You're just to taste the independent community please interview for Alan and not second one.

Do we have anyone online?

Yeah.

Just um Tina from Maple.

Okay.

And Alexa.

Okay.

All right.

I will go ahead and do your role call.

Susanne Burby isn't.

She let us know that.

Daryl and Franklin.

Christopher Lewis.

Present.

Jean O'Toole here.

Deborah Porter present.

Alexis Stackhouse.

Present.

And Julie Stanley.

Present.

I get you uh member Franklin to read the introduction.

And then member Lewis, can I get you read the board's purpose?

Wait.

We need to go back because Alex is virtual.

You need to do the motion for verbeing virtual.

Thank you.

We have a motion for uh vice chair Alexa Steff House attending the meeting virtually.

I move uh vice chair be allowed to participate partially.

Second motion why she needs to be uh is it due to uh work conflict?

Is she gonna what is your reason?

Is due to I just yeah kick down the pen and gun.

Yeah, it says due to work.

Yeah, that's right.

Okay, motion made by member Lewis, seconded by member Frank Gilingstone.

Thank you.

Happy to have you, let's just thank you.

Thank you.

The creation of the independent community policeman review board started with Alexander Student Council resolution 2950 on 9, 2020, which condemned police brutality and systemic racism, reaffirming that whack lives matter and advocated for justice system reform.

The resolution emphasizes city's duty to protect all communities through action and accountability on April 17, 2021.

The council adopted an ordinance to create the ICPRB, effective July 1st, 2021, and establish the office of the Alexandria independent policing auditor.

And the board's purpose.

Thank you.

If we could move to uh approve the meeting agenda, does anyone have any changes they'd like to make?

Any suggestions?

I have a question.

So um I allowed to ask the question.

If you wouldn't mind waiting until public comment, oh that would be perfect.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

I'll make a motion on the approved the meeting of Jenna.

Second uh motion made by member Franklin, second by member Lewis.

So we're gonna have to go back and approve the meeting agenda from March 4th.

Uh it seems that we did not have a proper motion and second actually is the issue before it was approved.

Oh member Lewis motion that we ask the auditor to include the APD training update in uh ATD training in public auditors update.

So we need to go back to approve the agenda from March 4th with a proper second before that motion can actually pass the ballot.

I make a motion that we approve the meeting agenda March 4, 2026 with all changes with all changes.

Motion made by member Franklin, seconded by member Lewis.

Ashley, are we good there?

Yeah, that's fine.

That's perfectly fine.

So we will move now to uh public comments.

Yep, yes, thank you.

That's okay.

Just do we no?

I appreciate it.

So approval of minutes, thank you from March 4th.

Did anyone have any additions or any suggestions, corrections from the minutes of that meeting?

Second.

Which one who clarified who has that second?

Daryl and second.

Okay, so we have the approval of the meeting agenda, the March 4th agenda, the minutes from March 4th.

Now move on to public.

All approved.

All in favor of the motion.

I posed.

All in favor, no opposed.

Let's do that also for the approval of the meeting agenda.

All in favor.

I posed.

Now people move forward.

Oh public comment.

Thank you all so much for your help with that.

I appreciate it.

Let's just keep in mind that public comments is the opportunity for members of the public to be able to comment and share their thoughts to be on record.

It is not a time for us to be able to engage in back and forth conversation.

The auditors here and can receive your questions.

And we're asking that each person keep their comments to three minutes.

So we will go ahead and move forward.

But Tima Alexander, I believe your name was on the list tonight.

Yes.

I did have a quick question about the agenda.

We used to do that.

I did have a quick question.

I see that you guys have training and it's going to be an hour and a half long before we can get the auditor update.

Is there any way that you have the motion for the training to go after the audit of date or I guess I'll have to find out the trainer is is online.

So I guess it really depends on her schedule.

18 years I can, yes.

Okay, you can hear this question.

Yeah, I'm I'm perfectly fine with that.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Yes, I see you too.

All of you.

All right.

So we couldn't have member of the board somewhere make a motion to the auditor.

I'm sorry.

I mean, I'm is it the auditor update that we're moving up?

Yes, but I'm sorry.

Is it the auditor update you want to change, or is it the board letter to the yeah?

I guess playing AM can be related to these times that are number 10.

I don't believe is is um pertinent to that.

Am I correct?

Um I need to ask the auditor.

Your update would your update it honestly is just uh confirming the day that we're supposed to receive the report from OBR.

So that's pretty much all I have.

Okay, so let's go ahead and move eight and ten to positions just in front of the NACOL training.

So those will move up and then the NAPO trainee will fall just behind that.

Ms.

Alexander, did you have another comment that you wanted to introduce?

You still have time in your three minutes.

Um yeah, this um just a small comment.

So um, as you guys know that our family showed up seeking answers.

Um, and instead we were met with delays, contradictions, and the five process that still isn't complete.

So the fact that there's still no vinylized report concerns around an incomplete um autopsy is deeply troubling.

This is not just a case, this is our loved one, and they deserve dignity, truth, and accountability, and um, we will not be silent, and we will not accept incomplete answers.

And um, I hope the report reflect that.

And I just was wondering.

I looked at other meetings.

Is there a reason why the chief hasn't come to one meeting?

That would not do that.

Yeah, I looked at other police and report and like if there was a death or something that was going on, the chief had been present or people from the police department and other meetings that have watched, and so I just was wondering, you know, for transparency and guys working together why he hadn't come to one meeting.

I will defer to the auditor.

You have any information on it, or maybe you can ask him.

I I honestly uh do think it should be addressed to the chief.

You know, it is something that we have discussed, you know, inviting the department out here.

We've had um OPR, the internal investigation unit come out and speak with us, but we have yet to see uh the chief of cut.

So it may be something that we look at.

But it's not against any rule that you can rule.

I didn't want to double check for like a rule or it was by choice because from me who seeing other boards, that's how they operate to better work together as well.

And I I feel like you kind of should be required to be when you guys are you know reviewing a debt in their custody.

Um my other thing was um in your report.

Is it going to address the autopsy?

The autopsy was very incomplete, and we still haven't gotten any answers.

Um, we weren't allowed to do our private autopsy because he held the bias, and they are stored as they were doing a thorough one, and they didn't follow this.

Nothing.

So um is it before it should address that as well?

That's I can't speak the ABD's report, but the autopsy is considered okay.

I mean okay.

I just wanted to let you know it was very totally thorough one.

Very think we got uh you know have nothing, nothing you want to go with.

Good evening.

Um I just came to thank you all for your um for the March meeting for your support.

Um I really appreciate the board um and their comments and their honestly uh the others know the board.

Um the board is doing the best that they can with what they have, and I truly the work for this case.

I know it's the first one, and I hope it's delayed.

Um I did see where the chief made a public comment in uh Alexander at time, and who made a statement that uh that he uh he welcomes the opportunity to provide to the independent auditor.

That's just button for infused the whole part, right?

My comment right now is to be more transparent and supported by controlling that's what I asked.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Also have uh Frank who has asked to have a moment during public comments.

Frank, you want to welcome to the chair three minutes will be.

Hello, my name is Frank, and I'm the founder of Alexandria Accountability, a grassroots organization to focus on transparency and accountability in our community.

I created this organization in part because of the decades old unprofessional culture and law enforcement.

Many citizens don't understand the purpose of the lawful tactics that Alexandria Accountability deploys.

Allow me to elaborate.

In the beginning, I focused on professionalism because this is the lowest actionable standard.

I engaged officers on the street to verify that they were identifying properly when requested.

I also verified that officers were activating their emergency lights when illegally parked.

There were many officers who resisted compliance in the beginning over the past four years by compelling officers to engage in these small intentional acts of professionalism.

Today, you will find it extremely difficult to find an officer who is willfully non-compliant.

The problem is no longer with officers who serve on the street, and I'm grateful.

I do not enjoy engaging officers in a confrontational manner.

It is now their leadership to require attention.

APD intentionally and repeatedly violates their own policy by not releasing the disposition of sustained complaints against APD officers.

When confronted with the policy violations, APD leadership engages in deliberately obtuse behavior to fiend ignorance or becomes non-responsive.

It should be noted that the city attorney's use of this exemption effectively enables ABD leadership to circumnavigate their own policy without fear of discovery.

We have checks and balances integrated throughout our government to expose misconduct.

The city attorney should be using an option, should not be using an optional exemption to enable this.

Similar and verifiable conduct is also occurring at the occurring at the Alexandria Sheriff's Office, the Alexandria courthouse, the Alexandria Magistrate's office, and the Commonwealth Attorney's Office.

Now I'm aware that this board does not have oversight regarding these other departments within our community government.

But I wanted the board to have perspective regarding the scope of the problem.

Some of the board members may find my tactics to expose corruption within the city of Alexandria government to be distasteful.

I intend to clearly exhibit who is really initiating the distasteful behavior.

Thank you for thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Thank you.

Is there anyone online who would like to make the public comment?

Okay, so at this point we will close public comment.

And we have reordered the agenda.

So we're gonna take number eight and uh move NACOL training down.

So those on the board are aware, and those in the room, I think are aware of the letter that we sent to the chief, and about six, seven days later, we received a response from Chief McGuire as well.

There were basically two points that we were making in our letter.

One was the timeliness and making sure that the uh police department is abiding by the MOU.

The second point was that documentation and information that the auditor is given needs to be properly labeled as the um whether it's a draft or whether it is a final document.

Uh, in the chief's response, he uh address the uh MOU and the timeliness and suggesting that he and the department are still within the time frame of the MOU.

Uh what he really pointed out was that the slot begin began on January 15th, which was when the public uh when the Commonwealth attorney determined there would be no criminal charges.

60 days from that day would have been more 50.

He also mentioned in his letter that the chief has the option to extend the deadline for good cause.

The part that he left out of that is that he has to be in touch with the family, the board, and city council about the reason for what that good cause is.

And that is the piece that we still have not received, and to my knowledge, we still have not received though the auditor has not received a final report.

So we wanted to put this on the agenda because we wanted to give the board members an opportunity to speak to this on record.

And if anyone has any comment question, this is number loose.

Uh well I'm forgetting what letter.

I mean, you drew a real distinction though, also between the pipeline of the LOU, which is 60 days versus what I know I would preference of the statute, which says 60 days.

So they actually have different terms, and so perhaps that's all it we have a MOU with the ability to review the nobody with an updated number here.

Maybe that's something we need to highlight so that they are the same, or if they're supposed to be different to do it on purpose, but we did that on purpose and my comment was based on I thought it was six calendar days, so I needed business days in there.

Um to answer a question, that was my thought as well.

And I just want to be on the record for that.

Yeah, I read it to be 60 calendar days.

I did not see business days.

Um, so and you know, even doing that, we're now at April 1.

So I think the point remains.

Um, and I think the auditor will give us some more information in just a moment.

Anyone else have any comment concerning this?

Any other board members?

June.

Jules.

She used that owned.

Alexis, did you have any comment or question about the letters?

Vice Chair.

She's reading it.

She is not camera.

No.

Okay.

No, no, I don't have any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will go ahead and continue on the agenda.

We have also said we would move the auditors update to the um so that they don't have to sit through the nameful tribute.

Good evening, everyone.

Okay.

So I'll start by what's been addressed here in public comment and the uh 60 day 60 business day discrepancy.

There is a discrepancy between what's in the statute and the MOU.

What I can say is last year, council wanted us to come back and revive and review the MOU after one year after it's a implementation.

I think that's one thing that we do need to fix, right?

Uh, and make sure that it either lines up with the statute or I mean open back up the ordinance and see if we need to change that to 60 business states.

I think it's easier to change the MOU than the order than the ordinance.

And so that's what I'll that's what I'll provide there.

Um for the Allen Tucker investigation.

Uh I mean, we are still you know anticipating the department's completion by April 8th.

Um, I will certainly let you know if any of that changes, but I'm not comfortable sort of in engaging in discussion as to when we'll have a public review until we we get that that report uh from OPR.

Um, and just a quick note um on board training, if I could.

Um, I'm still waiting for a response from the department regarding just setting up a planning meeting.

I know that um Jean is very you know invested in this and rules reached out to me today wanting to join the committee as well.

Um I haven't been able to send over to say that both of you are now uh uh wanting to work on the planning meeting or planning committee, but I will after this meeting.

Um so that's that's what I have on board board training.

Um part of my auditor update was gonna go over uh quickly the new legislation the new legislation uh 1476.

Um, but before I go there, I want to talk about um I sort of want to ground us in how access currently works, you know, and in Virginia, particularly around CGIS requirements.

So that's CJIS is a certification and sort of why that creates some limitations uh for the board.

