These are the things hopefully everybody can see that on the screen ahead of us for a few years ago, I think it was. So twice the size it needs to be.
Are you going to be giving the presentation? Do you mind if I put them close to? I'm recording not not to try and trip you up? I'm recording for documentaries.org. Okay, I don't know if you know about them.
All right. So with that, let's get started. Welcome, everybody, glad people could make it. And all the weather didn't cooperate the best. But we're excited to see people at our first of three public forums, we'll have this one this evening, I will have another one. Next Monday, in blue board, six, and then we will have one, Monday after Thanksgiving, that'll be another virtual option as well. So there'll be multiple chances to kind of get to share this with everybody in the community, you know, get some thoughts for everyone. And then there will be a public hearing on the 30th of November at the public health and safety committee. So and we're grateful for our public health and safety chair in Utah for helping us with this, to secure this location. So we could sit down with all of you and go through our proposed reform to community oversight. Everybody, not really, okay. All right. I can speak louder. I didn't want to like, I don't want to feel like I was yelling at everybody. But all right. No, it's okay. I think actually, if I can just click this too, I can always stand up, again. Alright, so quickly going through the agenda. We're going to welcome and introductions, I guess we've done that we're gonna go through some of the history, the current issues and the goals of this reform, the proposed reform itself, and then the proposed structure and processes, kind of closing out with any final thoughts and then taking the time to answer any questions that people might have. So with that, my name is Andrew Hawkins, I'm with the Minneapolis civil rights department, I manage the Office of Administration and Policy, I have the pleasure of working across our department with all of our different divisions. I've worked quite a bit on the especially over the past few years with our Commission's which includes our Civil Rights Commission, our police conduct oversight commission, our police conduct review panel, and then we have our workplace Advisory Committee. And kind of one of the things that, again, I get to do with these groups is identify ways that we can connect better with residents ways that we might be able to do things better. If there's any efficiencies that you know, we're not. We're not we're not seeing just because, you know, sometimes you get bogged down into the way of thinking where that's how we've always done it, which we know that's not always the best answer. And so obviously, with this one, this relates to our Andrew, if you slow down for people, yep, yep, everybody can stop me too. If I if you think I tell if I'm talking too fast, I'm happy to go back whenever we need to do so. All right, so a little bit about the history, just just real quick. It's always good to know kind of where we came from. So the evolution of civilian oversight bodies in the city, Minneapolis goes back to 1990. The civilian review authority was the first civilian oversight body in the city, Minneapolis consisted of a board of seven individuals. And then there was also a component of civilian staff complaints given at this group, they were investigated by the civilian staff and then the civilian board of seven would review them and make decisions on the merits of the complaints. Those could then be forwarded on to the Minneapolis Police Department for potential disciplinary action. In 2012, this was replaced with the Office of please conduct review. And so that is a division there's currently there's the office please conduct review that is a division within the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights that can receive complaints, performance investigations. And then when cases are routed for investigation, they also work collaboratively with Minneapolis Police internal affairs. The other two that you see were new and created when we had this office, the OPR process originated in 2012. And that was a police kind of review panel. And so we're going to get more into detail on the review panels here as we go along. But the responsibility of the review panels is to review completed administrative investigations of police misconduct, and issue a decision on the merits of the allegations that are made within the case. And those are all forwarded to the Minneapolis Police Department and kind of entered into their disciplinary review process. And then the other piece that was created was the police conduct oversight commission. And that was the public facing commission, who was tasked with having discussions around the topics related to policing, identifying trends and patterns, identifying speakers that could be helpful on a given topic around law enforcement. And then they would collaborate with staff to do research and study projects. But again, so that was kind of the public facing one but then the actual Administrative Review process was something that was done by these panels that was internal facing. Obviously, I covered some of this it's also going to in your packets as well, but just to get into sort of, you know, what the structure looks like the panels So drawn from a civilian pool. So we have a pool like bleed, it could be up to 80 people, at the moment have civilians who can apply for that, if they're, you know, they go through a screening process and interviews, and it can be appointed as a panelist. The reason that they're pulled from civilian pools is it allows for an expedited scheduling kind of based on availability, as opposed to waiting for a large group of people to all be available at the same time. In addition to this pool of civilian panelists, there's a pool of sworn panelists who are identified by the police department with the rank of inspector or higher. So they'll pull from that pool, two individuals, and they'll pull two individuals from the civilian pool that will constitute a panel of four people who will be reviewing entire case file and an issue their decision on the case. And again, I know I already kind of talked about this, we just don't have to hit anything that I didn't already. Like, one of the things I don't think I mentioned was this, PCC was responsible for also making recommendations to the city council and elected officials, Chief of Police, just on, you know, department practices, internal controls, compliance, and kind of anything identified through the operation of the group. And then there was also the facilitation of outreach, training and community engagement. So now we get into kind of why we're here, you know, the identification of issues with the current process. And, you know, what are the goals of any efforts that are going into potential reform of this structure? I think it's important to know kind of how we got here, and like the range of input on oversight that's been gathered, I think it's there haven't been many moments of judgment, especially, you know, recently where there's been so much, you know, I think input from community from, you know, like external, from elected officials from even from staff on this process, you know, as we've seen, in the past few years, just simply, as a result of the circumstances, following the murder of George Floyd and this national increase in participation and oversight from communities. This provided a very good opportunity to essentially sit back and listen at all of these sessions to see what
oh, no, I just had a question, sit just to get a gauge of where people are people. Is everyone familiar with the police conduct oversight committee, and the police review panels? So
I'm surprised, I didn't realize that there was a panel like this. that existed before, recently.
So that's, I
mean, I feel like that's a good point. And that's actually something that we get into is I don't think that that observation or that stance is necessarily unique, which was one of the things that I believe contributed, might have been contributing to some of the problems about it, and who's responsible for what so hopefully, we can clarify that and outline something that makes that much more clear going forward.
What we're going to hear tonight is not an outcome of I don't know what to call it,
because I don't have the right terminology. But there's a civil rights thing that was
that is going to direct Minneapolis and how the police are going to conduct politics. So yeah, that's exactly right. So you're saying that the consent decree is not necessarily like this is all starting up because of that this was in place, and now we might have some changes because of the
decree? Or what part was in place the reform itself or the actual structures? I'm
not sure. So I'm just trying to
understand. So I think there is a there is a consent decree or a settlement, one within the HR based on their findings. And so that is incomplete. So, but this was actually the work for the last couple of years. And it really came out of the fact that from is, as I was saying, community feedback about, you know, how can we make this a more public facing piece of the work that we do in our in our department. But we also did, it also does answer some of the questions that Atari concerns that nphr ways, though. And so we don't know what the DOJ will do, because the DOJ also they haven't come back with any findings yet. So that's
the goal, though, is to have one consent decree. So we'll get that we've already got the mvhr findings and getting the DOJ to come in we we only imagined that they'll be similar. And so the goal is to have one that we're working on.
And you're saying that this program will adapt to kind of meet some of what comes down from the decree signed up entire
city. We're like, you know, whatever they tell us we have to do we have to do
it. Okay. Yeah. And I'll just say So, this we took into account what was in those plans, okay. When this was something that was already being talked about, but when the findings from mph are came out, that was something that was you took into consideration, and they had actually had an opportunity to go Get this as well.
Yep. No. And thank you everybody for weighing in to and it's definitely important to note that this is, you know, like, do you think these ideas have been building for a period of time and did in developing along with everything that we've heard in the mvhr? You know, investigation and report and that process has certainly informed all the work that's been done. Yep.
I was wondering, is there any way you can make that a little bit bigger? I can't read it.
It's, I'm limited by court size. But it if you want, if you want, if it's helpful, I can read through?
I don't, I don't see it directly in the booklet. So wondering, is this book the information?
