So, you know, for those reasons, I cannot support her removal. I have a question for whomever has the answer to this question. If I may, you know, have we I understand per policy, it is absolutely within our authority to remove a board member of any advisory board. Is that something we have ever done? In a situation like this? I'm not talking about someone who's moved away. I know we dealt someone who doesn't meet the eligibility requirements. You know about where they live, where they reside, someone who has missed, you know, attendance requirements. Have we ever just removed someone With cause or with without cause.
I'm not aware of any, at least in in recent years, we have had individuals removed, as you described for a couple of reasons also for lack of participation. But in terms of a just a straight decision by the Commission, I don't recall that in recent years, but I've not gone back and researched it either.
Okay, thank you. And I'll wrap this up, I think it's probably clear, you know, where I sit on this issue that I don't support her removal. I want to make one final comment, which is, you know, to put this in perspective, we've had, we had at least one senior staffer who was being subpoenaed by the FBI. And there was no conversation about, you know, is this someone who we should suspend or fire? I understand that's not the role of the commission. But it wasn't something that I believe was brought up by city management, and that's not really a distract you, it's just sort of talking about our how putting this into context, we had a, a member on an advisory board who was publicly calling, or the removal of one of us was sitting City Commissioner saying that he was of unfit character, low moral character, encourage trouble, no conversation about whether that's someone who is appropriate to sit on a board. So that's why I'm supporting the substitute motion. And that's why I can't I can't support the motion that was made by Commissioner Williams Cox.
Thank you, I'm gonna weigh in now. The barrel boy on point.
Oh, boy, let me let me correct something. The reason that the reason that I included it in the motion was based on the policy commission policy 110, I did not mention anything about the board members, bias this or anything like that, I'll only mention that the only reason I knew about the cup was from the chair, I cited the policy, because I'm focused on the on the board, not on the individual. I am not attacking this rural character, or her beliefs or whatever she whatever, I never call for her removal until I made the motion. And I'm simply doing that based on the destruction the time. So we're the direction that the board has taken. And I'm trying to do what I think is best to restore the board to what their mission is. And it is not to be politically active, and taking sides and producing press releases. And because there's action caused that, that is why I made my I made that a part of my motion. Thank you.
Thank you. So I fully intend to support the original motion on the table and not the substitute motion. And my reasons why is, look, there's been a lot of great comments here this evening. And a lot of things that I agree in supportive individuals and against individuals as well, because there is one common thread that I do think that we can all agree upon. And that is we do need diversity of opinion. And we do need to have people to the table that want to engage. But let us not confuse the issue here at the table. And anyone that is currently serving on the police review board that would like to I would welcome them with open hands to serve on the Citizens Advisory Council for the police department. That is the public forum where we do pull people from all different walks of life. To talk about the bigger issues, we need to keep in mind that the police Review Board has a very narrow focus. And that is why we expect up front the only board that we have, that they sign a pledge to be non biased. They are dealing with officer involved shootings. And they are dealing with the review of the current policy. Now it's my understanding that since its inception, the board has reviewed policies, they've made recommendations by understanding that the majority and chief I'm looking at you you have accepted and incorporated and there have been some differences that you did not accept. At this point. We have a police review board specifically tasked with the scope and mission to review officer involved shootings, heaven forbid as they happen in our community. This is not an advisory council like other advisory councils, I am very much in favor of taking a hard pause. These are wonderful people that are up for reappointment this evening. I look forward to meeting and talking to them. That does not mean that I'm not going to take a positive step forward in the future. But in the past couple of weeks, I have had three of the four appointed officials, the city manager, the city attorney, and the inspector general who actually staffs this body, come to my office with concerns, formal concerns specifically about the direction and the scope and mission creep of the police Review Board. Therefore, I will be not supporting the substitute motion on the table. But I will be supporting the original motion on the table. And I look forward to future conversations on the mission in the scope of the police Review Board, as we originally intended it for debate. Commissioner Richardson,
Thank you, Mayor. And there has been a lot of good discussion, I want to thank everyone who has come out and voiced an opinion on this, it's been a very difficult subject. But here we are. And we've got a decision to make, I will tell you upfront, I will not support the substitute motion. Because like the mayor, I think that now this the relationship, and what we failed to realize is that there has to be a relationship, there has to be a working relationship between this board and the police department, there has to be that trust, there has to be a working relationship. And in my mind, it has been irrevocably broken. It may not have been with just the contents on a cup. And I don't know where to hell this came from. Because there's some people say it was there. Some people say it wasn't. I don't know if it was or wasn't. Because people have been on both sides of that. That issue but but that, regardless of that, I think that what this and I give Commissioner Williams Cox, a lot of credit for championing this board, in light of what and this is what really bothers me, in light of what had been happening in the black community, not the community generally. And certainly it would impact whatever decisions the the board makes, and the chief accepts will impact the entire community. But let me tell you this was this board was brought about largely almost exclusively because of issues in the community between the police department and those in the African American community. If there was there's somebody that wants to challenge that, I'd be welcome to hear your challenge. But I can almost guarantee you that that's why this board was established. And so we're not talking about pay people bringing viewpoints to this board. It was never established for that you heard the attorney, talk about why this board was established what its vision or what its mission is, what its standards are. It wasn't about people bringing viewpoints to the board, Democrat, Republican abolitionist, non abolitionist. It was not about that. It was about this board reviewing actions by the police, that largely impacted the African American community. And now we're talking about our damn cup. And one person that's more important than what's happening to people in the African American community. I refuse to accept that. I want a board that looks at what the police department may or may not be doing that impacts our citizens in a negative way. That doesn't depend on one person. It doesn't depend on their viewpoints. It depends depends on policies and actions. And I'll give you an example. The example was and this was one of the policies that the Board reviewed was the instance where the young man fell asleep at a traffic light and he was arrested taken aside and he was beat with batons. He was African American. The Board reviewed that policy and made recommendations it didn't have a damn thing to do with anybody's viewpoint. What it had to do with was this young man African American being beat with baton by the police. That policy was reviewed by the board chief i If correct me if I'm wrong. You accepted the recommendations of the board.