Um so currently, right?

The board is not uh authorized to access police records that contain CGI information.

Um sorry, uh CES information.

Uh but it's not really about authority, uh, it's more about the sieges eligibility pools under the federal and state laws.

And so the seizure certification is limited to criminal justice agencies or official custodians of law enforcement data.

And so our office qualifies because we conduct investigations, we maintain and secure police records.

Um, we have the direct responsibility of handling that sensitive data.

Um, but boards, including civilian oversight boards are not recognized as a record custodian yet.

Um, so that's the limitation there.

Um, because of that, uh board members are not eligible yet for siege certification.

So it's one of those things where we wrote it into our local laws, but we're way ahead of where you know state and federal laws are.

Um, but I will say uh we are working uh in the next legislative we need auditors from several different uh several jurisdictions in together to try to uh propose legislation for the next general assembly cycle recommended to recognize you all as uh uh a seat as or criminal justice agency.

Um so I'll go over uh HB 1476 really quickly.

Um it passed the house and the Senate, and it's right now we're waiting for the governor's signature.

Um I believe uh they said that we expect that by April 18th, but I'll let you all know if if there's a change to that.

Um, but it strengthens uh civilian oversight authority across Virginia, um specifically in three areas, and I'll go through up through them all here, but it updates the state law to clarify and expand authorities the word civilian oversight bodies in three main areas.

Uh that's closed session discussions, uh access to records, just access to juvenile records just in case of good, and then um access to protected victims information as well.

Um so it's important to recognize that even with all these expanded authorities, access is still limited by FOIA and confidentiality.

So the first part uh closed session authority.

The biggest change is honestly relevant to this, I think the biggest relevance to this board, and especially as we prepare for our first public hearing.

So what that means is now you can review my documents that are unredacted in closed session.

Those are documents that I wouldn't be able to release to the public.

So the public may get redacted documents that redact personal information, but you all will be able to see all of that in post session.

One uh guardrail that I got from Megan, I do want to say that Megan and I were both looking at this law at the same time.

So I was able to send this over to her, and she was uh waiting back to me.

One thing that uh we want to consider is no official decisions can be made in closed session.

So while you all are reviewing the materials, you would have to come out of closed session to do any official action at the court.

Um so beyond that, it's expanded access to juvenile records.

So if there's a complaint involving a juvenile, um we will yeah, we'll have access to those records as well, and then um access to protective victim information, so sensitive information around uh victims, victims of crumbs.

Um that's basically what the what the uh legislation covers.

I sent out both my policy update brief along with the actual text uh to go.

So if you all have any questions, I'm happy to sit down with you.

But operationally, I the next steps I would say are uh maybe looking at your board bylaws or procedures to make sure that closed session um rules are are now updated uh in accordance with this uh uh legislation and then confidential record handling and then the sieges limitations, just making sure that we we have that clarified, but also training um with these new closed session procedures, you know, uh learning all the language that you all need to go enter closed session, the limits of closed session, things like that.

Um, I think should be uh considered, as well as uh the normal training that you've all received from legal, which is like FOIA compliance, confidentiality exceptions.

I think adding that closed session closed session procedures would be great.

And then finally, I said I mentioned this before, but we are pushing uh for a formal recognition of oversight bodies, uh specifically oversight boards as CGI authorized uh entities, and then to close out uh my auditor update.

Um we are uh ramping up community engagement.

I spoke to Deborah earlier today about Juneteenth.

Um, this year it will be on it on June 19th, the actual day.

Um, and from 4:30 to 6 p.m., we will be we've been invited to post the listening session.

And so instead of tabling, or we probably could if we have enough people table and do the listening session, but um, I think this is a great way for us to not only introduce the board and the auditor's office, but just open it up to the floor because we were there last year.

Everyone who came up to the table had a story, and so I want to create a space for that to really say this is your space to tell your story, this is your space to tell us what you want to like see from the police department, what do you want the chief to know?

Things like that.

So I think it'll be a healthy session.

I think it'll be healthy both for uh public education and and feedback.

Um so look out for that.

The second thing I want to highlight uh is that we had a researcher, or rather a lawyer who did research on flock safety.

Her name is Rebecca Weinstein.

Um there's been large community dialogue and discussions on council about flock safety.

Um, Rebecca Weinstein presented her research on um just sort of considerations and and why cities uh should be hesitant before investing in in systems like flock safety.

She presents that to the IT commission, and they came back several security discernment.

This is also a hot button button issue for several members on council.

Um I start that's what you're saying.

Sorry, sir, sorry.

Yeah, flock safety is the system behind license plate readers.

So when you see licensed late readers uh deployed in Alexandria, the system that collects that data um is called flock safety.

And so there have been not only dialogue in our community, but nationally, um, certainly with privacy concerns, but also security of that data who has access to it.

Um, when I was on the phone with Miss Weinstein, she mentioned the No Kings protest that happened on uh Richmond Highway.

And she said there are two flock safety cameras along that route.

So you may take the precaution, right, to not register for the protest because you don't want to be identified.

You may cover your face, but let's say you're walking by a flock safety camera, you're on camera.

Um, and so talking about the implications not just of privacy, but of security uh and who has access to the data.

Um I did she wanted to come tonight to speak with us, but we have a long maple training, and we thought that that would you know walk down or water down the conversation.

Um but she is available at the end of April, and she's eager to sort of get this out into the community.

What I've sort of offered her is as the office, we could maybe partner with her um to do a communal event specifically on block safety to try to get community feedback.

Um, or she can come to the uh May meeting if you all have that regular meeting on that first week of May.

So that'll be up to you all.

But it's a hot button issue with the council right now.

Uh Chief McGuire just uh just presented to city council, I think last week or week before, maybe no, I think it was last week on a 30% crime reduction.

And he attributed some of that at least to the use of police technology, and there was extensive dialogue between him, counseling on the about security field proxy.

And so I this is sort of like a spray it while it's hot.

And so I'm trying to work with her to set up maybe uh an event by the end of April, but I'll give you all detail that's I think.

So uh we're going back to the training that we're supposed to have.

And you and I spoke several weeks ago about perhaps feedbacking on the citizens police academy.

And what do we see as the delay in even trying to get in on that?

Because we're already three or four weeks into it, and we're just setting up a meeting to discuss our own training, so options for it.

I mean, you know, we're dragging through the year, and again, we're gonna end up in prime time that all of us have a life that training conducive to when we're trying to get it done in the beginning of the year.

I mean, and as a board, is it something you know the chair should contact you or write a letter to say we're just I feel like we're being stonewalled a little bit.

So I would I I do think some collaboration and reaching out to the chief is needed.

Um I can't say that I haven't tried.

I I've put certainly the suggestion that you all can join the community police academy.

Um I've also said, hey, if they can't join the academy, are there is it possible to send members of your team to the board meetings to do sort of piecemeal kind of have a hole?

Um that I have yet to perceive a response on that.

Um and so I definitely understand your frustration, Gene, because we wanted to do this in the beginning of the year while the weather is dreary and you know, we don't want to be we don't want to be on it there at 8 p.m.

Saturday right uh for eight hours.

So I mean the only thing I can maybe see is you know members of the citizen systems police academy go through like a background check with the department.

You all are on a public board, so I'm not sure how different the security standards are, but maybe that's you know, that's why the lockages for but I can say but that hasn't been revealed to you that's no just sort of like a sort of saying, but I mean the citizen police, I mean the community police academy is definitely a great um space for us.

That's where I met Jules.

Um I'm gonna be presenting there on 22nd of this month.

Uh so yeah, that's that's all I have for that.

I can say I'll send another email with you all CC or have sort of the emails sent to me so that we want to speak up, we have at least the information of how many times it's just been asked.

I mean, I I'll just just call replying to my own email as I as I have through it.

That'd be great.

Yeah, yes.

From the legislation, yeah.

I don't know how much time you've actually spent tracking it.

So if you don't have the answer, I understand any uh understanding of the debate around the legislation that require the CS uh CGS uh authorization.

So that actually wasn't a consideration for the legislation.

Yeah, no one brought it up this year.

The legislation was simply to allow for closed session access.

This legislation was brought forth by uh Arlington who has a very different um relationship with access in their and their police department.

So their main focuses were closed session, access to juvenile records, and then uh access to protective victim information.

Um when it was brought to me, it had already been introduced.

So it's carry by our own books.

It was carried by it was it was it was proposed by Mummy, the Arlington auditor, uh, and then they she worked with their legislative coordinators down in down in Richmond.

I would note too though CJS uh access is it's a process, it's not just giving us.

I mean, it's background checks, it is to say we're allowed to go.

And I and there is um some debate in the current legislation as to police review words as to whether or not they should have access to CJS, whether what the law says whether they're allowed to or not.

So that's what I'm asking.

Was it even brought up debated by it was debated among well, it was it was debated among counties and cities about the interpretation.

Um, and I think because there was so much debate around it, they this is what we can do right now exactly right.

Yeah, and I got it because I got excited about the closed session, and I knew that that's something that would be, and so that's that's sort of what got my attention, and that's why I suppose that was good.

So I just since you all made comments in your years last month, and we're discussing the 60 days versus 60 business days, still don't have the police department's final report.

Technically, uh would have 60 business days from getting that.

I know you've had to MOU.

The only one that said business days was global.

It's a P APD, right?

Okay, anyway.

I just we don't want to do if we can we can duke it out.

I would have already advice you.

I want to manage expectations is that I don't think from this end that we perceive putting you through that all today.

And get a final report.

I know I don't know this report that we review and have a public hearing from absolutely honestly.

This is the top priority uh for me.

Um, because not only did we have a family, we have a uh concerned community as well.

I get questions all the time, uh not just from media, but people walking down the street um about the public hearing for the type of case.

So again, it it remains a priority for my office.

I don't plan on making anyone wait 30 days.

Um I will say when I do release the report to you all, it would have already um the it will also be uh accessible to the police department, so they'll know exactly what to expect.

Well, so there shouldn't be any delays, and then they have 30 days to get back to you, yes, what your suggestions or recommendations are, correct?

Yes, and do we have to wait that 30 days before having public hearing or no?

No, so it is it is 30 days.

Should Chief McGuire reject any of my recommendations?

He has 30 days to provide uh justification as to why, not just to us, but to city council.

Yes, correct.

And I think that is just making sure that we all have the reporting structure.

Um city council will have the final say.

Alexis has something to say, guys.

Yes.

I I have a question, please.

Did I hear emiratu correctly?

She said at the same time that we see the report, the um the police sees the report.

I mean, it's gonna be a public report.

Okay, do we see it prior to uh does the board see it prior to anyone else saying it?

Well, it would be a public document, right?

So releasing it to you all would mean releasing it to the public.

Um yeah, so we we don't see anything we we don't get like a heads up or we don't so we don't see it before.

Let me make sure I understood what you said.

No, you don't see it once I release it to you, it's considered a public document.

Um what I can say is I'm always available, and you all can come in and chat with me and sit down with me, and we can go through the report and uh comb through it as much as we'd like.

Um, but that's that's what I can offer so far.

Because in the public body, what about draft on a draft?

And that's what it's released about.

What about the fan?

The family, the family would for sure receive it before the public.

Exactly.

Let me just clarify that.

Thank you.

Well, what hold on?

So the family's gonna see it before the board does.

Well, the family has I think that before it becomes a public document, I think it's appropriate if the family does get to see the report.

I think it's appropriate if the family does get to see the report.

I think it's appropriate that the board sees it as well.

Is or is the rest of the board just disagreeing with me?

If I'm wrong, y'all tell me to stand down.

You're not now you're not wrong yesterday right now.

I just I would I guess I want people to be if I release it to you, it'll be a part of your materials, it'll be noticed to the public, and the family will be figuring out at the same time what's in the report as you all in the public.

Now, if that's what you all want to go with, some must address the Web Organs.

This is me with my investigator at all, right?

I'm just saying if this were a complaint by complainant, they would receive my report and with the disquisition in it, and then it would be released to the board.

And so this isn't a complainant, you know, they were involuntary put in and voluntarily put into this process.

And so instead of notifying the complainant right away, hey, here's a disposition, it's online, you can view it.

It instead it's me just releasing the report to the family.

So this is Alexis again.

I do not agree that a family should see a report before the board sees it.

So would you agree that also moving forward that when a complainant makes a complaint, I can't release the disposition to them before I give it to the board?

No, I'm not gonna do an alternate theory.

What I'm saying with regard to this specific report.

You you're about to you're saying you're gonna give to the family something we haven't seen yet, right?

But you you didn't see you didn't see Frank's letter before he saw it.