Yep, yep. Yep. I mean, it'll be made available. And I think the book is the book has a deeper dive into it. And then this is kind of the lifted up version. Where would we find that? Now? That'll be available on our website? We're happy to share it on through Council offices. Civil Rights website. All right.
Yep. Yeah, so long as it's there, you know, tomorrow sometime? Yep. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
All right. So again, kind of understanding, you know, the variety of areas, you know, where this was gathered. And so that included, you know, included community, which was, you know, public comment of various groups we had, the mayor's was one of the staff liaison for the mayor's Public Safety Working Group. We had, there were multiple city meetings on the topic, and the BIA councillors listening sessions, there were a number of, in an ever number of direct conversations, just, you know, had the community through various roles in that capacity. We did hear from, you know, actual members of the groups, and that would be the same thing through direct observation or direct interactions. There were a number of others for media articles and statements that were provided to that that was taken into consideration, public statements during meetings, you know, those types of things. And then the final group, you know, that served as a valuable source was staffing, and that was through direct interactions with them to kind of find out, you know, for ones that had been there longer, it's like, how was this gone? What if some of the issues been that you've experienced? You know, what are some things that you don't think are clear that you wish were, you know, and essentially, just, you know, what are the if you had to, you know, the ability to wave your hand, what would be different about this, you know, that you think would have an impact. And then the other piece with a staffer, obviously, staff that aren't with us anymore, as its historical data through looking back through meetings and minutes, and like, those types of things from previous, like gatherings of this group over time, just to kind of watch how it developed, if there were anything that kind of trends or patterns with, you know, like this, if the conversation went in a certain direction, or kind of, you know, sort of to how we got to here. You know, the issue themes, I tried to sort of capture some of them, you know, that the bigger ones that were fair, you know, that did seem to be fairly common. And so one of the biggest ones across the board for at least for, you know, for community and members, I think, is who does what? And then as we just stated, it's like, Wait, it's like, what's a review panel? I didn't know that they did that. Like, I thought that happened somewhere else. Like, that was certainly one that was noted. You know, then you also had our public facing group. You had the staff group, within civil rights that did investigations, internal affairs, you know, also this investigation, so it was just kind of, I think it's actually just really even confusing, you know, understandably so, you know, where are these different responsibilities existed? And in the event that, you know, like, you wanted to directly address any of these, or you had questions about it, where do you go, you know, if there's any, you know, any of four places, and again, if some of the groups aren't public facing, are they made publicly available? How do you have questions on, you know, their operation answer. The other one was access to data. And this is, I think this was one that we, you know, we hear from a lot, you know, a number of avenues, both community and with members, which is just, you know, like, we want to know more about x. And, you know, and having to run things through staff, you know, and wait for stuff to compile things can be frustrating. And I was like, Well, look, it's like, we need to have more direct, you know, like a hands on experience, so that we can observe things firsthand, as opposed to kind of sitting back and waiting for you and bring us something and kind of guiding us along. I think, especially given just like the changing environment, that's something that's not necessarily surprising that people want to see things directly, in order to, you know, to form decisions and, you know, evaluate something effectively, there was also the transparency of the process. And I think one of the biggest issues with that is the fact that, you know, when this change happened in 2012, you had a public for kind of a split off from the community roll into a public facing commission that was meeting, but then you also had this Administrative Review process that was split into one that just by definition, it's an internal process, but there wasn't a piece that was ever, like, outward facing the community or had a reporting back function, which was, like, certainly created, I think, some some frustration with not knowing more about that part of the process. Another one, just meaningful involvement in the process, kind of feeling that, you know, you're putting in the time to, you know, to show up and to do this work, you know, and like, what do you, you know, what are the results? Like, what can you hold on? What can you show everybody that you've done, you know, from this time that you've, you know, you've committed, it's like having, you know, can you point to a policy that was changed and you point to say that you were on a certain amount of panels and you reviewed these and identified, you know, these policies and it was really something where it came back to that discussion with the commissioner on you know, it's it's like, well, what is six That's even look like which is fairly hard to answer in the current structure, it's, you know, is it that you had x amount of speakers is it that you did X amount of research and study, you know, we just there really hadn't ever been that conversation, which is something that's definitely that's not a good situation to be in, especially in our current time when it's, you know, that work is important. And so being able to measure the effectiveness of everybody involved in it is important as well. And then simply coming back down to just the effectiveness of oversight. You know, like, and I think this is one that goes across the entire group, whether it's community, whether it's members or former members, and then whether it staff is just, you know, the feeling that the feeling of effectiveness, or ineffectiveness is a constant. You know, that's something that I think it does weigh very heavily on people where if you're spending this time, whether it's to attend a meeting, whether it's to be part of, you know, a board or advisory board, you know, in any capacity, not just this, you know, or if it's staff spending hours and hours reviewing body cameras, you know, where the body camera footage, you know, conducting interviews, just, you know, like compiling information for an investigation, you want to feel like all of that is moving in a direction, that's, you know, that's having an impact that you can see, and that it's making a difference. Moving into the goals over form, again, that one that I touched on is sort of the overarching theme here, it's providing a meaningful role for community in the police oversight process. This involves creating a clear mission and authority for the community community role, you know, having this idea where it's sort of like, well, there's some overlap here, and there's overlap here, it just, it doesn't lead to a, you know, a system where they're, you know, people are operating with a lot of confidence, as far as what, you know, what is our authority? I mean, that was an that's become a question. We've heard a lot more from a lot of various different, you know, various groups, because it just wasn't spelled out, I think, in the way that people had hoped. maximising the transparency, the oversight process. I think, as I said, just the Administrative Review process of any investigation, whether it's for city staff, or for officers, it is an administrative process, and it's not allowed that can occur in a public space. However, that doesn't mean that there can't be some effort to, you know, bring some of that into the light, whether it's the individuals that are serving on a panel, whether it's just more information about the process itself. And so that's definitely something that, you know, that that was identified that I think, you know, there's certainly room for a significant improvement on that one, the final one, increasing direct access to data and opportunities for direct oversight. And that's the one that nobody wants to feel like they're, you know, conducting oversight by proxy, that they want to be directly involved in the process. They want to be reviewing something again, just it's it's one of those, especially now, and it's certainly understandable. It's like, you know, like, Well, what happened here? It's like, well, you know, this person can tell you, you know, the response that you will reasonably get a number of times like, Well, no, I'd rather see it. And so if there are opportunities to do that, that's something that we'd like to be able to call out, lift up and implement. Moving on to the actual, you know, so what are we proposing? What we are proposing is a unified Commission, the name that we chosen was a Community Commission on fees oversight, the name was fairly deliberate. And one of the issues that we've run into is that with any government entity, you end up with a bit of an alphabet soup situation with all of the acronyms that exist. You know, that's, that's avoidable. And in terms of, you know, one of the things I think we had to answer a number of times, it's Well Wait, who's community whose staff who's MPD? Who's this? And so by naming it the Community Commission on police oversight, there was a deliberate effort to put community first A for clarification, but be just for the purposes of ownership so that it's clear who you know, who that responsibility, or sorry, well, you know, where are the responsibilities for this proposed group fall? So what you know what it is, as I said, it's a creation of a single community driven entity. And the work of the Commission will take place during public meetings, which provide an opportunity for residents to observe presentations, hear discussions, and provide public input. And then commissioners will also serve as the civilian review panelists, when we can be when please conduct review panels are convenient to review administrative investigations.