But he can be there for the public hearing that he called me he's upset about rebel calling them a liar intuition meaning he says you have to You don't do that.
Keep gains, you have an open mic. He.
Chief reveler, am I wrong that you accepted the board's recommendations on that policy? Okay. Okay. But but but my point is, is that's what we're looking for from this board. I'm not looking for people to bring viewpoints to this board. And that's why they are moving in the direction of if you're going to serve on this board, that you're going to have to declare that you do not have biases. And if you know, I have biases, but I don't publicly exhibit those biases on my sleeve, or on a cup, or on a t shirt, or a cat. Because when I'm elected to this commission, I'm expected to represent every citizen in this city. And that's what I attempt to do. Regardless of what my biases may be, I don't know if there's anybody in here could identify a bias on my part that I've exhibited. That would prohibit me from serving on this commission. I don't know that it would be the case with any of my colleagues up here. And certainly, we all have biases. So what I'm suggesting is that we get back to the original intent of this board. And I don't think we can get there from where the relationship is now. We are committed to this board. I'm as committed or more committed than anyone to seeing that this board exist, but that it is successful and what the mission of it is. I don't think we get there from here. And so in that respect, I would I would be willing to support the original motion, that we move this board forward. And it's not that, you know, I've heard some people say, Well, you just want people who are going to agree with the police. So you just want people who are going to be yes, people, I can tell you, the people that I know that I know, that serve on this board are not that, especially my appointment. I know him he's an independent thinker. And those are the kinds of people that we're looking for, to serve on this board. And so I think we are committed to seeing that this board exist, for the very reasons that it was initially constituted. And that we move forward with the support of this commission and the staff of the city. I don't think we can get there from where we are now. I just I don't see it. And so I can't support the substitute motion. But I will entertain the original motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Commissioner Porter.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, the first thing I want to say, and I, I'm not trying to really debate this, at this point, I do want to say that I really reject the idea that you cannot expect accountability of our law enforcement, the methods that we use to police, and also support law enforcement. There are officers who are critical of themselves, of how we police. We're currently officers who I have spoken to. So I just want to say I really, really reject this idea that you are one or the other. I want to clarify to that, at least to the public. My point isn't that we necessarily are asking for people to bring their perspectives as if they are, you know, as if we're like creating some collage. My point is just that people have those perspectives. I also just want to say that, you know, since since he's not here, I and I have his permission to say this. Chair Gaines does have a different perspective here about how that conversation went with Commissioner Williams Cox. That's really between them. But as far as where this came from, what his recollection is that he said emphatically that's not what the sticker says. And I've personally seen sticker I can guarantee that's not it does not say f the police are for what it's worth. However, we move forward, I think we all would agree that the relationship Ship between the board and the law enforcement community, you know, no matter how we move forward, and I'm not saying it hasn't been this way, but it's a two way street. It's a two way street. And I definitely don't think that we want to set ourselves up in the future, or with all due respect to the union, a situation where we are pressured into removing a board member, because they want us to. Thank you.
Mr. Malla. Yeah, just
one final thought on on this motion and all the further comments if this motion does not succeed, but the motion on the table is to reappoint Mr. Edward Gaines. Mr. cleric, that's a black male, I believe. Yes. Okay. And the second is to reappoint Mr. Barry Monroe, also a black male, correct. And then the third was option one, which would be to take applications for the vacant seat. Okay, I just reject any any. We're removing black men, from a citizens police Review Board. That's what voting against this motion would do. It doesn't speak to the other seat that can be taken up in a subsequent motion if that was the will of the body. But the motion on the table is whether Mr. Edward ganz and Mr. Barry Monroe who have served faithfully and have had no implications against their character whatsoever, should be able to continue to serve. And then I just have one further question before we take this vote. Mr. Treasurer, clerk board police chief from the recommendations we received from the citizens police Review Board. Do you feel those recommendations come from a place of anti police bias?
Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure how we answered that question.
Are you asking the question
the citizens police revolt report Review Board has made recommendations to the police chief he's accepted many of them and rejected some Aren't they being rejected because he thinks they're being recommended based on anti police bias? My question,
if you like the police chief come I don't know how we answer the question. I understand the question. But
I mean, the board is unable to function with the current members because there's anti-police bias. I'm just trying to. There's been no due process for these applicants at all to make a case we haven't reviewed the individual decisions they've made. Nobody's made any argument that they're making recommendations that are distracting. The only distraction we've really seen, has been through Tallahassee reports about a cup about a cup with a sticker that was not factually what it was. So I'm just trying to get to the underlying issue. Is there anti police bias on the citizens police review board that's being brought to the police chief?
Probably want to come answer please.
Mr. Mayor, I don't know how we answer that. And I don't I don't believe that the staff is not making the case for this. This is not a motion of staff, not a recommendation of staff. And
by us, we don't interact with the citizens police Review Board, they have an individual job. They are they make recommendations to the staff. And I'm asking for the staffs professional opinion, if there's an anti police bias in those recommendations,
I think we can say and the chief will will agree without a doubt that we have taken all the recommendations on face value that they come from a genuine place from the board. We have not accepted all the recommendations for a variety of reasons, but have also reviewed the recommendations in good faith not assuming that there is any motive other than to be constructive. And so I think I think we can firmly say that that there's no suspicion of it coming from the wrong place. Okay.
So we have taken a vote on two black men who have served on this board, who there's been no implication that they've made any recommendations that are anti police whatsoever, and we're going to remove this from this board. I just don't understand why. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Richardson, Mr. Mayor, pro tem, I got you in line right after Commissioner Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Commissioner Matt Lowe with all due respect. You know, I understand your statement, because I resent it like ill. You will not sit here and tell me a black man who's lived black for 66 years, that you're more concerned with black representation on this board than I would be, sir. That's what I have fought for all of my political career in the City of Tallahassee is equity among every citizen in this country. Unity. If these two individuals are not reappointed, they have the opportunity to apply again. And there are more than two black men in this community that could serve on this board. And I'm sure would be interested in serving on this board. So that is that to me, Mr. Matt Lowe should not have been made an issue. Your point, Mr. Mayor,
I'm just trying to get it done.
I'm not done. Identity, Matt load.
before I'm
done with this, when he's done with his comments, I'll come to you on point. But let's let Mr. Richardson finish.
So that I that bothered me, I have to tell you, I really do. And again, what we're what we're looking at is is are those issues, not not viewpoints. And even this thing about bias, apparently, it's important to the board itself, because now the board has said, the board has said, we want our members to state specifically, that they come to this board without bias. So apparently, it's an issue for them. It's an important issue for them now. There have been statements made, and I don't know, Miss Darrow. As a matter of fact, she and I texted each other about working cooperatively to address homeless issues. In the community. I recently did a ride along with the sheriff's host, homeless outreach street team. And she texted me or emailed me and thanked me for doing that, and indicated that she would like to work with me. And so that's the only interaction that I've had with Miss Bureau and I really look forward to working with her on those issues. But there have been statements made now since all of this came about stating her position. With the police department, I understand that there was an article written written in the Tallahassee Democrat that said that the police department was again irrevocably broken and needed to be abolished. That is bias, stated bias if I don't know what else you call it, and the board has said that is an issue and a concern for them going forward. So that's, that's the issue that I have with this whole thing. And I just, I really want this board to get back to what it was originally constituted for. Because it primarily impacted people who look like me from the communities that I live in. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
All right, Commissioner matla. Do you still want to speak on point?
Let's we'll take the vote on this and then upcoming, hey, I
got the Mayor Pro Tem in queue to speak in after your comments. Mayor Pro Tem we're gonna we're gonna move forward with the votes Okay, so there is a substitute motion on the table made by Commissioner Matlow for options One, two, and three sigma Commissioner Porter. See no further comment. All those in favor of the motion on the table signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye All those opposed? Aye Mr. Williams Cox was that a yay or nay on the substitute motion
and we just lose Commissioner Williams Cox.
Colleagues bear with me when the motion would fail on a two two tie anyway yeah, let's let's for the record record commission with
anybody seen any good movies lately?
Yeah, what kinda forever
how are we with re establishing communications with the commissioner?
All right, Commissioner Williams Cox. The motion on the table was for the substitute motion options One, two and three that was made by Commissioner Matlow. Seconded by Commissioner Porter. We called for the yeas and the nays and I could not hear your vote. Can you confirm in the affirmative or in the negative for the substitute motion?
A vote against a substitute motion.
Okay, so the motion fails. On a two three vote with the mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioner Richardson voting against the motion. We are back on the original motion that was made by the Mayor Pro Tem seconded by Commissioner Richardson. Any further comment? Commissioner Matlow.