You know, or like you didn't see that's too that's why that's I'm asking for the that's why I'm asking for the draft.

Like if we could if we can review the the draft report and then it's made final, and then it goes to um the and then it goes how to be the family and then it goes to the public.

I guess I'm asking how would you review it?

How would you be able to review it without it being a public document?

So let me understand.

I think I understand maybe I misunderstood.

I don't want to misconstrue what you're saying.

You're saying we can come to your office and go over it with you, right?

Prior to any release that you do to the family.

That's not what I'm saying.

Okay, okay.

I'm just trying to be clear.

So I'm just trying to understand how it is the family can see it before I do as a board member.

Now, again, as I said, if I am wrong, y'all tell me to stand down and I'll put mute on.

Is it that you don't want the family to know the disposition before like I would be holding the family into waiting on dispositions of their complaints or of their of this incident until the board is able to review, until the board is able to access the document?

Okay, should complain to wait for their disposition or wait to hear what their disposition is until the board gets to review it or until it goes to the board.

That's the question.

So really if you release it, it says release to the chief and he has 30 days to respond.

Is that gonna be before the family sees it?

Because he he might disagree with some of your findings.

Is that part of the I mean, if he disagrees with my findings, he has to notify and write ever uh produce a reason why he disagrees with the findings, and then we go to city council.

That's that is outlined in the in the ordinance.

Because city council after our world.

Okay, but I'm just saying, like that's very different than the complainant involved, the family involved.

Well, let me ask you this.

How is it gonna be released to the public?

Are you going to bring us copies to a meeting, or are you gonna publish it on the line?

Are you gonna make an announcement to the community to say the report is available?

You can find it here.

How's it gonna be released?

It will be there will be a press release, just as we've done to say here are the findings, or this is where you can find the report.

It'll be on our website, it'll be on your website, and then it'll be released to you all in your materials as other materials have been in the past.

But by the time we send that email to you all, say here are your materials, those are all posted online.

I'm just right.

So I'm saying a draft document would be a public document.

Okay, let me be clear about my objection.

I do not agree.

I I'm trying to read through the all our paperwork right now.

I I do not agree that the family should see that report before I as a board member see it.

Now, if the other members of the board say that's okay, I will go along with what they say.

But I am putting on record.

I I should I guess my question is what is your hesitation with the family seeing the report before I I don't have oh, I was gonna uh I didn't hear the rest of your question.

I I have no problem with the family seeing it.

I have a problem with the family seeing it prior to me as a board member seeing it.

Because I think if I'm the person that's gonna be asked questions about it, um the family has already been able to see this, formulate these things, and then how am I supposed to respond to that?

And I'm also I'm also a little I'm going back in this paperwork as well.

I understood when the chief when you were going to send it to the chief to see that is when we would be a prize and be able to see it as well.

So I right, but at the end of each investigation, I'll either call or email each complainant and say this is what the report says.

This is what my final investigation report says.

These are the these are the dispositions, and here are my recommendations.

It's a common courtesy.

No, it's not in writing, but it's a common courtesy to say.

Well, then common courtesy me and let me see it before or at the or at the same time.

I'm not I'm not I I want the family to see it.

That's not my uh so then let me know so I can see it at the same time as the family then.

How about that?

Well, maybe that's a question for the family then to say.

Oh no, I'm not asking the family, no ma'am.

I'm not asking them for permission.

I'm talking the war.

I'd like to recognize member Lewis.

Well, I want to make very clear, whatever we do here isn't about this case.

We're talking about our process for all cases.

So I agree.

Understanding that uh, because you know it's easy to get wrapped up in the case in front of us, but we're trying to make sure we do things the same way every time.

Uh I understand, I think I understand why you want a courtesy to a complaint and a thing.

Let me also add, then let a complaint.

Oh, sorry, yeah.

What I'm trying to think through since I can't find anywhere right now in the review of the MOU before we discuss releasing to the complaint outside of the release to the public.

I'm trying to think of where that could end up problematic, end up being problematic.

And the only thing I can think of, and I just want to caution and think through, is that uh if in a courtesy situation complaint receives your report or your disposition before it comes to the board or before well, when it comes to the board, it's being released public, we're all clear on it.

If that happens, is there no concern that a complaint their legal representation, etc.

will be able to comment in public with the with the press before we even know what your disposition is, before the public knows what you're saying.

Is that a good situation to I want to be sensitive to any complaint or whatever that complaints going through, but I also want to make sure that we're maintaining a process where we are setting up for a fire storm before we even know what's in the report.

Right.

I think one I want to clarify that there's not gonna be a week in between, right?

I could call the family, call the complainant.

Have the conversation in the morning, though, give them some.

I mean you also have people who are traumatized in the situation, or who you know what I mean.

So I I just want to be sensitive to that and give them some time to just digest it before the rest of the world consumes it look like so.

It could be a warning situation, and then I release it to the board by the other.

So I just want to point out I see her intent.

I would be okay with something that is you know a courtesy, you know, the day of or the day before.

Uh, but if that's the way we're gonna do it, we probably should make it as a note number two behind syncing up the uh the business days and whatever the move it's a good thing for us to have in the MOU so that all parties are clear that this is what will happen.

Us the police chiefs, the council, like that's it just a good one to add.

Yes, I I understand the sense to why you want to do it.

Okay, I understand.

Uh Jamie, did you have a comment?

I just no I again I understand it, and I also think you know, and I know your family members are sitting here, and you know, but if you get it two days before we see it or length of time, and it's already out in the press in the public, that's not the way it's supposed to work.

And I I see our city attorney shaking her head and that's happened to us several times already, all the time.

We get it from the from the from the paper.

Yeah, right.

It's some article.

We don't get notified see in the paper.

The press conference.

I had found out that day, everyone knew wrote press conference, and there were no puts it out, but that's that's different thing.

That's the police department.

We should not be auditor and the board, right?

Right, so we want to be careful, we don't want to get into that for it.

Um, this really is at the moment for that.

So we appreciate y'all being here.

You know, y'all are welcome here at any time.

Um, but I think what we're we've identified is a flaw.

I'm not the most and it's it's something that's missing in the MOU, and it's it's something that has to be addressed.

I think the you received a draft of the police department's information, right?

So I don't I don't know that the idea of a draft is um needs to be you know not considered at all, which should be something that's off the tape.

I think that that's something that needs to be considered, but this is definitely it's a it's a hole here in the MOU.

It's not I can't find it.

I mean, I'm kind of thumbing through it right now.

I don't see anything even addressing it.

Um I think that it does need to be addressed.

The other thing, um, Amaratu, I think we need to be aware of is every case may not be like this case.

Your report may not necessarily for future cases line up with what the victim's family is anticipating.

So I think that I think what we're looking at here is we're not talking about the tucker case.

We're talking about the cases that we will be seeing and and the vast um, you know, opinions, reports, decisions, suggestions that may come of it.

I understand that.

And again, I'm not looking at this, that's why I keep saying complainant as well.

Right, like I'm looking at this as a procedure as a procedural thing.

I also think about you know, certain complainants, they may not want the public hearing because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

And so I still need to contact them though, and say these these are this is the the dispositions.

Um then it will be released to the board, and it'll be up to them whether they whether or not they say you know, have a public hearing.

You can come to the board meeting, you can sign up for public comment and direct directly request the board not to hold a public hearing.

But I I just want to hold that space as well to say I've at least have two complicates.

That's what I don't want to record ever make varying cases.

My only thing is I want to just this is my current practice, or this is what I'm used to.

Is I'm done with an investigation before I notify OBR before I notify anyone else.

I call the complainant directly, I have a conversation.

That's what what that's what I was trained under them to do.

That's what I'm doing, that's what I'm looking for.

And if it needs to change, then it can be a discussion in the MOU revision, but that's my practice point.

Uh Meghan, can I just kind of add in your opinion here?

I mean, I would love to hear you here where we're engaged.

And I mean, maybe maybe that's not appropriate.

But I think you can hear both sides of this, but uh is not our council, but well, she's not our council as it pertains to the Tucker case, but what I'm asking for is about procedure.

I'm not asking for about the topic.

I think it is something that we missed in the MOU because we're warning as we go.

I would advise that everybody gets the report at the same time.

Say again, I would advise everybody gets the report at the same time.

That includes PP.

What did you say, Aaron?

As that that includes the police department, yes.

She's thinking.

I'm not thinking I well, I'm thinking because I'm not trying to waive attorney client privilege.

I won't, I won't answer that question in a public forum.

Um as to APD, city managers and the board, like all of you.

Um I do not think that complainants or families, and I recognize how consensitive this may sound, should not be getting the report ahead of time.

Because while we may have promises from families and friends that it will not be released before the board gets it, or city council or anyone else gets it.

Um there's no guarantee of that.

There's no guarantee of that.

And ultimately, you all do work for city council, and I can't imagine that they would be happy about a report going out that they hadn't seen.

This we will be obviously discussing and followed on any final comments from anyone on this.

Okay.

We will move forward with Did you have any other updates?

No, was that on the group?

We will go ahead and do the name whole training part one.

I brought dinner.

Yeah, and there's their own good.

There's uh turkey and NFC.

But please go create the text.

Whatever you want.

Thank you for doing that.

Very well.

Do we need a way for our other time?

No, that's if I was trying to this is more fun.

All right, Tina, you're ready to get started.

Okay, thank you all.

Um, and always it's a pleasure to be here with you all and thank you for inviting me to do this training.

And of course, thank you for your service to Alexandria and civilian oversight um broadly speaking.

So for those of you, I don't, I think I know I see one person I might not have met, but anyway, just very quickly about myself.

Um, I'm the director of training and education for NACOL, and I've been with NACOL since August of 2023.

And in my role, I do all kinds of training and technical assistance with oversight bodies, and then also with cities that are interested in establishing oversight that don't yet have it, a wide, wide range of technical assistance and training um on a regular basis.

And so the training tonight, um there is a lot of information about racial equity and various types of biases.

And so in designing this, I had to try to, or I thought of what would be most helpful in the amount of time that we have.

So I will say this just the body of research, the body of information on both of these topics independently.

I am just going to skim the very surface of those bodies because there's so much out there.

Um, I did uh design this training to be very specific to civilian oversight of law enforcement.

Um and when I get to the sections on biases, the implicit and then cognitive biases.

Um I also purposely designed the training so that everyone here on the training on the board, staff, whoever's listening in, it's more so thinking about and uh how to identify biases, your own biases and then strategies to employ so that those biases don't interfere with the work that you're carrying out.

Um the idea in teaching it about biases this way is so that you can identify your own biases.

If you can do that, then you can way more easily identify biases in other people in law enforcement, the cases you're reviewing, those sorts of things.

It is way more challenging to identify the biases that you have and how they how they can influence the work that you're doing in a negative way.

So the level of the training.

I don't make any assumptions about who knows what when I am started doing any of these trainings, because especially with boards and commissions, there's a wide range of expertise.

There's a wide range of where you're coming from, differences in your work and you know, just all sorts of information and prior knowledge that you might have.

And so um, whatever you're bringing to this to this training tonight, um, I hope that you gain some information that can um inform the work that you're doing in your role as board members and staff.

And so I also designed it so that um regardless of what level of information or knowledge you have about any of these topics, um, hopefully you can grasp the information easily and digest it easily.

So ultimately, uh objectives for tonight, um, I would love for everyone to leave here learning having learned more about their biases, how to identify them, how to um identify them in your fellow board members or staff members, or even when you're reviewing a case, being able to point out where biases might be have come into play.

Um, so if there are, in fact, biases as you're reviewing a case or carrying out any other work, hopefully you can identify those, whether it's a bias by law enforcement officer or anyone else involved in the misconduct complaint, including the investigators and fellow board members.

Um, and then of course, identifying your own biases will help you to better manage them so that they don't interfere with your work.

So when we get to that section, I stress that you can better manage them because there is no way that all of our biases will be completely eliminated.

All right.

Having said that mouthful, here are the topics for this evening.

I'm going to very briefly talk about racial equity.

I'm going to spend the most uh the bulk of my time focusing on cognitive biases, implicit biases, and then managing those biases.

And I'm going to narrow down the specific cognitive and implicit biases that I uh will talk about because these are the ones that I have seen that are they show up more often than a lot of the other ones when it comes to reviewing cases, investigating cases, the work of civilian oversight of law enforcement.

So again, I just want to point out I'm just going to be skimming the surface.

So continue to get as much information and training as possible on these areas because it will make a difference in your work that you're doing.

Okay.

Racial equity.

Um, so I've provided two definitions.

There are many, many definitions of what racial equity is, but I provided two pretty straightforward ones here.