Another important question when we're proposing anything, what are the benefits? Again, feel free to stop me I'm happy to go back as questions if you have them. We don't have to wait till the end to see if they're relevant now. But again, as you know, as we were going through this and trying to figure out what the biggest benefits from this word, so the commissioners are being able to serve on a review panel and have direct access to the entirety of an investigative case file. So that's going to include any materials that are gathered during the investigation, the interviews that were conducted as part of the investigation, any body camera dash camera, dispatch, logs, everything, I mean, it is an exhaustive file, I mean, some of them are bigger than others, obviously, but this can be you know, a pretty significant amount of items that are gathered. And so, what they have to do is they need to when they are on a panel that goes to them, there is not a request that is made, they do not have to ask staff if they could possibly see something they are given the entirety of the file in order to do a critical job. That is part of this process. Um, that was one of the things you know, that I know has been a point of frustration. And then sometimes it can be, you know, like, hindered by if we have, you know, staff departures or turnover, you know, or whatever it might be where there just aren't enough resources to get somebody something because staff have to run the data on their side. As far as this part of the process is concerned, it is considered a critical function it needs to happen if it doesn't happen, investigation stalled timelines. And that's something that the consent decree which I'm sure will address as well, like timelines, you know, cannot improve something that's just it's for a variety of reasons this is implementing this will play a very large role in ensuring that when they're on review panels, they will have access directly to a significant amount of files on a product police misconduct case. The other piece of it, as in this, this is one that was seen, oddly enough, like no, like, we kind of identified through conversations with review panelists, which was all this information and knowledge that they're accumulating had nowhere to go. But like the, you know, whatever you want to say the size and shape of like, the container of that information was the same as the vacuum that existed on the other side of this equation with the actual commissioners, you know, not having an understanding for what some of this look like, the logical stuff there is that it's frustrating, where they're spending all this time doing all this stuff that goes nowhere, so why not try to harness you know, what they're learning in order to inform the discussions on the larger group. And so the biggest benefit here, commissioners will be able to independently accumulate knowledge of misconduct patterns or trends, the investigative process outcomes and other topics related to policing. Second slide, I didn't want to cram it all into one and I wanted to make sure we can be hit on all of them. Again, it's just valuable exposure to real time cases. And that increased ability to identify patterns and practices. This was something we heard from members directly. We heard it from media, in meetings where, you know, may feel like multiple occasions that direct quote was, you know, they, you know, how are we supposed to identify this, if all we have is summary data, you know, like that can only get you so far, you know, summary data is not going to include body camera, it's not going to include that, you know, the interview with officers with any witnesses with any complaints, you know, so it is higher level, though, you know, like, I think that the case summary process has value. And I'd like to see a continued just for the sake of even just for public transparency purposes. But for if you're tasking people with identifying complex trends and patterns and practices increasing, it just stands to reason that you need to do what you can to provide them as much information as possible. This also allows again, that like supporting it supports recommendations for expanded review by staff. I know, that's been an issue as well, in terms of kind of figuring out like, well, what can we do a research study on, you know, we talked to staff and like, you know, again, staff will identify what they think are issues, that's not always good enough, you know, sometimes that people want to be able to observe something directly and, you know, identify something without having to go through, you know, in an intermediary to kind of tell them what their priorities would look like. So being able to be on these panels, I mean, there's that, you know, like running tally, whereas you see issues, identify trends, if you've been on for panels, and you've seen the same, you know, like, same thing multiple times, that's an opportunity to flag that behavior, that policy that, you know, that officer whatever it might be, and then that can be, you know, funneled into the discussions by the full commission. Oh, I mean, it also sort of a young oops, anyway, it's an end to end role in the deliberative process, which I think provides, it has the opportunity to provide increased transparency, and the ability for commissioners to effectively monitor and identify, you know, all the things that we've talked about before, you know, having them sit on the panels, but also having them sort of on a public facing body allows them to respond to questions when they're asked, you know, of the body, because right now, but you know, the system that we've had, if there are any questions about the operation of the review panel, they're not the commission, they're not, you know, they're not there to speak to anything, the commissioners don't have that information, either. So essentially, what has ended up happening is, you know, staff will sort of have to stand in and kind of do their best to explain what they think, you know, like somebody was doing or what a process entails. This allows them to speak as subject matter experts and just say, you know, quite, quite frankly, just, you know, think like, well, actually, like, you know, I was just on a panel last week here, you know, here's the way that it went, here are my observations and share directly from their experience so that we don't have to have this kind of, you know, information vacuum that exists. Where it essentially just ends up with, you know, every party involved, just speculating what might have happened when we have a group of individuals who could speak directly to what occurred. Now, kind of getting into more a little bit more of the details with the structure and processes. For the commission structures structure, that commission membership will consist of 15 members, there will be 13 commissioners who are appointed by the city council, and there will be two commissioners who will be appointed by the mayor. And then just again, in order to stagger the expiration of terms that are going to be one and two to begin, but then subsequently, all appointments will be for three years. Training and Certification. This is something that again, just over time that's evolved, I believe, you know, some of the things that are identified maybe previously might exist or might not. So it was it was certainly time for them to go back and kind of take some time to identify a better training curriculum for this group. If we're going to put these individuals in the place to play a meaningful role. They have to have meaningful support. They have to be at you know, they have to be educated they have To be trained, they have to know what they're looking for, they have to know what resources are available for them. And so that's something that's kind of very important with this going forward. And so again, just in addition to those standard city trainings, it's a civilian oversight training curriculum that's developed using recommendations from Nicole. For those of you that don't know, Nicole is the National Association of civilian oversight of law enforcement, the national body that, you know, that that kind of governs, you know, like, like some of the best series just makes recommendations for some of the recommended practices of municipal and state oversight bodies. But they have a pretty extensive library and of recommendations kind of across the board for, you know, for training for operations and things of that nature. Additionally, just being a registered member of Nicole independent from civil rights, or PCR, having the registration being registered member gets, there's a national database that people can see there's contact information that would make them you know, like people could contact them outside of having to funnel it through city staff. And it also gives them access to that kind of that library of information that I told you about. And then I think one of the biggest ones, too, is participation and equal certification and annual conference, you know, to think in terms of what that looks like, I think someone's going to depend on funding, but at the very least, and I know, when I first started, I believe that there were some funny made available for the chair, at the time of the piece of please conduct oversight committee to attend to the naked eye, then April conference, woman, civilian staff went out, and they found that very helpful, it was an opportunity for them to be there firsthand and to speak to their organization directly, as opposed to you know, they have having staff kind of serve as that surrogate role and telling people about our oversight structure. And again, this, all of this going back to just you know, trying to create some degree of independence, where they're able to go out, tell their own story, get information firsthand, they can sit in the trainings coming in about one minute fix now, everything's available virtually. So that's something where, you know, like, they'll have the opportunity to do that, if that's easier, but I think it's critical to be sending them out to the different ideally, the Chair and the Vice Chair, to the annual conference every year, so that they can, you know, get information from similar bodies across the country, as opposed to just kind of having it all filter back through staff. None of that's to say that, you know, to be a shot at our staff, but it's just, you know, again, they're there for their purposes, they're not necessarily there for you know, to discover what the best practices are for, you know, a community body that's doing this type of role. So I think putting them in a position where they can do that themselves is incredibly important. The review panel structure, I thought I touched on this a little bit, and it's essentially just a modification of, of what is the current structure where it's selected from two civilian or cooler to civilians are selected from a civilian pool of panelists, and two sworn panelists are selected from a pool of MPD inspectors are higher. The big change with this is that instead of having this kind of independent civilian panelist pool, the commission itself replaces that. So we have one body in the city we no longer have to. And so while the commissioners when they serve on the panel, it still has, you know, it's required to be an Administrative Review process that might not be public facing, there is a public facing component that they will have through their role on the commission, when it meets publicly as a whole. They'd be expected to reserve as review panelists as April but and this was one just to ensure and we'll see how this goes, sorry, let's face it got screwed up. But a member should not serve on more than two consecutive, we put that one in there. Again, it's not necessarily going to be hard and fast rule, but just the idea was that we want people to rotate through. So that we have an opportunity for, you know, for the entire panel to serve on these as quickly as possible. Oh, that's not to say it wouldn't happen. I mean, the whole idea behind the review panels is expedited scheduling, so that when when an administrative investigation is completed, we can get that in front of a panel so that they can take a look at it and get it you know, make a recommendation and get it to NPD for for review. So but that was kind of one that we had thought of just as a way to make sure that we're giving opportunities for people to still serve on this.
And, again, the review panel process, just it's that review of investigative files, which is everything in an investigative case file. So I mean, they like some of them can be more straightforward. Some of them are incredibly comprehensive, then they then they review that in advance, they meet as a group, everyday walkthrough and discuss the facts of each allegation. And then in line with the Minnesota State statute, 620 6.9, they issue a recommendation on the merits of each allegation. And then in terms of the possible outcomes, they can be, you know that a complaint has merit, meaning that it was supported by sufficient evidence, or the complaint has no merit, meaning that review of the allegation couldn't substantiate a violation, that no violation occurred, or that there's a gap in policy that needs to be addressed. That last one's important, because if I'm not mistaken, my next slide is going to touch on, you know, like, like, why this new structure? You know, and another massive benefit of having used together previously in the event that there is a policy, you know, if there's something where there's an allegation, it's reviewed, you know, in what was alleged is deemed to have happened but it's in line with policy like it can be something we're just a policy was missing a policy was inadequate, it just there was an area didn't cover, you know, what happens with that and the fact that there's not ever the convening of the whole please conduct review panel pool, a lot of times I think that those didn't have anywhere to go or they might have been raised in formally. This basically eliminates that and provides an opportunity for commissioners when they're serving on a panel to flag issues for discussion by the full body when they convene. So again, this can include but is not limited to like cases where a complaint revealed a policy failure like meaning that the allegation is factual and follow proper procedure. But the procedure itself may be faulty for public meetings with this one, because there's gonna be a review panel, and like, it's a big demand, there's a lot of review panels, there's a lot of meetings of the commission. So we're certainly trying to be cognizant of the time that we're asking people to spend on this. So the way that this was structured was just requiring that the full commission will be will be held or sorry, I mean, because of the full commission will be held at a minimum of four times a year. I will note that you know, that last bullet, the commission is absolutely able to convene additional special meetings as necessary. So this is not a limit that says you can only be four times it's just making sure that they will meet essentially quarterly, every year. And again, the spacing of those meetings is to ensure that they have adequate time to serve on review panels, in between meetings, again, compiled any trends, like everything that they've observed lineup speakers, the knowledge gathering gets, I think one of the things that can kind of happen when we jump from meeting to meeting, especially when we start having a lot of, you know, subcommittee meetings, is that by the time that we get to the, by the time that the ones done, you're already on to planning the next one, we move to the next one, and we forget what we did in the previous one. And so we just kind of unknowns end up in the cycle. And so I think by giving them time between it, it allows them to make sure that they're prepared to make sure that they have time, they're not gonna feel rushed to get something in there. It can be adequately researched, they can work with staff, they can line it, you know, that they can discuss with, you know, topics with subject matter experts. And so I think the hope is that it just, again, professionalized as an elevates these meetings, it's also again, I'll note, four meetings a year isn't a lot. And so I think that that, you know, some people could say, well, that's less than a meet. Now, I think the counterpoint to that is that the expectation for attendance becomes a lot easier. If you're only meeting four times a year, it is a bigger event, if there's individuals that you need to be there to speak to something, whether it's from MPD, whether it's from civil rights, whether it's from, you know, it's another actor in the city, you know, I think it does make, it does kind of lower the the expectation that people should be able to attend these when they occur. And again, just the structure of the commission meeting, what that looks like, it's very similar to what we have now, with, you know, the additional fact that these individuals are also serving in another role, where they're playing a direct, you know, they're having direct input on the review of cases and recommendations to MPD. They provide for public comments, they have presentations, being from staff, or elected officials, or other professionals or groups, there's discussion, you know, amongst the commission members, and with you individually, just I just mentioned, and then they had the opportunity to provide recommendations, whether those are from research and study projects, whether they're from presentations, or whether they're from a topic that they had identified themselves through their role on review panels, this is certainly something that you know, is is, the capacity is a lot greater, with this expanded role for them to do this either in either through collaboration, which I think is really the only option right now. But also individually, just you know, as a body, they have exposure directly to cases, and they can form opinions that can identify patterns and practices, whether it's done in collaboration or not. So I think that is a big change that I do, I wanted to know, I thought I had another one there, I should have transitioned better out of it. But with that said, and I'm sure there are some and I'm more than happy to provide whatever else I can on this. I know it's a lot of information. And I again, we'll have make sure that everything's available on our website, so that people can take a look and feel we are always free to submit any questions you might have, I'll do my best to answer them. Or at least, you know, hopefully direct you in toward somebody that, you know, that's able to answer them better than I can. But this is again, like I think the idea for this has been going, you know, has been kind of ruminating for a while. I think it just speaking, you know, simple just from my experience, like I got proud and just to help more with our Commission's and in 2020, just out of necessity, when we had, you know, a lot of staff getting pulled in different directions, we had high complaint volumes. And it was sort of one of the first things that was observed with this was that, you know, despite what, how you know, how things might have gone. You know, in previous years, it just like, given the climate that we had, where a lot of things were moving moving quickly. And people had that demand for, you know, like, impactful change, you know, they wanted to feel as though they were making difference, they were playing a role, you know, essentially like the sort of the odd, elongated process that we had was just becoming a massive point of frustration. And so I think kind of from that, that started to, you know, the ideas for this started to build. And I think just kind of continuously evolved to the point that we're at today. You know, and I think again, the goal of this is, you know, and it's important to know is that this is not a fix on there. I don't think you know, there is no one piece to this that will fix you know, every issue that people have with this process. And this is also again, not guaranteed. You know, like there are things that could come down the pike whether it's Through the consent decree whether it's you know, through elected officials, you know, where they want to go in a different direction. But again, I think what this is, is an opportunity. And that's to move this, you know, like to move the role of community and oversight, you know, forward to, again, identifying the changes in the landscape, and trying to address that as best we can within like the system that we're operating in, and establish a body that you know, that better than, then, you know, then what we know that what we have, and give them, you know, an actual opportunity to do that direct hands on work to own something, you know, and to play that role, but also to take that, you know, that role of panelist to the extent that we're able, and out of the shadows, and making that available to, you know, members of the public to ask questions directly of the individuals who are making recommendations on misconduct cases. Did anyone have questions? Yeah.
But yeah, I have some input. I'll start with just some questions. May we presume them that the parts of the VCR that that aren't changed in this, then that remain pretty much the same? You mentioned that it's still two sworn officers plus the two panelists, while they're still be joint supervisors, will it still be a joint jointly under the control of the Civil Rights department in the police department, as well as the still mostly sworn investigators? I mean, there's a whole list there. But it seems here the presumption is that all the rest of that stays the same with understanding.
So my approach to this was simply to look at the commission and not necessarily the structure of any of our actual divisions. However, in order to the vehicle that this happens, there is an ordinance change. And, again, it didn't just throw something in my head if I can't say something. So again, like that being a piece of it, you know, I'm not I'm not involved in I do think that there are just given everything that's, you know, the investigations that are going on, and all these negotiations, like I believe that there are there are some changes coming to that process. That's wait one more reason that this will have to evolve with it. But as far as that I think that again, this conversation does not prevent that conversation from happening. I just think it's it's a separate one about what that structure is going to look at, you know, does end up looking like when we have when things are finalized with the Department of Human Rights or with the DOJ.