And for each of them, I highlighted the first sentences, which is what I want to focus on more so.

Um, but essentially, when you see any definition of racial equity, you'll see something similar to these two.

So a process of eliminating racial disparities so everyone can have the same outcomes, right?

So it's pointing out different outcomes for different people based on race.

And I will also include ethnicity in here.

And then that second definition defines racial equity as the condition that would be achieved if one's racial identity no longer predicted in a statistical sense how one fares.

And so in the next few slides or coming slides coming up, I'll go more, I'll illustrate the statistical sense of how we can predict things, especially or particularly when it comes to policing and communities.

All right.

There's more to each of the definitions.

I like to give the full definitions provided, but for the sake of this training, just pointing out the first two lines of each of those definitions.

Now, to achieve racial equity in any organization or community, every single member has a role to play and has to contribute to that.

And every person has to be intentional about eliminating those disparities.

That's the base care, best case scenario that everyone is intentional, aware, working towards that same goal.

Um, when it comes to civilian oversight of law enforcement, whether you're a board member, whether you're a staff member, um, everyone has their own role to play in this and in how to achieve racial equity in Alexandria and civilian oversight of law enforcement there.

And so, as board members, of course, you a big big part of your responsibility is reviewing completed investigations.

So there is a lot of opportunity in doing that task alone.

I know you are tasked with other things as well, but just that task alone, there is a lot of opportunity to make a difference in a positive way when it comes to identifying and combating uh any biases that that ultimately lead to the perpetuation of racial inequities in policing.

Now, this slide, you probably would not be surprised if a lot of you have already seen this.

I do think it's important to point out the difference between equality and equity, whether it's racial equality, racial equity, gender equality, gender equity, whatever it might be.

Um, it is a common misperception to use these terms interchangeably, but there is a big difference between the two.

And I like this illustration or these illustrations because I think they point out, especially for me, I'm a visual person.

Um, and if you take a look at these, the left side is equality and the right side is equity.

So, in short, equality just refers to everyone having um or equality does require that everyone have the same resources, the same opportunities, regardless of what their circumstances are, right?

And despite any inherent advantages or disadvantages they might have.

So you can see on the left side where there's equality, there are three boxes that people are standing on.

And that's a good demonstration of equality.

Everyone has the same box.

It's the same resource.

It's the same thing that they're provided.

However, you can see that not everyone can see over that fence.

But in the simplest of terms, equality is giving one everyone the same thing.

So the difference with equity, equity actually takes and takes into account each individual's needs, particular needs, their particular circumstances, right?

There's a recognition that everyone may receive the same thing, but it may not have the same result for each person.

Okay.

So you can see on the right side of that illustration, there is not a one-size-fits-all to addressing inequities.

The next few slides are just real quickly.

Racial inequities are prevalent in society.

You can Google any news, you know, any topic, and there is likely going to be evidence in newspaper articles in journal reports, um, and anything you can find, there are going to be discrepancies based on race.

This is particularly true when it comes to policing and anything peripheral or adjacent to policing.

So, for example, um, incarceration rates, uh, well-being rates of people who are re-entering society after incarceration.

I just quickly did a few a quick search actually this afternoon of I don't know exactly the term I use, but essentially it was disparities in policing.

And here are just a few of the headlines that popped up uh very quickly and immediately.

And so you can see time and again, there are discrepancies or disparities, disparities um that are acknowledged on a regular basis when it comes to race and ethnicity.

And I will say the I added a few slides to the slide deck that I sent this morning, and so I will send this to you all.

Um, I'll send this to Ashley and she can get it to you all.

Uh so that we have questions.

Can we interrupt or would you prefer we wait?

Yes, you can please.

I think someone has hold on.

Okay, and I can't, yeah.

Everybody's well, on the table, everyone's kind of small, so I can't see everybody clearly.

So please do, yeah, just speak up when you have a question.

Uh I don't know if you're gonna go through this, if I'm gonna get out of you, but um uh given some of the policy and political debates right now.

Does NAPO have recommendations on if or what it says to the boards like us that if we are pushing for recommendations, policies, etc.

that promote racial equity, et cetera, equality.

Are we putting ourselves or our city uh that appointed us at legal risks?

Uh, we don't, I wouldn't NACO doesn't have anything in writing that has best practices or recommendations around that, but anything that where you have there's a question about putting the oversight body at legal risk, we do defer to the lawyers, the city lawyers or your own appointed counsel, if it's you know, someone other than the city attorneys, just because each city um different policies, different, you know, uh agreements with the police unions, and so we defer to your city's legal on that or whoever your counsel is.

But I will say it is not uncommon if if you looked at a wide range of ordinances that among the purpose and mission of a lot of oversight bodies by ordinance or charter, it includes racial equity.

So that is not uncommon and uncommon thing, goal to try to work towards.

This Seattle headline was from July 2021.

The rest of these Cleveland, uh, the ACLU report on DC, and then the general one, study of fatal and non-fatal shootings, those are um all published in 2024.

And so here's another slide, and this just shows again to reiterate the widely known and accepted understanding that there are significant racial disparities when it comes to policing and even misconduct.

And so all of these graphics that you see on this slide are from the prison policy initiative, which is an excellent source of information when it comes to um anything prison or policing related.

But you can clearly see in the graphics, uh, there's a consistent pattern that appears in decades and decades and decades of research when it comes to policing, incarceration, um, anything related to that, that African Americans are significantly disproportionately affected by all of the areas from uh point of contact with the police officer to arrest to conviction to sentencing, all of those different areas, African Americans are disproportionately affected.

What's not on this slide, another group is just racially and ethnically that's disproportionately affected at rates similar to African Americans or indigenous populations in this country.

A lot of times because their numbers are so small, they're not represented in graphics, but they do have extremely high disproportionate rates as African American populations.

And this is another slide that shows again the same thing.

I could go on and on and on and show different slides and research and graphics about the dispro disproportionality and the disparities when it comes to policing and races and ethnicities.

But I think this, these few graphics that I have shared, do a great job at illustrating the point.

This is looking specifically at Boston.

And it was this is different from the previous uh slide, in that this is reporting directly from the citizens of Boston and their experiences with law enforcement.

And so they look at a range of different types of police hat or harassment that various people uh based on their race and ethnicity responded to questions.

Um, were they accused of having or selling drugs by police?

Uh, did the police assume they were a thief?

Were they treated unfairly because of how they dressed?

Um, been verbally abusive, were they physically abusive to you, followed you for no reason for while you are walking or driving?

And so you can see along this chart, the dark blue line bark blue bar, which is at the beginning of each of the different categories, that represents the black population.

So you can see percentage-wise uh much higher in most categories compared to the others.

And then quite a few of those uh followed by the Latino population.

So yes.

Well, the same trend follow with those that had been, I guess.

I couldn't understand if the would the same apply to people who had been died in police custody.

Ah, died in police custody.

Um, I don't have the stats on that, but if it holds true, so I'll say this.

Um, I used to do when I was a professor, I did research on wrongful convictions and criminal legal related issues.

And pretty much every single category I've ever looked at.

I did not look specifically at uh people dying in police custody, but pretty much it's consistent across the board in every category I've looked at that African Americans and indigenous populations have significantly disproportionate um higher rates and percentages of being affected at every point in the criminal legal system process.

So I can't say because I don't know the stats on that one in particular, but I would not be surprised, and it would not, it would make um it would follow the pattern in most other categories when it comes to policing and corrections.

So how does your role fit it as board members and as staff?

How does how does it all fit?

Like, okay, what am I supposed to do?

I'm one person, how can I contribute to moving towards racial equity?

The first thing to know is one person, one organization, one body is not going to be able to do it alone.

So in this world, we know that in the world of oversight, you all are putting forth your time, your energy, your skills, your knowledge, um, to improve policing, making it more transparent, accountable overall.

And a big part of that is trying to achieve racial equity, gender equity, all sorts of equity.

Um, I don't know if if how long ago I can't remember we did the evolution of uh civilian oversight of law enforcement training, how long ago I did that.

But if if anyone remembers that training, race relations and racial strife and civil rights are inextricably linked with civilian oversight of law enforcement.

In large part, that is how civilian oversight of law enforcement came to exist.

And we're talking going back a hundred years ago when you know presidential commissions going back to the 19 uh 30s and 40s, examine racial strife in this country, examine racial uh civil rights issues in this country based on race primarily, and started recommending that they didn't use the term civilian oversight of law enforcement, but they did acknowledge the need for external bodies, meaning external to police departments, external bodies having a role in overseeing and being a part of addressing racial violence and police misconduct, largely based on race relations.

And so each of each of you individually in the work that you're doing, whether you're reviewing cases, making policy recommendations, whatever it is, you can use the knowledge that you will gain tonight, pre-existing knowledge in this area, um, to intentionally try to be on the lookout for any uh types of discrepancies, disparities when it comes to race and other areas as well.

Um, and one way of doing that is to be able to identify biases when they are at play, whether it's from law enforcement officers, cases you're reviewing, whether it's your fellow board members, um, as you're reviewing cases and making comments and having discussions and even recognizing bias within yourself.

So there is a common misperception about what a bias is that it's always a bad thing.

So if I were to ask you, if we were doing this person in person, this training, and I had way more time, um, I could do, I'm gonna skip the exercises just for the sake of time.

But typically, if I ask everyone in the room, do you prefer coffee or tea?

You could answer that.

Do you prefer uh football or basketball or a different sport?

You can probably tell me that.

Do you prefer dogs and cats?

So just if I just gave you either or options, like what do you prefer?

Most of you will have a preference.

Now, some people don't like either of the options, or they like both of the options equally.

But most people, when I've done this exercise, can easily identify what their preference is out of the two options.

Okay.

So that is simply what a bias at its most basic level of understanding is.

Was there again a comment?

No.

Okay.

So at the very base level or the basic definition, a bias is simply a tendency and inclination or a preference towards something or someone.

That's all a bias is.

So inherently, it's not a bad thing, it's not a terrible thing.

It is something that each and every one of us has.

We have our preferences, uh, we like one thing more than the other.

We like certain people more than other, and it can be based on a variety of things.

But it is not necessarily a terrible thing uh to say I'm biased, I have biases because we all have them.

So I'm gonna first talk about cognitive biases.

So the two types of biases tonight: cognitive biases and implicit biases.

So cognitive biases, don't believe everything you think, right?

Because everything you think is not necessarily going to be accurate.

When you pause, you really start to break it down and analyze and really be intentional about what it is that you think.

All right.

So cognitive bias is basically it's an error, it's a systematic error in the way we think and process information.

It relies on our perceptions, our observations and experiences rather than our facts or objective information.

Okay.

And so if I've had an experience about an interaction with a particular person of a particular race in the past, right, if I base my perception on someone based who is all who is that race or ethnicity in the future because of my prior experience, then that is where there can be problems, right?

Now it's there are good things and bad things or shortcuts that our brain uh brain uh creates in order to help process information more quickly, which I will get to when we get to the strategies for managing biases.

But essentially, these systematic errors and processing information or perceiving information, they're there oftentimes our brains attempt to behave more efficiently by creating mental shortcuts, right?

Um, more on that to come.

But just know for now, a cognitive bias is a systematic error in the way we think about something.

There are hundreds of cognitive biases.

And so this graphic, and I know it's too tiny for you to see all of these, but this is freely available, easily uh to find online.

If you went to the cognitive bias codex, for anybody who has any interest in this, every single line that you see emanating from that brain, those teeny tiny lines that you cannot read, each of those is a different type of bias.

Okay.

So for purposes of tonight, this is where I had to narrow down what are the biases, the cognitive biases that I see most often, and um, as possibly interfering with the work that board and commission members carry out or even investigators carry out as they're um taking on their responsibilities.

And so I have six cognitive biases.

And so here are the first three.

I will point out that the examples that I use to illustrate the different biases tonight will vary.

Um, some of them may be in in regarding board members reviewing cases, some of them may be investigators or anybody who conducts investigations and oversight, and some of them may be non-oversight related, but I give very a variety of examples uh with the hopes that I'm making the definitions or what each type of bias is as clear as possible.

Okay, so the first of the six cognitive biases, we've got confirmation bias.

Okay.

And so, of course, this is the tendency to search for, interpret favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.

So this is one that is often heard more so than others, confirmation bias.

You believe something, you have a hunch about something, and then you identify information um that fits it.

When you hear information that fits it, you take that information, give some credibility to it.

But if there's information you receive that doesn't fit your hunch or your hypothesis, then you disregard it.

And again, remember, these are not even you're not even aware if you're uh of doing these most of the time.

Okay.