I think the short answer is no, this doesn't change OPC. This just strictly changes the PCalc. And in the panel, that was this is not focused on changing VCR effects. And so let's focus on that community self civilian oversight piece. To this point, there could be changes that happen with PCR, and MBD and all of those based on the mvhr settlement. Because Oh, PCR was listed in there in terms of some some findings within HR. So there could be changes to that. But this is not that this is really just about the communities. Does that
clarify? That's that's very helpful to know. Right. So other changes could be coming down the road? We don't know anything about those at this point. Just as until an hour ago, we had no idea what you were planning for this one. Correct.
I think the fact that was unified so we intentionally wanted to make sure that
there was no, and that's
why we wanted to. And then
that leads to my second question. So
right, this, this isn't set in stone, this is a this is my proposal, so the council would have to approve it. So we don't have to present it like it's a done deal. Right as it is.
Right. That's why you're having three input sessions. So on public hearing, but is it still the city's plan to have a public hearing 13 days from now? And then the passage of the ordinance by the city council for city council, three weeks from today on December 8, is is that still the plan going forward? Knowing that, of course any city council member could you know, or the city council as a whole could say, No, we need to postpone this to you know, get more input or something. But currently, is that the the timeline that you're operating under?
Yep. I believe that that's, that's
yes, it is. It could be delay.
It could council member,
you know, recommends a delay for more clarification or for more time or something. That's always a possibility with any Council action. But that's the timeline he gave us today.
Today, okay, I think those were my question. So
are you staff or With the City of Minneapolis, are your staff with MPD?
No, I'm so I'm staff within the Civil Rights department. Department. Correct.
I'm a council member for this board. Oh, yes. See, actually,
yeah. It probably a good idea to introduce office city folk here. I'm Joel fussing, I'm with the Minneapolis city attorney's office staff some incarnations of these Commission's in the past and work on the issue. So that's why I'm here to hear an input as well.
Over the last BIA the director of the Civil Rights Act, Farley work in the clerk's office for the city. Anything else? So, welcome.
So this new body can recommend that an officer just
give some examples, right.
That correct.
So the with the new body, I think some of this is going to be the way that the ordinance changes happen under the new government structure is that a lot of the things that I think it used to be put in the ordinance are now kind of determined through operating procedures of this specific group. And so the body will have at a minimum will have the opportunity to recommend no or no merit on the allegations that are included in a case.
At this point, there's no proposal that would recommend this.
Yeah, at this point at this point, I think that is a recommendation that would happen if in the event that this does move forward. And the procedures are being developed. Good.
Question is around discipline. Yeah, if they'd if they would
also be recommending discipline.
I should also add just so everybody's on the same baseline playing field in and he did reference, there's a Minnesota state statute that that binds all cities in the state. And it limits any civilian oversight body of law enforcement, in terms of their authority to making, it's that term that we use to hear our recommendation on the merits of a complaint,
we can recommend under the law, I cannot recommend this.
They can't make a civilian review body cannot discipline an officer. Can they recommend this? Yes. That that's not entirely crystal clear in the law. That's something that's certainly being looked at at
this point, because there is nothing in here that says we would recommend
right now, the way that the statute reads is that it limits oversight bodies to write a recommendation on the merits of the complaint or fluid.
And you say, Fine, on the question of whether to recommend.
That's right didn't certainly one of the issues. I know that's being closely looked at. Like and
currently they make that merit recommendation. And that leaves their hands and goes through a whole process and internal affairs of how officers then followed by the
all behind canceling,
what's the name is louder, louder? Well hearing tend to very much Yes, well, no hearing then goes to a group or an individual who might make a recommendation or achieve. And it's on the Internal Affairs side that has decided what the what the level of discipline would be, and what the exact discipline is that that they want to cheat to recommend. Yeah, whether it's 20 hours or 30 hours suspension, but once there is decided one way or the other, it leaves the police conduct review panel, which we're talking about here. And their recommendation American be overturned, and in turn Internal Affairs long before the chief as well. I think most of the time, it's not. Every once in a while I've seen more cases where they panel recommends no merit and the internal affairs department says yeah, there is merit to this. It doesn't just go one way. Not that guy. How's working right now? Yes.
So I just read this is that ultimately, it goes to the police chief and the police chief is the only person who can make decisions regarding discipline. And once this goes to the panel because of the temporary restraining order by nphr. The chief has I think it's 45 days to make a decision. And so what there's no one else to to make a decision regarding, according to the state of Minnesota Other than that police
says that there are two police officers and two committee members on each. Yep. So you have a potential of having a draw giver to community could say it has merit, given the police concerned about him. Yep,
that that could absolutely happen. And one of the things that we've done to and this would be something that I think would be incredibly important, because as I've talked about, you know, like the transparency and the data from this is extremely valuable. If we're going to, you know, there's some of this that, again, if it can't be public, it's like, well, how can it be and usually aggregates one of those, or if you don't get into case level detail, so I think it's important to make sure that there's a database that people can go to where they can see their outcomes for panel, they can see how many times it split. In any event that it's split, they can see how many times you know, like like that occurred as a split between officers and civilians, it actually does happen quite a bit less than people think we've asked. We've I think we've had more splits between officer and civilian and officer and civilian. Where that happens, but regardless of the panel outcome, everything moves forward, if an administrative investigation is completed, and it goes through review panel, it's it doesn't matter if it's merit, no merit split, it is required to go forward into MPDS disciplinary process that was described.
So I entered that information, some of it is already on our website. So
I don't have any I know, I'll include it, I'll find I'll share it out with with everybody.
I also want to make sure that we clear that some of this information is already a lot of it is on the website, people don't know. So as the panel members who they are listed on your website, so you can know the name of the panel, whether there was an error built there and found it doesn't tell you the specific cases, but you can see the number, who you know how the split was. So that information is already something that's available, there's quite a bit of information that's available on our site, it can be overwhelming. So I acknowledge that there's somebody out to make it easier for people to kind of digest, if you will. But I don't know if you can put the link up at some point. So people can go and sift through all of that information. So yep,
I'll put a new, it's a it's on our website. But again, I mean, one of the things that we want to do, and I'll get you started one second, you know, it's I believe it's a tab on OPC RS data portal. And so you know, the whole idea behind this, if this group is going to stand on its own two feet, it's like that needs to be broken out. And they will do they'll have their own data portal that's explicitly focused on the data from this group, which is, you know, tracking recommendations and outcomes tracking the, you know, like the outcomes of panels, you know, it's, at least as far as we're allowed by data practices, you know, just so that you can actually see the work they're doing and that it's not just sort of lumped in with everything else, because this will be a unique role that's being played by a single body in the city. So I just
want to make sure people know that it is currently accessible, maybe not as easy as
the panel, who was interviewing the person making the allegation to do its own investigation, beyond the investigating material. And
I, again, I was getting into some of the operating procedures where I think that would have to be developed. But on basically, under the current process, I know there is a mechanism where they can request, you know, like they put in a request to the to OPR, to the investigators to present believe to speak with the individual. But I think that's something that would would need to be developed
in terms of how there is no proposal to allow them to
do not as part of this one now. I think that's I think that's a level as another that well, the investigation part like that's that that's that, ya know, as easy answer for that. No, yeah, no, is easy answer for their own conducting their own investigation.
We're really not right now. It does not allow for an investigation by the panel.
No, the investigation is completed by investigators, either depending on the case or the the request of the complaint, and either within civil the Civil Rights department or within MPD and its internal affairs unit. And then when it's completed
the Civil Rights department or internal food, yes. So the this town reviews that, yes. conducting their own,
correct. So when an administrative investigation is completed, and then it's queued up for a panel, and then there'll be at that point, they'll they'll schedule review panels kind of based on availability, the review panel, once it's established, all the members of the panel receive that complete investigative case file so that they can start reviewing all of the materials. And so those materials would be, you know, again, the entirety of the investigative report from the investigator, the interviews that were conducted, thankfully, transcripts of the interviews, any video whether it's dash cam, whether it's you know, corner store video that was relevant if it's body camera, you know, the dispatch logs, any kind of everything that was relevant for that investigations in that will be in that file. And so they'll have the opportunity to go through that a comprehensive filed sort of west entrance we'll begin forming their opinions on the merits of
why you don't do that. no investigation.