So uh non-civilian oversight example.

So when I studied the experience of people who are wrongfully convicted when I was a professor, confirmation bias was one of the most common types of biases in the cases that I examine.

And so, in cases such as those, um, detectives, prosecutors, although they had information, um, or excuse me, they started with a theory about how a crime was committed and who did it and you know why they did it.

So they started with a theory or a hunch, right?

Um, and so as they started conducting the investigations or gathering evidence for their case, um, any information that supported their theory, they gave credence to it.

It became a part of their case, and any information that did not fit their theory, it was kind of brushed to the side and ignored.

All right.

So that's a very apparent case or example of confirmation bias.

When it comes to civilian oversight of law enforcement, if an oversight body receive receives a misconduct complaint, someone may immediately have a hunch or a feeling, right, about what happened in that case.

Happens all the time.

And this is okay.

It's our natural, our brain's natural processing.

However, when I get to the strategies, it's important to recognize the the reality.

If you do start something or hear information on an automatically have a hunch about it, a lot of us will have a hunch or have a thought immediately.

The key is when it comes to strategies is to recognize that and take a step back and be aware that you know what, natural to have a gut feeling or a hunch about something doesn't mean it's going to be right.

And so you've got to push that hunch aside and be open to all the information that you're going to come across.

Next is anchoring bias.

And this is the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information that you come across that you see, that you hear.

Um, and this is similar to availability bias.

But for anchoring bias, just remember it's the first piece of information you come across.

And so as a board member who's tasked with reviewing cases, if you pick a case file for a case you're going to review, and the first piece of information you come across, say is the police report.

Anchoring bias is when you read that police report, and then everything you read from that point on is through the lens of that police report.

And so subconsciously, you're trying to determine for every subsequent piece of information.

Does this fit with the police report that I read?

And if it doesn't, subconsciously, you're giving less credence to those later pieces of information you're coming across.

Okay.

Availability bias is very similar to anchoring bias.

However, it's not necessarily the first piece of information that you come across.

Okay.

Instead, availability bias is the tendency to focus on the most vivid or memorable piece of information that you come across.

So go back to that case file, right?

The example I just gave where the first piece of information might be the police complaint that you come across or the police report related to that particular case.

If availability bias is in play, say you've you're you've reviewed the police report, you're moving on to different um pieces of the case file, and you come across something in the case file that is so vivid and memorable.

And one of the kind of easiest example here is if there's a case where there was use of force and there was an injury involved.

And that injury is so memorable to you, um, it hits you in a particular way, whether it was something awful, whether you felt like it was such an injustice for that person to receive that injury.

But for whatever reason, that piece of information sticks with you.

With availability bias, you may start to look at or you would start to look at the entire uh all the other pieces of the case from the lens of that particular piece of information.

Okay.

So these are very similar, but anchoring biases focuses on the first piece of information.

Availability is just what was the piece of information that was most vivid and memorable to you.

And the last three forms of cognitive bias.

There is expediency bias and conformity bias, and then I'll get to blind spot bias.

Expediency bias.

This is the tendency to form an opinion or conclusion without considering all information.

Okay.

And so this is in essence, all a lot of times you're acting quickly or someone is acting quickly rather than taking the time to do a thorough job on something.

And so when it comes to reviewing cases, I've seen this um happen.

Um, not with your not with your board.

I have not been involved with reviewing cases with yours, but with other boards and commissions I've worked with and have sat in on actual case reviews.

Um, I have actually seen where all board members were not prepared in reviewing a case.

And so their decisions and conclusions formed about what happened in that particular case, it was based on five or 10 minutes before the case review, right?

They did not give adequate time to sit down, review the case, file thoroughly, really give it proper time and attention to form a complete opinion or informed opinion about the case.

Um, an example, say, for instance, there is an investigator, and you all, as as you're reviewing cases, even though you're not conducting investigations, board members, you can be on the lookout for things like this.

But say, for example, you're reviewing a case and you recognize that okay, there were there was a complainant, there was an officer involved, and then there were three witnesses involved in this case.

Okay.

So what if the investigator only interviewed the complainant and the police officer?

Okay.

Um, they did not interview the remaining three people, and it could be for different reasons.

Uh, when it comes to expediency bias, it could be that there was a window of time that they had to complete the investigation, whether it was self-imposed or a uh procedural deadline that was in play.

Um, they couldn't get to all the witnesses in in enough time.

And so they ultimately form their conclusion or their opinion about that case uh without conducting the interviewing the remaining three witnesses.

Okay.

So that could be an example of an expediency bias.

Conformity bias.

Now, this is the tendency to align one's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors with those of the group.

Okay.

So, and you can see informational conformity, normative conformity, ingratiation.

Um it is human nature to want to not or to not rock the boat, not want to rock the boat when you're in a group, um, to get along with everybody, to feel aligned with everybody.

Um, but it's it's not always not everyone is always comfortable with speaking up.

Um, if there is a difference in opinion, then the majority of the group or if they have a different outcome, uh, for example, in reviewing a case.

If someone is not comfortable enough to speak up, then there's the chance of committing conformity bias.

So essentially a person aligns themselves with something that they don't necessarily agree with, right?

But it's because they don't want to rock the boat.

They want to be aligned with the rest of the group.

And so when this bias occurs, there's less of an independent thinking of the person by the person who is committing this bias.

They don't want to go against the grain or rock the boat, typically.

So when we're thinking about civilian oversight of law enforcement, say this could be the same for investigators, an oversight office staff, a team of staff members, it can be a police department, but essentially the person doesn't want to go against the grain.

So breaking down each of the different types of conformity bias you see in the parentheses after the definition.

I'll start with normative conformity.

All right.

This is essentially changing someone's uh changing behavior to fit in with the group.

Okay.

In order to do this, if a person disagrees with what the group, what the group, what the group is thinking or their outcome when it comes to decision making, um, that person has to suppress what their personal views are or even sometimes their behavior.

Okay.

So civilian oversight of law enforcement, say there is an investigative finding or a conclusion as a result of an investigation, and everyone else on the board seems to be on the same page, but someone has a disagreement or sees things differently.

However, if they don't speak up and express that different idea or opinion about what happened in that particular case, then that is their employing inform, um, excuse me, normative conformity, right?

Wanting to fit in with everyone else, not speaking up.

This can be the same when it comes to making policy recommendations or doing carrying out any other tasks that this board is is authorized to carry out, right?

If the board decides on making a recommendation, but someone on the board disagrees with that recommendation or is not fully supportive of it.

If they don't speak up, going along with it without expressing that disagreement, then that's conformity bias.

Then there's ingratiation.

And so this is simply when someone adjusts their beliefs, their behavior, um, simply to get into someone's good graces.

And so that could be that can mean um changing the outcome of a case review or a policy recommendation to appease the director of the oversight office, to appease a city council person, to appease your fellow board members, to appease the police chief, but it's essentially being in great uh ingratiating yourself to someone else's ideas because you believe that that will be a little bit make things a little bit easy for you, or put you in their good graces.

And then the last example of or type of conformity bias that is on this slide is informational conformity.

So this is when someone lacks the information or knowledge that is needed to carry out the work that they're doing.

And instead, they rely on someone else in the group for accurate information.

Now, of course, there are um all kinds of examples where it's helpful to rely on each other's expertise or each other's knowledge when we're carrying out the work.

The problem is um when it comes to informational conformity bias is this is the standard operating standard operating procedure.

Another example that I'll give when I have sat in on case reviews um that oversight boards have done, uh I think of one one city in particular where there were certain members of the board who when reviewing cases, and it was apparent that there were certain police policies that were instrumental to understanding that case and arriving to the decision whether or not the police officer violated that policy.

Some board members actually never actually looked at the policy themselves on a standard regular basis.

Instead, they would rely on another board member during the case review, or they would rely on the police officer representative who attended those case reviews in order to be a source of information.

And I will say, I've sat in some of those meetings where the information that about the policy was incorrect that was provided to the board as they're reviewing a case.

So I can't stress enough about this.

It is helpful to have people who are knowledgeable and to rely on their knowledge from time to time, but to make it a standard way of operating can get you into some trouble and can perpetuate the bias that or the conformity bias in the form of informational conformity that can continue that that can continue that happening if people rely on others all the time to explain things uh for them.

This last bias, blind spot bias, I include this on here.

There's very simple.

It is the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases or other biases in people other than yourself.

And so this goes back to how I designed this training tonight.

I designed this, hopefully, where you all, each person who is here can start thinking about how their own biases might be at play.

Because I'm going to tell you time and time again.

Um, when I do this in person, and there's way more time to get into interactive activities.

I have a case scenario and everything.

It never fails that I ask the question, or I ask people, okay, how might you, your own biases affect the way that you're reviewing this case?

People always point out the biases that the law enforcement officer in the case or someone else in the case scenario, they can point those out very easily, and that's the first thing that comes to mind.

It is way more challenging for them to think about how their own biases might come into play and negatively impact the case that they're reviewing.

Okay.

So blind spot bias, I put it on here simply as a reminder.

Hey, we all have biases, and so we should be on the lookout for them in the in the work that we're doing.

Okay, the second type of bias for tonight, implicit bias.

Okay.

Implicit biases are a form of cognitive biases.

So all implicit biases are cognitive biases, but not vice versa.

Cognitive biases, that huge wheel of biases, cognitive biases that was on a previous slide where there are several hundred of them.

The implicit biases are included on those as well.

And by the way, on that on that uh wheel, the codex, if you were to find that online, you could just simply click any of the hundreds of biases, and there would be a pop-out with much more information on each one.

Start with definitions.

So there's that very simple definition of biases that we started out with, a tendency, inclination, or preference toward or against something or someone.

Um inherently, or there are two types of biases.

When we're talking about uh implicit bias, that is a term that is very commonly heard in the more recent years, and then there are explicit biases.

And so you can see beside the definition or beside the term explicit, there's conscious and there's implicit unconscious.

Very simple way to think about these.

Implicit biases are very, they're unconscious, we don't think about them.

We operate based on the attitudes or stereotypes that we have about someone or something, but we're not intentionally aware of them.

Explicit biases, on the other hand, are the attitudes and beliefs that we have, and we're very conscious and deliberately have those.

Okay.

So I'm going to focus on implicit biases over the next few slides.

Okay.

So here are some key characteristics of implicit biases.

There's attitudes or stereotypes that unconsciously affect our actions, decisions, and understanding.

So the key word here is unconsciously.

And spoil alert, a major part of reducing bias is to activate conscious processes, which I'll get to a little bit later on.

Implicit biases are formed over a lifetime as a result of exposure to direct and indirect messages.

Now, direct messages are a range of things.

They can include the lessons taught by our parents, our family members, um, people who are close to us, our friends, as well as institutions uh teaching us certain things, institutions such as schools, places of worships.

Um, so those can be very direct messages about people, about marriage, about all kinds of morality issues, um, and a range of other things.

Indirect messages are conveyed um not as noticeably, but the impact can be just as strong informing the biases that we have.

So indirect messages that are conveyed um through all kinds of media, right?

Social media, movies, television shows, uh, they can be messages that are conveyed through music, through advertisements, billboards.

Um anybody who has a background in marketing or communications, every piece of information will know this.

Every piece of information that is put out there, whether it's social media, whether it's TV, whether it's paper magazines, newspaper, there is a message and intent in the words that are chosen and the information that is conveyed.

So indirect messages are those sorts of sorts of ways that information are conveyed, just as impactful as messages that are taught directly.

Implicit biases can be positive or negative.

Most often when we think about biases about people and groups of people, the negative ones come to mind first.

Okay.

However, there are positive biases as well.

For instance, a bias against people that seen as positive is someone who attended an Ivy League college or a university.

There is a bias automatically.

Oh, they're so much smarter than other people in the room, or they're so much more successful, or there's some kind of positive attribute that is uh attributed to that person who attended an Ivy League simply because of attending an Ivy League league institution.

So in those cases, that is something that is considered a positive uh bias.

Okay.

However, positive biases can be just as problematic as ones that are negatively noticeably negative.

Okay.

Implicit biases are pervasive.

And that simply means they are universal.

Every single person has them.

Right.

There is not a person in this room who can say that they don't have any biases.

That is just not the way our um how we operate as human beings and how our brain uh works and how we process information, and just take it simply back to the preferences that we have.

We all have them.

The key is not to let them interfere in a negative way with the work that we're doing.

Implicit biases may conflict with a person's stated beliefs or values.

Okay.

Have you ever been in a room or witnessed uh someone pointing out to someone else a bias, right?

Oh, that's sexist.

That's racist, that is fill in the blank.

And then the person is appalled.

They really believe that they're not sexist or racist or whatever it is that was pointed out to them.

So this was is what that refers to.

Someone may really believe that they're not um biased in a particular way against a particular group of people or individual.

However, in fact, the way they behave, the things they say may indicate otherwise.

Okay.

So just because someone says I'm not biased in this way doesn't mean it's true.

Don't believe everything you think, right?

Going back to that slide.

And then finally, implicit biases are changeable and can be unlearned.

So that's the good news.

It takes time, it can take intent, and it takes uh continuously learning about this.

Um, but other than the continuous learning, which may require some training, uh, it doesn't really cost the the cost is or financially, the cost is the time and the intention and being um committed to being aware of your own biases and employing strategies so that they don't interfere with the work that you're doing.

I share this slide, the dimensions of diversity to show all the various ways that someone can be biased.

There, we can all have preferences, whether it's ice cream, you know, non-person factors, ice cream, pets, movies, music genres, and these are the dimensions of diversity when it comes to human beings and people.

This is not exhaustive, but there are plenty of dimensions of diversity on here where people may be biased towards certain things, right?

People can be biased towards because of where someone lives, uh positively or negatively, because of that primary um concentric circle is some of the most common person's gender, their ethnicity, their race, their sexual orientation.

We hear that we're very aware of those kinds of biases.

The other ones in the outer concentric circles are some that we don't necessarily think about right uh immediately.

But when it comes to reviewing cases, looking at investigations that have occurred for police misconduct, try to keep these types of things at the forefront of your mind, right?

Um, some things that aren't aren't on here, appearance, um, oh yeah, that is secondary, but people can be biased, uh, all kinds of things when it comes to appearance.

They can be biased uh about someone's weight.

You know, there's plenty of research about a thing called beauty bias, right?

People who are typically generally, and I say that in quotes, more attractive in a particular society, um, usually oftentimes have uh more beneficial or positive benefits than other people who are deemed not necessarily don't meet those standards of beauty.

People can be biased because of someone's clothes that they're the type of clothes they're wearing, their hairstyle, the the amount and kind of jewelry they're wearing.

And so it's just important to be aware of all of this.

The next six biases that I'm going to focus on are the implicit biases.

Okay.

And again, these are the ones that I see in my work with civilian oversight in the almost last three years, the ones that I've been in rooms where I've observed or um have noticed more so than others.

There's an affinity bias, which is also called the like me bias.

This is the tendency to favor information received from people who are like us.

Okay.

Um this similarity or favoring for based on characteristics of people who are like us.

If you went back to that dimension of diversity slide previously, age, gender, um, it can be our generation that we grew up in, whether baby boomers, gen X, millennials, whatever it is.

We can be, we can have an affinity towards people just simply because of that.

Um, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, it could be anything from a wide range of things.

What is someone's hometown?

It can be if someone shares the favorite sports team as someone they're in a room with, or someone has children and they find out someone else has children.

All of those similarities that that uh people can identify with one another can make them feel warmer or automatically more connected to people if there's that shared experience or characteristic that they have.

Unconsciously, if you're reviewing a case and you are reading something about whether it's the complainant, the police officer, a witness, and there's something in that case file that you're reading that automatically you feel you you notice a connection.

Oh, we're both share the characteristic, share a particular characteristic.

Unconsciously, if you're not aware of biases, that connection can start to color the way you view that case in its entirety, and it can affect the outcome, um, your overall outcome of that case.

Okay.

I think of the halo and horns effect as the opposite sides of the same coin.

So on the halo side, this is the tendency to allow specific, a specific trait or overall impression of someone to positively influence our judgment of them overall.

On the flip side is the horns effect.

That trait or overall impression of a person negatively influences our judgment of them overall.

Okay.

So again, thinking of that dimension of diversity.

If we're reviewing a case or if an investigator is investigating a case and they're, you know, looking at something in particular, a person's trait, right?

How they're dressed, how they talk, where they live, um, their education level, the type of job they have, whether or not they have a job or they're not working.

Anything on that dimensions of diversity graphic and even things that are not on there can influence how we perceive that person overall.

And in civilian oversight of law enforcement, if you're reviewing a case and you form an impression of that person, and you're not aware of the implicit bias that is coming into play, that can ultimately affect how you determine or what you determine happened in that case and any recommendations that flow out of it.

And the last three uh implicit biases where I where I see an oversight is authority bias, um, attribution bias and the perception bias.

So authority bias, that's the tendency to attribute greater accuracy and truth to statements and decisions made by people who are deemed or actually have are in positions of higher authority or they're experts, even when there's without there is not substantial evidence to support those claims.

Okay.

Um again, going back to my research when I conducted research regarding wrongful convictions, I saw a lot of examples of authority bias uh in cases where there were police misconduct.

Um, even when there was evidence to the contrary that a person committed a crime, like the evidence pointed to someone else, or actually the evidence actually disproved that they could have been in that physical location.

We know, because many people have been wrongfully convicted in these situations that prosecutors and police officers, their credibility was given more weight and credence compared to the person who ultimately ended up being wrongfully convicted.

So that's an extreme example of a example of a when it comes to attribution bias.

This is the tendency to misattribute the causes of behavior, often overemphasizing a person's personal characteristics, but underestimating situational factors.

All right.

Say, for example, someone arrives at an appointment late, or they arrive to a board meeting late or a case review late.

Now we can easily assume that you know what, they didn't give themselves enough time to get here.

They, you know, didn't care enough to be here on time.

There are all kinds of reasons that can be attributed to something about that person.

They didn't care enough to show up, uh, they didn't plan enough, they should have known better, they should have planned ahead of time.

When in actuality, if we pause to consider external or situational factors, there could be a legitimate reason that someone didn't show up to a meeting or didn't show up on time, right?

Um, there could have been a traffic accident that happened.

Um, there could have been an emergency situation.

Uh, someone could have gotten sick.

Yesterday, I actually had a meeting with somebody with two people.

Uh, when I logged on to the meeting, only one of the persons was there.

Um, and I could have immediately thought, oh, well, they don't care enough to show up on time to show up to the meeting.

What really happened?

They were in a traffic accident.

And so they couldn't show up to the meeting.

They were actually at the emergency room.

But the point being with attribution bias, there can be all kinds of reasons.

We uh we make assumptions about a person based on who they are.

They don't care, they're, you know, they don't follow through, they don't follow through.

There are all kinds of personal reasons.

However, before jumping to those, remind yourself there can be situational factors that have occurred.

And so take those into account.

So when reviewing a case, um, anything about why is something why a person did or did not take a particular action, be careful not to automatically assume it's something about them as an individual.

Look for, as you're reviewing cases, the situational factors that are play at play.

And if those situational factors are not apparent, or you have questions about those, what those might be, those could be some questions, follow-up questions to seek to get the information before arriving at a decision about that case.

Perception bias is kind of a very broad overreaching bias of um most of the biases that I've talked about tonight.

It's essentially the tendency to judge or treat others based um on inaccurate, overly simplistic stereotypes and assumptions about the group they belong in.

So that's kind of a broad overarching term.

If we were doing this person in person and had more time, I would uh we would actually dig into this, but for the sake of time, this is a uh the case scenario or the vignette that I use when I'm doing this training.

I'll just point out a couple of things.

Um, if we were doing this in person, you know, I'd have everyone kind of review this, work together in small groups to identify okay, where are some of the biases that you all, if you're reviewing this case, some biases or your colleagues' biases, where can those potentially come into play?

So I'll just point out a few again for the sake of time.

Automatically off the bat, and the very first uh couple of sentences, you can see that the complainant is an African American man, 20 years old, and there are two officers, an Asian male and a white female.

Off the bat, race, ethnicity.

If someone is reading this and they're not aware of their biases or not aware that they have implicit biases and they should always put those biases in check, there can be some affinity bias going on, right?

If you're a young person, um young adult, closer in age to 20 than you are my age, 50-ish.

Uh, you can automatically have an affinity just based on race and age for the person filing the complaint.

And what that looks like playing out is oh, I'm gonna favor that person's account of what happened over the police officers, because we're both young adults and we're both the same race.

All right.

Same thing when it comes to the two officers, Asian male and white female.

Now, same scenario.

I can have an affinity for the female officer, right?

I all kinds of things and thoughts can go into my mind.

A woman police officer, or they must, you know, um, as a woman, I can identify with that.

They probably have a harder time being on the forest, being in male dominated profession.

All of these thoughts can automatically be going through my mind, creating an affinity and more um unintentionally giving the white female police officer more credence and more credibility compared to anybody else.

This is how implicit biases were.

We're not aware that we're doing it.

Our brain is processing information in milliseconds, and this is the outcome.

Um, just pointing out another one.

Um, on the next slide, this is the officer's account in this vignette.

And so in the third paragraph down, officer Peters told Johnson to take his hat off.

Johnson replied, Why are you effing with me?

And it goes on, and he says, F that eventually.

Language is another way people can be influenced, right?

And let our implicit biases get in the way of the work that we're doing.

Now, some people may be offended by that language, right?

And hate Halo horns effect, the horns effect.

There's something about something, uh, some characteristic about an individual that can influence the way we perceive that person and ultimately when it comes to reviewing a case, how we ultimately make our determination about that case.

So if I'm highly offended by cursing, um, then I might see that, and that might affect the way I view this case.

Um, biases, there can be more biases at play or multiple biases at play at the same time.

Okay.

So that example there, the use of the curse words can also be the availability bias to me, right?

So going back to availability bias, it's what if I'm looking at a case file and I'm so offended by that language that the complainant use, I'm focused more on that.

Again, implicit biases.

I'm focused more on that than everything else I'm reading in the case file.

And the fact that I don't like that language, that can influence the way I review the rest of the case.

Secondary are the actual facts of the cases and the objective data.

My bias against the language that is used and that is in this report is what I am focusing more on.

There are tons of the biases that we've reviewed tonight that can be pointed out in that scenario.

So if you want to have fun on your downtime, take a look at those.

Okay, managing biases.

All right.

So we've talked about very common biases that uh are I've seen appear in different settings when it comes to civilian oversight of law enforcement.

Now, okay, well, what do we do about this?

How can I be more aware of my biases and what are some things I can do as I'm reviewing a case or as I'm making a recommendations?

What can I do to be more aware of them and to minimize them?

All right, from affecting the work I'm doing.

The next slide I'm gonna show you.

I'm only gonna show it for maybe a second, even maybe even less less than a second.

But what I want you to do is take a look at what's on the slide.

And then I'm just gonna ask you if you will play along with me just for a few minutes uh or moment or so, what you think about what came to mind when you saw this.

All right.

So everyone, look at the slide because I'm gonna hit the button and it's gonna be on a second or less.

All right.

So just throw it out there.

Anybody?

Did you miss it, Alexis?

Just throw it out there.

Any thoughts, immediate thoughts that that came to mind?

Okay, say it again.

Rattlesnake, rattlesnake.

Any impressions?

Was it scary?

Was it danger?

Did anyone have any?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Now, surprisingly, I did this at a training, and there was someone who had positive, well, actually, two different trainings, two different times.

People had good, like were excited and happy to see that.

I'll get to that in a moment.

But when I showed that slide, you didn't need 10 minutes to think about well, what did I just see?

And what if I ask you to list all kinds of adjectives about what that is?

Dangerous, scary, creepy, slimy, there are all kinds of um negative things about that picture.

Um, but you didn't need a whole lot of time to form those ideas and your thoughts about them.

We know just by looking that at that from our experience, our education.

Some of you may have come across snakes in your lifetime.

So hopefully no one's been bitten by snakes.

But through school, what we learn about snakes and that snake in particular, we know that's a dangerous snake.

So through your lifetime, you have formed all kinds of ideas and thoughts about um this particular snake.

And even if you're not familiar with the particular snake, there's typically the same types of ideas.

But the point is, you didn't need a lot of time to your brain, just automatically gave you some ideas, recalled information about that.

Now we'll say the people who had positive feelings about the snake, the first person just loved snake in that particular training.

They love snakes, they studied snakes, they just got very excited when they saw that snake.

In the second training I did, there have only been two trainings where there are positive thoughts.

Someone actually said, Oh, yeah, their high school uh mascot was a rattler.

They were known as the rattlers, a rattlesnake.

And so it brought back all of her feel-good memories from high school and the sports events and everything.

And so in that training as well, there was someone who made the comment uh kind of snarklily.

Hmm, I'd like to see anybody who has positive feelings about that.

And the woman had already said she had positive feelings.

And I I point this out to say that person's ideas were so strong and ingrained with him, his bias against the snake, that he could not even believe that anyone have anyone would have positive feelings about that picture of that snake, even though the person just said it, like literally a minute before he made that comment.