I'm not sure in the history of it, as far as
I can tell you about that, because I served on the Sibley review authority back in 2008 to 2010. And it was pretty similar, you know, in terms of the power to what it is now, you had to make a decision based on the file. Just as you know, a judge or something like that we do it, it has to be based on the evidence produced in court rather than something you found out on your own. Like, for instance, we were prohibited from going out and viewing the seat. Boy, that was tempting tempting to do. But we were prohibited from doing that account based entirely on the file. However, just like now, we could send it back, you can refer further as mandate for further investigation exactly, just like it is being done here. The one thing that has changed significantly since then, and would be a very strong recommendation on my part is when we had the civilian review authority, the complainant, and the officers had the opportunity if they wish to appear in front of the review panel. And we found that to be extremely helpful. It really gave you a better sense of things there were in Lotus at that time. Now, that does not ever happen with the OPC. Or that was the end of that. That but that was the case, at least for the latter half of this era. I don't know, what was the case where in the beginning, but I suspect it was. And let
me say without PCR, just to make sure we separate the two or PCR does interview the complainant and the officers. And so the panel is not it doesn't necessarily hear from us. So there is an investment, there is a interview process that happens with those complaints with the opposite to identify the net focal points. And you make a point of view before that I was going to make if the panel wants to additional information, they can demand it back to the investigators. They do have to do.
Yep. And it's worth noting too, and offering somewhat similarly to the structure we have with our Minneapolis civil rights department, which is we have our civil rights investigators that will investigate a case in its entirety. And they also have a review panel structure that can review if there's probable cause determinations that are appealed. And so then same thing they'll receive that they'll receive the full investigative file, they can issue their decisions. I mean, it's obviously a different process. But it's something that you know, it's a similar function where we have our, you know, our professional investigators that are coming in every day that are the ones that do the
repair panel could ask the Civil Rights department to come to find out this additional information and report back to the panel. Yes.
And that's that's done, I think, fairly often. And certainly what's under the CRA. I think sometimes the investigators were kind of annoyed. But one of the things was the CRA s I believe the investigators generally made a recommendation. We did fairly frequently didn't follow it. And in both directions. That was not just something that, you know, the civilian panel was always going to be harder on the cops the nip that investigators said we shouldn't be. It went both ways. But I believe now in the OPC. Our investigators just provide a lot of information and not a recommendation not right. There's there's reasons for each human, you know, valid reasons for each, I think. I think we found the recommendation even when we didn't follow it to be helpful. Yeah,
I'm not sure. So why the decision was made that we shouldn't make the recommendation as soon as the neutral body yeah, presenting the information and allowing it to come to their own conclusion. Yeah. And I think you bring up a good reason. Yes. Yeah. And so and the other thing, we're at peace regarding the split, we often what people think is that the swarm probably gonna all always be together. But to me, the civilians, that is not what I have found, which is very interesting is that I was pleasantly proud of that the objectivity of those who are participating in the families. Sometimes you may have the swarm who are saying we think as as American civilians.
I think one two is okay.
But so, you noted the George Floyd's death. Obviously, that and other issues raised by the civil rights by the states of Elektra was brought a number of reasons why this is one worth it, what we have here they do believe. And I asked her so that any of the people will prevent other police misconduct, police brutality is wonderful. What is in this process here? That's going to assure the city that things will happen differently.
So I'll take them, I don't think there's this process alone.
In this part, so
hold up part of the part of this process, I think that will assist or help with that is the fact that it is there are more voices, it's more transparent. So there is that public, there are more voices, right, because right now, the panel members up to see who they are. But we have no way to hear what they're observing. So they're seeing cases, and they see all this information. But there's they, as Andrew said, there's nothing they do with it. So they may have observations of see a pattern or some practices and stuff. But there's not that information just stays in there. Now I'm
starting right now discussing something works with something, they they cannot speak publicly about what they found.
It's not set up for that for the panelists either to speak publicly about a pattern that they have, they're limited in what they can say, because they can't talk about specific cases because of that practices. Right. But the panel is not set up, it's now structured in a way that that's a part of their role and responsibility.
The panel could say whatever feels about internal structure,
here is about under the proposal, if it would change and I think
a new proposal, they wouldn't be able
to we're able to do a new proposal, they'll be able to talk in detail about the case, what happened,
not about what they can talk about the what they are observing. So if they see that there's particularly some type of policy failure, from their perspective, they now have a place to talk about that and say, maybe there's need to research do a research study on it, there needs to be some type of some type of further examination of why are we constantly seeing X, Y and Z happening? Because there's a pattern that they've observed. So if you want to go back to that slide, I think that might be helpful.
We'll talk about officer edge. No.
Books? No, absolutely not
good care. Because the last problem
is yes. And remember, at this point, the officer hasn't been disciplined. So this is still an allegation, they find that those allegations have merit, but the discipline will come from the chief. So it's, for lack of a better term. And so they're innocent until proven guilty. So we can't go and start accusing offices
so publicly. So return to my original question, the big changes, they can publicly talk about patterns. General issues different cannot talk about, that's what's new here?
That's Yes, yep.
I think that the fact that there's based on
actual files that are presented to them presented to them reviewing the body worn camera footage, the investigation files, all of all of that information, not just on summary data, because right now, the bclc,
it's public summary data, which, which, which, which has to be in bed, which has to conform with the Minnesota data Practices Act, which essentially says that unless the case received discipline, it's pretty scary, you know, what we're allowed to share that with you, and Britta and stay within the bounds of, you know, it's fairly scarce. So there it can be, it can be a situation where it's challenging to, you know, take to pull enough from there to really make any judgment about you know, trends or if something might have gone, you know, like wrong in a case. But I think, to your point, one of the, you know, this, this difference is that we have this civilian pool of panelists that exists right now, but there isn't, there is no vehicle for them to meet. And so if you're on a panel, and I'm on a panel, that there might be something that you observe that, you know, they want you to kind of take it as, like, you know, you could, there might be an informal route that you can go to fly, you know, to flag it tip staff, but you can also kind of sit there, like, we know, that maybe this isn't a big deal. But by having, you know, this structure where everybody does meet together, you know, like, when we're at a meeting, you might hear me raise the same issue or it's like, listen, I was on a panel, I noticed, you know, the following, you know, policy seems like there might be some, you know, some gaps in this this did this you know, I think that we need to revisit this and all of a sudden you have a way that's the same exact, you know, thought that I had so I think it does provide you know, a greater opportunity for people to realize that you know, like this is being observed by you know, by other members, not just yourself. For sorry, I
even asked one of the
go back to her friends about how pounds have various pricing opinions. But my question is, if so, Commissioner on the panel are being appointed? How does that process ensure that there's a variety of the commissioners opinions on various issues about safety? Crime?
No, it's absolutely valid question. I think one of those slides, I mean, I can go back, but I don't want to keep back and forth. So I think you remember, this, the proposed structure right now is 15 members, 13 of which are Council appointments, I mean, again, like like, that matches up with the wards. I don't believe that, you know, at least as far as this goes, that it's not necessarily saying like word one, word two, word three. But it would stand to reason that if there's 13, and there's 13, council members, that that's like something that we'd like to continue to move closer to say that we have geographic representation from everybody in the city, you know, that we also have the two additional people. So I think that just the way, and I know what the city is kind of looking at as commission, you know, the appointment process, and that's something that we started doing, you know, more recently, ourselves as well, you know, to ensure that we have it's, again, it's there are many kinds of diversity, but you know, it's geographic diversity of opinion, you know, just it's important to have, you know, to have groups that are reflective of what the residents of Minneapolis look like, as a whole. But Andrew,
it seems like,
what you're saying is that the people are elected, because they're elected on a certain platform, that they might appoint a commissioner, who also has kind of the same sort of ideas and
goals, that I think that's possible, because it's the council members that we will be working with, and they can, you know, and help, will assist with recruitment, as well as people who they know are involved in community who public safety is one of their priorities. So it's it because we don't get to a point that the Commission, the Civil Rights department doesn't that is a function of the council,
right. And essentially, we have an education process go, depending sometimes you get these people and select someone or the director says, sometimes people just have an interest. And you know, and you reach out to your networks and say, Hey, this is coming up. Are you interested? Would you apply?
So it's not necessarily
a forum for groups that are feeling this underrepresented to then be able to participate? And get feedback on the post? No, no,
that's not really. Right.
It's a permission, and that has duties that are legal duties. And, you know, will, after they're appointed, they take their assignments day to day times.
I think they like the one other piece to that, too, is that when you do these appointments, if there's 13, this isn't it's not a one off where council member says this person, and that's the end of it, they still have to go through our home committee and be approved, they still have to go through with the whole, you know, they still have to be approved by the entirety of the city council. So if that is something that's being observed, you know, that mean, people have the opportunity to weigh in to race, you know, to raise questions. So it's not just, it's not just to sign off by a single person. And then
because there is a public hearing that takes place. So you, there's someone you might have an objection to or you want to support, there's an opportunity to come in and present that to the council and make your decision in a very
thorough manner.
I hope you bring back this public hearing. Because the public hearing doesn't stop. It's been a long time since.
There is for the NCCR. And again, I think that with this one there, there hasn't been it was it was a staff direction. That was what like a while back, I remember because I remember one year I turned I submitted the RCA four they were like you don't like it? What are you doing like this doesn't have one. But the I think the combination of the two roles, it like them not having them themselves, but but like the fact that we are combining them, I feel it very similarly to how I view like the Commission on Civil Rights. So I would think that that's something that, you know, it's just another opportunity to, you know, let individuals speak to their, you know, why they'd like to be a part of something and you know, it'd be field questions,
because there's like all that hearing from advice. Yep. Yeah, I think listeners in the US are beginning to do PCR. There were public hearings there. So yep. I hope that will come back and be one of the inputs if you take one.
Yeah, no, absolutely. And it's not so it's true. I mean, I made it just just one way, just one more step that makes sense. But the and then I think the other piece to your question about, you know, if there are groups that feel underrepresented, that you know, want that forum. I think that that is one of the biggest advantages to having the public facing commission that serves as a community forum, you know, on matters of policing, you know, I mean, we've had a lot in the past, you know, a couple of years just obviously being responsive to the you know, the landscape that we've been in, but when you know But when that fades, it's like, and those go away. It's like, you know, like, Where do people go. And so I think having, you know, this consistent form where people can show up, and that's also something we're having individuals on the commission who have identified, you know, who have served directly on panels, you know, you might have individuals raising something that like they they've been observing, they just didn't know they were observing it. So I think that it's a good opera, it's a good, it's always a good opportunity. Like, like, like to have these conditions that serve that purpose for people because I know it might be the only avenue, they have to feel like they're getting to weigh in.
Going back to something we were discussing before about the people on the panels, being able to see patterns and all that kind of stuff and bring it directly to the public meetings in that part of the, you know, that function of the body. I think that's very good. It is in the current step to Upstate city organisms like it is in the city ordinance, that the panelists now that BCRP, may browsers may find those issues to be brought to the PCs. Unfortunately, in 10 years, has never once happened. No one has ever done that. So this would make that much more common. And it is a good practice. I can think of one example to make that fairly simple. A much buying more minor example than most we see. But when I was in the care, or one thing we saw on the panels was smoking on duty was prohibited. But chewing tobacco was not. And officers were doing disgusting things with their children tobacco, that sometimes aimed in the wrong direction, shall we say? And that came back, you know, we have seen this in several cases, several complaints in a row, it came back. And we very quickly got that policy change to include the chewing tobacco. Sounds minor, it do it but it's it's kind of a big deal. So I had to work, you know, most of the policy things were going to be much more thorny than that and, and difficult and people on both sides and all that. But the bringing it back. And it's it's a real shame that that was not an ordinance, but in function that was lost when they went to do PCR. So I hope that will be very well it seems like that is one of the good things coming out of this new plant?
Absolutely. Did you have no idea for that to happen? The way it's currently set up, so there's,
I think two I mean, that's not that's not the only one I can think I mean, there's, there's, there's plenty of stuff in there where, you know, like, like, this group will talk to the, you know, this commission will talk to this commission on the and I think the more steps you put in there, the less, you know, at some point, like the it's diminishing returns, where the odds are, they're going to do it just go down. And so getting but you know, by essentially eliminating it, or, you know, we don't have to worry about them following a process, it's just, you know, like, they will like, they'll be on a panel, you know, and they'll they'll know when their next meeting is. So I mean, if they've, you know, like absent, like a special meeting, they make a note and like, then they have, you know, they'll know they have an opportunity to bring that forward at their next meeting. So I do hope that that's something that we see improved, because it's, it's not nothing like being able to flag items you observe that might be even unrelated to the case itself. And I mean, that's the closest thing that we have to preventative. And it might be something very minor, it might be something very major, where it wasn't even the subject of the complaint. But in reviewing everything, you know, in the complaint, you just didn't know there were other things that you made, you know, made a note of and you have an opportunity to bring those forward.
So if we can get to some of the input, sort of an attorney, you know, flush this out and find out all the stuff that I think normally we should have known six months ago, about in order to make a change of this nature. I've seen Jesus done poorly before the OPC. Er was done. It was intended to be entirely in secret, and there were only public input sessions, because someone actually leaked the information. And we found out about it, we went to the CRA members, the CRA members, including ones who had been appointed just two months before, had had no idea that there was even a gap contemplated. And here we're in pretty much the same situation. Just probably two months ago, we first I got an idea there might be some change contemplated, but there you know, that led to some public forums and a much longer process. Unfortunately, despite overwhelming opposition, the council voted 85 to scrap the CRA. So we're in a similar situation here in terms of process or maybe worse. Now it's a little less because this is what Just a part of the thing that you changed, as opposed to changing the whole structure as was done there. So, in a sense, from a process standpoint, that's what we believe. And I think there are some valuable things in here, they, the one body is good. I think, you know, the 15 members is a reasonable number, when we've been working on our recommendations to the mvhr, the Department of Justice, that's kind of what we came up with is a minimum number, if you have a combined body that does both investigations, but we tell you, for 50 members doing that, it is, you know, one hell of a lot of work for those commissioners, I can tell you that the CRA had only 11. And we were overwhelmed. It's difficult to do the policy work right now. So I'd say 15 is probably a good absolute minimum, to to have to do that. So there's some good things there. The biggest failing, I see by far and overriding everything else whatsoever, is that it doesn't scrap the whole PCR and start over again, which is honestly from observing that. And I've been to, you know, on the CRA I attended after I left and attended every CRA meeting, and I pretended almost every PC OCD in the last nine years. And from watching that, and from getting the statistics and stuff, there are really fundamental problems with the overall structure and an obvious one is you're still complaining about the police to the police. It's heavily dominated by the police, because everything goes through internal affairs. There's a limit of the that hearing, for instance. But we I know that so well. But yeah, they they turn around that they officer gets but you know, allow them. Thank you, I can't believe but yeah, that hearing that has to be done by officers in the internal affairs department by law. And you know, and that's law beyond even the state. That's constitutional theory, you know, national provisions and stuff like that. But right now, the OCR is mostly dominated by police officers from investigation from input all the way through, you know, intake all the way through, I think it's so that's my my biggest struggle, man. I don't know if I should address any more of that. Because we're talking about this particular ordinance.