Okay, moving on though.

Um there's a reason.

I'm sure you have a positive and a negative feeling.

Say it again.

Positive and animated, negative and positive and negative.

I think so.

I think well, I think it could be split second reactions.

Yes.

Okay.

We're comp we are complex beings, and so I do believe you can experience a wide range of emotions all in a second.

Okay.

And also context matters, right?

So, of course, if we saw that snake in one setting, um, it can be a very different feeling than if we saw the snake mascot.

Um, okay.

Not gonna not gonna take the time to do this.

I just will point out again when it comes to thinking and cognitive errors.

Most people, when they see this, they read this.

If it takes five machines, five minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?

Most people, if I say, I'm gonna give you a minute to respond to this.

There's that's not a lot of time to really think this through.

Most people identify the pattern.

Oh, Chris, is your hand up?

No, I'm not sure.

Oh, you're most people think this is five minutes.

So most people, I've done this over and over.

Most people who have not seen this will say it takes a hundred minutes.

Yeah.

And it reasons it's very reasonable.

If you don't have time to work through this problem, it is very reasonable for your brain to say, ah, I see a pattern here.

So that should be 100 minutes.

Five machines, five minutes, five widgets, one hundred machines, 100 widgets, 100 minutes.

It is a plausible, legitimate way that our brain is making a shortcut to solve a problem or to look at information.

If we were doing this in person, I would give you literally like uh 30 seconds to solve this, and then I'd give you more time.

And that's where more people um real understand and can grasp and wrap their mind around that.

Oh, it's five minutes.

All right.

So I just point that out as how our brain processes information and oftentimes uses mental or creates and uses mental shortcuts to navigate our daily life, right?

Um the average adult in this country makes about 35,000 decisions a day.

There is no way our brains can process like really process intentionally in a slow conscious way, 35,000 decisions a day.

All right, so it would implode, or like our brain would implode.

It cannot have handle that level of processing.

And so what you see here on this screen is system one versus system two thinking.

So on the system one side is what we just did, those first two slides, looking at that slide of the snake and then that little word problem.

Our brain was using mental shortcuts, it was operating fast.

It we were not even processing information consciously.

It was kind of automatic the way we were responding to what we saw.

And so 95%, about 95% of those 35,000 decisions that we make on a daily basis, 95% are made at the system one level.

We are not even thinking about what we're doing.

Our brain is subconsciously operating for us.

So if you think about it, right?

If you drove to work, if you took public transportation, if you just think about driving, you did not stop and like really put a lot of thought into every single thing you were doing.

Okay, now I'm going to press on the gas.

Now I'm going to let up.

Now I'm going to press on the break, and now I'm going to turn on this signal.

It is kind of on autopilot that you're doing these things, right?

System two is where we're slowing things down.

And so this is key.

Going into system two mode is key to minimizing and managing implicit biases.

It is impossible to do that.

But it when it comes to doing the work that needs to get done, reviewing cases, policy recommendations, whatever it is, slowing down and being intentional and allowing yourself time to think these things through is really key.

When you're in system two thinking, you've downshifted from system one.

And so you slow down, you think about things more intentionally, more consciously, you put forth effort into what it is that you're examining, reading, reviewing.

Um, and your outcome, your decisions that you make, the work product, whatever it is, when you're in system two is going to be higher quality, more reliable, and less errors, error prone.

And this is just another slide demonstrating the same information.

I will go over, uh, just skip over that for the sake of time.

Oops, sorry about that.

Okay.

Um, this is uh a quote from an article on system one versus system two thinking.

But essentially, it kind of illustrates or succinctly captures the point of system one being more automatic and unconscious, where system two is slowing down and down shifting into system two thinking.

And so the intuitive and pre-conscious thinking people engage in most of the time is system one.

We drive automobiles, navigate the grocery store, communicate with others in an automatic way.

And so in doing so, we're making thousands of tiny judgments automatically.

So the trade-off for that speed and efficiency and using those mental shortcuts is the increased tendency to make errors, right?

I know I do it all the time.

When I am in a in a work mode where I've got so much work to do, I have very little time to really spend on anything.

I'm just trying to churn work out, cross things off my list.

And I I know every time I'm in that kind of my workload is really demanding, and I don't have a lot of time, I know I'm going to make more errors, and it bears out all the time.

Um, even when I think I'm doing double and triple checks when I'm working in that mode, when I go back and look at the work I've done, when I can downshift into system two, um, most often than not, I find errors in the work that I did.

So the key to minimizing the negative influence of implicit biases in your work is to activate your system two thinking.

So, ways to do that.

First, acknowledge that you have biases and actively challenge them.

All right.

So challenge and biases means to interrogate the origins of your biases and consider how they have caused you to treat others individually or the group as a whole that you have a bias against or bias for.

Are there specific groups or individuals for or against whether it's based on age, uh, gender, ethnicity, religion, any of those dimensions of diversity in the previous slide.

If you can acknowledge that, yep, I am biased for or against those.

Ask yourself, why is that?

Where did your preference for or against that group or that individual come from?

And importantly, does your preference for or against that group affect your behavior toward or against that group?

You have to be honest in this type of reflection and self-awareness work, right?

And this is something you can do on your own.

So no need to be embarrassed, no need to be, you know, concerned about what other others are thinking because this can be done on your own and should be done on your own.

Be intentional about completing tasks without bias.

All right.

So simply before beginning a task, acknowledge that you have biases.

We all have biases and commit to yourself to carrying out your work in ways that uh you can manage your bias and those biases do not affect your work as much as possible.

So very simply, you can keep a reminder on your desk on a bulletin board, wherever you conduct your work, you can put a post-it note, you can even, you know, download the PDF version of this training, keep it somewhere handy dandy, whatever it is, um, put it somewhere because research shows that having that reminder, even if it's a sticky note on top of a case file that you are about to review, or your checklist for reviewing cases, you have it at the top of the checklist.

Research shows by acknowledging you have bias biases and reminding yourself, hey, I'm gonna make an effort not to let this bias influence.

Research shows that that actually has a positive effect on minimizing the bias as you carry out your work.

Avoid tasks when you're tired, stressed, distracted, rushed, or in a heightened emotional state.

That's that system one side of working, okay?

All of those characteristics or more likely to occur in those and when you're in system one.

When you're in heightened emotional straits, high level levels of stress, all those things, you are more likely to make errors and base your decisions on system one thinking.

So in order to uh to try to avoid working, operating in those conditions, that does take some planning, right?

Making sure you have enough time uh to review a case.

If you have an idea of how much time it will take to review a case, allow yourself enough time for that.

Um if you're going to be making a recommendation regarding something, allow yourself enough time to review the proper materials and research or whatever it is that you need to review.

And along with that case, you know, reviewing a case, allowing yourself enough time, allow yourself enough time if you identify policy issues that are at play in that particular case, then you know that it's going to be helpful if you look at the particular policy or policies in question yourself.

That's an added time.

Um, that would help avoid that informational conformity bias.

And then finally, take advantage of training, educ uh training, educational opportunities that expand your awareness and skills when it comes to uh managing biases.

Okay.

And so, like I said, when I started this training, this is just skimming the surface of bias and racial equity.

There's so much information, and no matter how well versed you become in it, there is always more to learn to help you become better at managing your own biases.

Okay.

So the last couple of slides, these two slides coming up, these are basically questions that you can ask yourself as you're carrying out the work that you're doing.

I call them self-checks, right?

So for each of the biases that I touched on tonight, there are just a couple or few questions that you can ask yourself before you carry out whatever it is that you're going to be doing.

And I keep referring to case reviews because I know that that's a major part of what you do as board members.

So confirmation bias.

You can simply ask yourself, am I starting with a theory or a hunch about what happened in this case?

And if you are, then it's okay because as human beings, we often start with a theory or a hunch.

But the key is to get rid of that theory or hunch so that you can avoid being selective about the information that you choose to prioritize or give more weight to.

Okay.

Am I disregarding information that does not fit my hunch or my theory about this case?

All right.

The idea is to say no to those answers.

If you say yes, then you can make some adjustments in how you're uh carrying out the work.

When it comes to anchoring and availability biases, you can ask yourself, am I considering all information equally?

And am I acknowledging all information?

Expediency bias, you can ask yourself, have I made sufficient efforts to obtain all relevant information?

Or if you're reviewing a case, do you recognize sufficient efforts to obtain all relevant information that went into investigating that case?

You can also ask, did the investigator conclude their investigation without obtaining all relevant information?

Conformity bias.

Have you anywhere along the way of when you're reviewing the case, have you made decisions to appease others?

Have you made decisions that you're not comfortable with?

Have I done my due diligence to understand all aspects of an investigation or the case and not relied on others to tell me what I should know?

And so this is going, you know, conformity bias.

It is not always easy to speak up when your idea, your thought is not what you think the rest of the group is thinking the direction they're going in.

But it is imperative.

It is really important, especially given the type of cases that you deal with and the work that we're doing in civilian oversight of law enforcement.

It is really important for individuals to be able to speak up.

And whether you want to call it go against the grain, whether you want to call it rock the boat, but it's important to do that, because there might be something that the way you're looking at a case or thinking about a case that you're reviewing that others haven't thought about, or you might recognize some missing information that others didn't catch.

And so it's okay to go against the grain or to speak up.

It's really important with the work that you're doing.

And blind spot bias.

Have you acknowledged your own bias, right?

Do you have your little checklist or your little reminder before you review a case or start the work?

Um, that intentionally ask yourself, have I acknowledged my own bias?

Again, the research shows simply by doing that can make a difference in how you carry out the work that you're doing.

And then the second set of biases, uh, the self-check questions for your affinity bias.

Am I favoring particular information because I have something in common with uh someone who's involved in this misconduct complaint, whether it's the complainant, a witness, the uh officer involved, halo and horns effect, you can ask yourself, is there a trait about a particular person involved in this case opposed to their actual behavior that leads me to believe that they're trustworthy or not, believable or not.

Authority bias, you can ask yourself, am I assessing the credibility of information in a consistently applied manner, as opposed to the to based on the position or status of the person who provided that information?

So quite easily when you're looking reviewing a case, there's usually the complainants uh version of events, and then there's an officer's version events.

Attribution bias, when considering why something happened, you can ask yourself, have I looked beyond the personal characteristics that you're attributing to a person and looked at the context of the case or the situational factors involved.

And then perception bias, broadly speaking, uh you can ask yourself, am I relying on stereotypes and assumptions rather than learning as much as possible about the individuals and the circumstances in this case?

This is just another graphic.

Um, not going to go over all of this, but I thought it was really nicely succinctly put together and aligns with the information that I put together.

Um, but it's strategies for managing bias uh put out by the Harvard School of Public Health.

And then finally, um, I use this slide with investigators when training investigators on bias.

A lot of it applies to board members and commissioners as you review cases and carry out your other task as well.

Um activating system two thinking, uh, basically the first one, create an investigation plan.

Um, it's similar to one of the the fourth note down, use standard checklist.

Essentially the idea is create a plan.

Don't just go into something all willy-nilly, but actually have a plan in place with boards and commissions.

I know we've talked about using checklists uh for different um tasks that you're tasked with.

For example, a checklist when you're reviewing cases, right?

And so the idea is you actually have a plan and something that you consistently and systematically so it's a systematized process rather than just going into work um with everything in your mind as opposed to an actual plan and checklist in place that you can use.

Uh going down a little bit, consider evidence in its full context when possible.

So of course, review the entire case file, whatever you have access to, keeping it clean.

And so this applies when you're reviewing a case, not arriving at your decision before you review the entire case file.

Because if you arrive at a decision or you start having a hunch about what you think might have happened, that kind of preliminary uh conclusion that you're forming can affect the way you review the rest of the case.

I mean, confirmation bias can start coming into play or anchoring bias.

Um in the best case scenario, you have colleagues that you can play devil's advocate with.

And so on a board or commission, there of course is a group of you as you're reviewing a case.

If there's something that someone says, or in during your deliberations or discussions of that case, and you recognize a bias at play, uh professional courtesy, this is what boards and commissions should do, you should be able to point that out.

Say, hey, remember that training we did and confirmation bias or whatever the specific type of bias is um being able to point that out.

Um can that is in the best case scenario, that's something that can be done.

And then of course, when conducting any of the work that you're doing to minimize bias, acknowledge varying cultural norms, right?

So there we from that dimensions of diversity graphic, there are all kinds of biases that can be at play based on a person's um the the language they use, their body language, uh, how they their relationship with the order, all kinds of things, but it's important to remember that there are cultural aspects that go into um all of those things, communication style, conflict style, some of the things that you may come across as you're reviewing a case, um, can explain culturally explain the interaction between a complainant and an officer.

It's not necessarily who they are as a person, but culturally, there can be some information that can shed light on that exchange.

Okay, and those are my references.

And like uh, like I said earlier, because I added some slides um after I sent the slide deck, I will get this latest version to you all.

So any questions or comments about anything covered.

Tina, I have a slide deck, so I can email it out to them.

Okay, I added some more.

So I'll send that to you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh there's not going to provoke our it's just you know, we've had debates here in town about um certain uh our investigator.

Um when you're going through these course of uh not to go for full sphere R because the uh uh one of the arguments was well in this scenario where we might be to ask someone to possibly want to do this general public.

That's just very case will boil down to that thing, and that just feels like a survivor and an argument that we have orange because we need to add a data for full speed power.

That was well.

Thank you so much, Tina.

I mean, okay, it's good to see everyone take care and um yeah, have a good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tina.

You're welcome.

Bye bye.

Can we go back up?

Yes, yeah, no, that's true.

I should be clear at one past micro making a big decision.

And now we're just going on we will spawn our last uh at least point of discussion for tonight, which is review and discussion of public hearing rules and procedures in all of the things up here and I think the point of this really I think we're you maybe vote on this tonight because chances are we will be having uh potentially having a public hearing coming up.

So discussion, comments, conversation.

Everyone get a chance to look over it already.

Although she was unable to be here sent questions, so I'll pull those up and discuss some of those, but in the meantime, anyone else.

Did you want to go through some of it?

I know you spent a lot of time working on this.

Um yes, I mean I can briefly touch on um each section.

Okay, that right that or do you want me to just answer question?

You can briefly touch on this one.

We got that just about 25 minutes.

Okay, sounds good.

Um I'll try to be quick.

Thank you.

Um so I mean, the the first section is just authority.

Um it's it cites to our ordinance, and then it says whatever the ordinance doesn't cover is covered by Robert's rules.

It was burned uh yeah, covered by Robert's rules.

Um the notice requirements section is just um accordance with what you all already follow, so um, and notice requirements, materials, attachments, everything like that.

Um for purpose and the nature of public hearing.

I wish I had my edited version, so it's able to change, but uh I mean we just make clarify that we just made clear that the purpose of the board hearing is for public comment.

Um I think later on we go in to say, you know, this is not through question and answer session.

Um it's it's it's the purpose for this is not only for the board to review the investigation, but for the uh to give the public a chance to get involved as well and participate in the process.

Um the presiding officer is the chair, or the chair can designate another member of the board to preside over the hearing.

Um with that, the board will be the one to enforce.

I mean, the chair will be the one to enforce time limits, which I think is probably the most uh important duty, but also uh recognizing speakers, maintaining order and the quorum.

We do go into it later.

Um what should happen or what the powers of the board are, I mean what the power of the chair is uh should anyone sort of step outside of the scope of public comment.

Um the order of proceedings would be the meeting is called to order by the chair.

Um we now have closed session legislation allowing us to go into uh closed session to discuss matters if we need to.

Um the have a statement of the public hearing rules by the chair.

Uh then you there's a brief uh or I do my presentation on my findings.

We hold the public comment section, and then uh we close the public hearing, and then only after the public comment section is closed is when the board can uh engage in this discussion, just to make sure you all have what is it being when it says if permitted by the city code?

Is that the ordinance?

Is that what that means?

What does that mean?

I would think it's the city code.

Uh I mean sorry, the city ordinance, yeah.

Um I says has her hand up.

Yes.

That's good.

So can y'all hear me?

Yeah, yes, yes.

Okay, I um had a couple of questions.

The uh the first one.

Oh, did you get your question answered about the city code?

I don't want to yeah, I just say that does that mean ordinance.

Should we reword that?

That's unclear to me, but that's I think it's going to mean like your discussions must, I guess, uh fall within what the ordinance authorizes you all to can we reword.

Can that be reworded to it's consistent with that?

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry.

Oh, go ahead, let's just okay.

So we're uh under the um the duties of the presiding presiding officer, and it's one number four or four.

Yeah, um it says blah blah blah blah blah.

Um well I guess what I'm trying to figure out is in other uh boards and commissions that I've been on, not necessarily uh this particular obviously not this particular one though, the chair may um the first thing is the chair may suspend the rules, and I I don't know if that's something the chair wants to be able to do, but um I've usually seen that included, and then where it says number 10 board member participation, it says during that public comment board member shall um shall is informal negative, meaning that uh I would I would suggest that it say should uh those are my two those are my two um notes.

Thank you.

Can you talk a little bit more about the chair having the um authority to suspend the rules?

Yes, ma'am.

So uh it's just it's just normally the so obviously I've been a parliamentarian for almost 25 years now in different organizations.

Um generally the the chair uh either sometimes with the consent of the body or not, has the option in certain exigent circumstances to suspend to suspend the rules as written.

I that mean we have to do it here, doesn't mean we have to put it in here.

I'm just pointing out that um I've seen that before.

And then the only other thing was that shall I would say that it should read as should but just my my two my two cents over.

And then shall being negative, like you shall not do it and should be you could do it.

That's correct, ma'am.

Okay, thanks, Chris.

Can I just speak to the ability of the chair to suspend the polls?

You cannot do that unilaterally.

It would have to be a vote.

Right, that's why I say with the concurrence of the board.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I I would with consent.

Is that that we're talking about that?

I was gonna say I I have no problem with suspension of rules if it's a board group decision or code.

Yeah, yeah.

Correct.

I I concur.

Or just the just uh a sentence or something, that's usually only only in an exigent or a you know, uh not not the ordinary course of business, but if it's not in there, then when it's time to use it, then we somebody's gonna argue that we wouldn't be able to.

We can't do it over.

Uh also under number 12 recording and troubles record.

Uh aren't public hearings reported always.

It says the public hearing may be recorded or transcribed.

That's just uh that's in a report, that's in accordance with our ordinance change.

So in our ordinance, it says that we can either audio report or okay, video report.

I think that's to capture that.

Right, just in case we run into any like technical issues or you know, maybe but it but it in terms of using the right uh may be recorded, shall be recorded or transcribed because we have to do one or the other correct or we don't may suggest that we maybe maybe we will and maybe we won't we're spending shall be reported or transcribed, yeah.

So there's another place here where the city code is referenced under number 10 board member participation number three, um any substantial discussion shall occur when we have the public hearings closed and only to be extent permitted by the city vote.

I just feel like if we're talking about the ordinance, I think we should say yes, yes.

Um the in section 11 or written solutions, yeah.

If the purpose under section three is receive public comment and information, uh but not the cross-examine or anything, but here's why we have a QA part of written submissions.

They also don't know why we have one for the auditor, because by the time we're doing public hearings, the auditors done their job.

So should public hearing rules just be about written materials submitted, you know, which people do because they want to say more than they can in three minutes or maybe QA, but I'm just trying to understand why there's a QA section.

Well, I think that speaks towards the back and forth or um the point that Alexis made about number 10.1 about board members shall refrain from debate deliberation or expression of you might have people coming up there asking questions and they want to make to maybe turn it into a question and answer session.

And so I think just making it clear that it's not a question and answer session, it's just saying public comment.

But this allows the submission of Q's case.

At the end, not during not in not as for public comment, but if you I don't know, while opening the um the public hearing while you while the board, I mean while the chair is stating you know the rules of the public hearing, we can make clear that public comment is not for question and answer.

But if you do have a question, you can submit it to the board here.

I'll just uh once you open up that door, there's probably an expectation that there will be an answer.

And I don't know that we are we're gonna answer questions.

So I think if it was discussed at a previous time that there would be and I think it was in a board leadership meeting that there would be like a a document that be provided and uploaded to the website with questions answered.

Um, that there would be a separate section on the website where anybody submitted questions, there would be those questions listed and answers uploaded to a part of the website where there was already one done that Kim Neal did previously there that's already on your website, so they would it would be uploaded there.

That's not QA about wait hearings are about a specific incident.

But I believe that the topic that was if there were questions um submitted to the to the um to the emails for that specific purpose, if that's where they would go.

Right.

I see your point though, Chris.

This applies always and why is it specific to this case?

Yeah, I definitely want us to receive QA from the public generally, but if the purpose of this document is public hearing rules, and section three says that it's not about a QA.

Should we be including the QA information in this document rather than our general QA capabilities?

That's all I'm pushing.

Yeah, I mean, I just think it provides guidance to the chair should she receive QA, should it turn into a QA?

This is these are the procedures that you should leave off.

That's how I you know something.

And whether we answer before after or after the public hearing, after the public, after we make it clear that you know, should you ask questions today?

We we cannot answer them here.

However, this is where you can find the answers.

But I think that's honestly, in my opinion, better than we letting people go, well, I just had questions and then they walk frustrated.

Okay, I can look at another can we add to each of the um places in the document where it says the chair, in some places we said the chair or designee.

Can we just make sure that's every place off the chair is mentioned or designe, and then also just at the very beginning, it says independent police review board.

Maybe we should just have a consistent independent um community, you know, what is it?

Community media policing, just so it's consistent through about any other questions.

Anyone else?

So in number five, call the order low session of statement of public hearing rules, and yeah, brief staff or auditor presentation.

So that's going to be you, M Ratsu.

Yes.

Okay, yeah.

So you're gonna present the report.

Yes, or let's say the report's super long.

I might turn it into a digestible PowerPoint and present that.

So yeah.

And that's also if we had independent council wanted to say something, they would go there.

You don't want independent counsel giving any advice in an open forum.

I would I agree this brief staff or auditor presentation, is like at least she wants to come in and get a presentation if you have someone from OPR that wants to come in and give a presentation.

I guess is your attorney's not a lot of we could be there to advise without making a speech.

So independent is an independent council would want to get counsel to the board alone because we are client.

Okay.

Okay.

That's what you're about.

Okay.

So okay.

Anyone else?

No, I did you have the judgment on.

Alexis, is there anything else that you caught for us to discuss?

No, I just wanted to I just wanted to be sure.

So this is just for because at the top it says public hearing.

So I'm just making sure this is just for public hearings.

Right.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

So I mean, we're supposed to vote on this tonight.

I'd like to make a suggestion that we think about letting Amaratu go back, make these corrections.

And we still don't even know when the public hearing is going to be.

Um based on the date of April 8th.

Um, if we find out that that they abide by that and submit a report, we could always have a quick virtual meeting to vote on this.

Um, but I just think there are enough changes to it that I don't feel comfortable voting on it tonight, but I'm open to what we're going to do with that.

I I wonder if we would be allowed even just to not have warmings that we do if the timing lined up that all of a sudden, hey, we know and you want to schedule our public hearing because the stuff's in will we be allowed to vote on the front end of that agenda before you get to the public hearing on these rules.

They've been discussed publicly in a public meeting here.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, that's yeah, I like that.

Yeah, I like that.

I like that better.

Yeah.

Okay, the timing will be agreed.

All right.

Yeah.

That works.

I said I want to be able to test rule.

That's the badness.

Okay, so agenda items.

We're gonna wrap it up.

Next meeting scheduled, APD annual trading is still to be determined May 6th.

Uh also a six o'clock meeting because more Naico Trading, June 3rd, also a six o'clock meeting for more naquil training.

Uh Juneteenth event that Amoratu talks about, maybe you can also send that out in an email.

Um announcements.

I need to announce that Lawrence Lewis, who was part of the board, who we were really excited about having on board has been assigned to Southeast Asia for the next four to six months.

So unfortunately, he's had to um step down.

Um, if that spot has not been filled by the time he returns, he may reapply, but uh unfortunately, just with the time difference, lack of access to the city email, it's just unable to um reminder any board members cannot be present.

Please let us know at least two days in advance.

Uh and we must maintain our current status to all city security training.

All right, motion to adjourn the meeting.

So move.

Oh no.

The motion is on the floor, though.

Did you have something to say?

I'm sorry.

I just wanted to make sure I was clear about what I heard because I'm gonna follow up on it.

Um so amiratu said that we could come to her, she's right there, so I'm just I can't see her on the camera, but I'm speaking to her.

We can come to your office and sit with you with regard to this report.

Correct.

Absolutely.

Well, it's available, yes.

I'm just saying okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, motion still on the floor.

First, second, all in favor.

Wait, can you who did the first who did the second?

Ever said the second.

I didn't off thank you.

Yep.

All in favor, aye, aye, opposed, name off the trying to advise you to thank you, everybody.

Someone wants to go home.

Yeah,