We are, but I will share with you there are no police officers and OPC. They are an eye, they're two separate
point supervisors, and they come together for the marriage, and they do both civilian and police officers do investigation. Right. So yes, they each
side, but what oh, you see, I think where a lot of it continues is the fact that we do get investigations, we send it to the panel. Yeah. And the panel then makes, you know, their reputation of men in America. What happens, though, is that we have no say, and just the right and so what what we can tell you what we can't say publicly that is to say, we would recommend that there be discipline, right. And so, so when we have done our work, we've done a thorough investigation, and even if the panel finds that there is merit, once it is leaves the panel, it's completely in the hands of
the police. Yes, yes.
And there's nothing that we can do about the final part
of it has to be in the hands of the police chief. And, you know, even if the state law change, the reality is that it's extraordinarily rare in this country, that that isn't the case. So that would be a battle far beyond what we'd be prepared to take on. But, you know, many of the investigations are done with sworn police officers that I
that we have when we talk about internal affairs, though, that they are done. Yeah. So another police officer is has watched, you know, this complaint? Yeah, it's more internal. That's not necessarily for
us to investigate. So yeah,
right. There are certain that should only be done by police officers. You know, you'd like to work all the time, you know, that's not public facing or you were convicted of a crime and that definitely should be done entirely. But if I file a complaint, I get a choice of whether I prefer a civilian or a police officer. If I don't make that choice, or if I don't get my choice, then my civilian complaint will those who will A police officer? No. Because that could sort of beyond the scope of this particular ordinance change? Yes. Like you concentrate on that. I think it has definitely some merit compared to what's going on right now. And, of course, what's going on right now had some structural problems and ordinance problems, and it has some problems that are simply not functioning because the city won't allow it to function. Then, you know, it's been months and years since there's been any appointments, that can't be poor. I mean, this has been, the city has been violating its own ordinance for over a year, which is simply inexcusable. So. So it's been both by structure and by actual practice, that it hasn't been working as it is. So this is, I would say, you know, within the limited scope of this ordinance and improvement. One thing that I find really troubling, though, is the requirement for a minimum of four public meetings, I really do not think that is enough. It's, it's not enough for them to do the public facing business, there won't be nearly as much public facing opportunity. Because the meetings, we nobody wants him to want to go past two hours anyway. And the staff doesn't and the people handling the technology don't, and so on and so on. That's, that's under all understandable. I'm not critical of that. But that is not enough time to do that function if you're doing four times a year. And of course, for public input, at least for spoken public input in public. That gives you an estimate as per year. So
as you know, you know, I want to find out
whether my public input has been helpful or not, and you can get your opinions on that. But so the last time I was on that limiting, and I've definitely gotten a lot of feedback from the people that bclc That, appreciate it. So because the public knows things that people aren't valid, simply don't know, yet, or you get that public input, getting some public input to the people who are on the review panel. That is extremely important. And that is good, because the way it is work. That's not, you know, specified in the current ordinance. But the way it is worked is that, to my knowledge, not one person on that review panel has ever appeared at a community meeting with a score. And there's certainly no discussion of our role, no discussion of the patterns they're seeing, which of course, you know, we can discuss individual cases. There's cases from 14 years ago, I would love to talk about, I'm still bound to that. Area serious. That's right. Thank you, Jana. I know that we can do that. But to talk about that, and for them to get some civilian input into what they should know what she should be thinking because the you know, if all they get is investigatory files and the knowledge they came there with the training, that is really inadequate. And so having those people have to show up in public and listen to the public is a definite take
your word, I think the the public facing piece is a critical one of this. I mean, that was one of the biggest things is having this, you know, its administrative review process that just happens by you know, it just creates a vacuum. And so that the easiest way to address that is by putting it out publicly. And so I think with this, I mean, again, like I'll remind you, I know, you know what you saw it too, but it's, it's a minimum of four. And that's more just to kind of essentially defer to the group itself to dictate how many meetings it needs to have, it can absolutely call meetings, if they feel that it's necessary. But just you know, knowing that, you know, it's been a long couple years for people and like, that is one of the issues that we have with you know, if we're going to put in all this effort to, you know, to make sure that we're bringing in people, we're getting everybody trained, like we want to keep those people for three years. And so like it's that it's that it's that risk of, you know, a lot of it's Oh, yeah, and so it's so I think that it was more just to kind of, you know, like, like, essentially like forcing like the absolute minimum, we're just saying that, you know, quarterly and so, you know, like, we will say you have to meet four times and defer to you on, you know, the rest of the meetings that allow them to kind of dictate what their schedules look like, so
that they can be more than four times. So the other thing that we were mindful of is the fact that these people often do certain things that happen more frequently. So we're asking a lot of people that is their full time job too. And so we want to balance that and be mindful of that, you know, this isn't their full time job, and they're going to be putting in a lot of hours reviewing these cases. And that takes is, you know, a whole lot of commitment to those files and summary.
It averages are backed us to average about Well, I still know because I see the ones that get disappointed. You know, I should let people know that if there is discipline imposed, and it survives grievance and arbitration and all that, then you can see the entire file. So I don't know, in many of these cases where there is discipline, there's way too few of them. But nevertheless, we get a chance to see how the review panel ruling and what the, you know, the investigation looked like and all that. Some were very good to us some not so much. But yeah, you do have to see that. But I will say that candle there. But the interesting thing is, was this ability for US army that had a lot of members, and had to do both roles. There was a lot less personnel turnover, then there's been PC, OCS, that's just factual. You can take from that what you want, as far as what it means, and I'm not sure myself, but but I think it is possible for them to meet more frequently, I'd like to see six to eight minimum was the hope that that they would tend to be honest, I think that still, I think was quite patient. Given that I know very well, how much work that is. Yeah, that's a lot is a lot of work that I did. So I chaired the policy committee. So I also had policy committee meetings every month. And, you know, it was it was a big deal. We worked hard,
I think the but we also don't want to have so many meetings that we wanted diverse people, great people from all walks of life to be able to participate in this. It's so demanding that it won't be able to participate. Right? Yeah, that there is striking that balance as well.
Shouldn't be only retired people. In other words, when I was on the care, I don't think there was a single retired person. And they were all working full time.
So one of the things you said to you that I just really quickly want to respond to, and I want to make sure that nobody reschedules or like to be respectful of time is the you know, these the idea that you know, again, but like and I replied, again, I completely agree, I understand as a challenge with this over, you know, this overarching piece to kind of like, alright, focus on just over here, like this, this separate. So I do appreciate it's trying to trying to do that. But you know, I think you know, but we'll see what comes from, you know, the investigations and but there, I think there are changes coming, you know, on that side, and that's going to be another discussion, but I think that even based on that, you know, like the opportunity and the importance of having a group like this that has this kind of, you know, like this unified to get you know, people back to that term, but responsibility is incredibly important at this moment as well. So that we have a group that's, you know, that's again, that you know, that's like that's onboard that's trained that's certified in order to serve as that, you know, the professional community body, you know, when all of these other things are coming down into the city, I think that you know, that'll be a very valuable tool to have as opposed to now where it's sort of figuring out a level way like we want to talk about this who's you know, what, what group is that? So, I mean, just a simplification I think will go a long way as well. Okay, so we
are told that I was thinking about No, thank you for your
thank you everybody.
Because I think this is good feedback. I know and cons take your notes so we can at least highlight that we're having conversations with the chair here and other members of the Council. Thank you so much.
Absolutely, thank you for the space.
Not that you haven't told me at my office, but there was so