Hello everyone, good evening.

I'm calling to order a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, and it is 4.03 p.m.

Can we start us off with a roll?

Okay.

Uh calling the roll.

Councilmember Kessarwani is currently absent.

Councilmember Taplin present.

Present.

Councilmember Bartlett is currently absent.

Councilmember Trega.

Present.

And Vice Mayor O'Keefe is present.

And Councilmember Blackaby.

Here.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert present.

And Mayor Yishi.

Here.

Okay.

Mark you is present.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sorry.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So today is a work session, and the only item on our agenda is the 2025 Police Accountability Board and Office of the Director of Police Accountability Annual Report.

So I will pass it over to our interim director of police accountability.

Returning temporary, as you like to say.

So thank you so much for being here with us this evening, both of you.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor and members of the city council.

Um I was just introduced.

Your returning interim director of police accountability, Kathy Lee.

With me is policy analyst Jose Murillo.

Uh Chair Josh Cayetano of our board uh was flying back from a um an a court argument in San Diego.

So he may or may not be able to be here by the end to help answer questions.

Um but it is our prep pleasure and privilege to present to you the police accountability board and office of the director of police accountability annual report for 2025.

Uh this presentation is mandated by the city charter, section 125, subsection 16.

So just as a refresher, the purpose of the police accountability board is to promote public trust through independent objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department, provide community participation in setting and reviewing police department police policies, practices, and procedures, and to provide a means for prompt, impartial and fair investigation of complaints brought by the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department.

And the function of the director of police accountability or the office of the director is to investigate complaints filed against sworn employees of the BPD to reach an independent finding as to the facts and recommend corrective action where warranted.

The director of police accountability may also serve as and does serve as the secretary to the police accountability board and assists the board in carrying out its duties.

So very quick overview of our presentation today.

We'll move into the police accountability board's policy work.

And then we'll be examining vehicle and pedestrian stops by our police department as well as other activities and see if we note trends and patterns.

So on to the complaint process.

Staff reviews the complaint to determine if prima facie misconduct is alleged.

If so, then staff prepares a notice of complaint and allegations and sends it to the officers.

The investigation proceeds, and the steps include interviewing uh the complainant, the subject officer or officer's witnesses, which includes civilian witnesses and uh witness officers.

Uh gathers documents, requests uh reports and other information from the Berkeley Police Department, uh request and review body worn camera footage and gathers other evidence.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the staff will prepare a written findings and recommendations report and presents it to the PAB in closed session.

As to each allegation, staff will make a recommended finding of either sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated, and I'll talk a little bit more about uh what those findings mean in a bit.

The PAB can either agree or disagree with those findings, and then can decide if it wants to conduct a hearing, or if it simply wishes to send its recommendations on to the chief without a hearing.

The chief of police receives the report and can either agree or disagree as to each allegation.

Whenever there's disagreement, it's up to the director of police accountability to decide whether he or she wishes to appeal that decision to the city manager.

And the city manager's decision is final in the case of an appeal.

But if there's no appeal, then the police chief's decision will be final in that matter.

In terms of the numbers, in 2025, the office of the ODPA received 43 complaints, and that was from 27 unique complainants.

Because the first two numbers talk about the intake for 2025.

The allegations investigated is really the output, the allegations that were investigated and actually presented and a finding made.

So the third number is the represents 69 allegations of nine cases that were investigated and closed.

There were an additional 22 cases that were administratively closed in 2025, and I'll be talking a little bit more about that in a moment.

This is an overview of the complaint dispositions of those 69 cases.

Not sorry, allegations.

So sustained finding means that the my office or the board found that misconduct occurred, not sustained means the evidence does not support the allegation, but neither was it proven false.

Unfounded means the alleged act did not occur.

And exonerated means the alleged act did occur, but it was lawful, justified, and proper.

And as this table shows you, the unfounded finding will constitutes almost half of the total number of findings that the board and this office made.

Administrative closures occur for all the reasons that you could see here.

Most cases closed in 2025 administratively were done due to staffing issues in the year.

So then another one, and there was a gap in investigators before another one came on.

And there was we were actually, but the office was actually budgeted for two investigators and lost the second investigator during the hiring freeze.

So decisions had to be made about which cases to administratively close simply for lack of capacity.

Administrative closure also occurs when there's not a prima facie allegation, or it appears that the um the complaint was made for retaliatory or frivolous reasons.

And then there are other reasons such as the complainant couldn't be reached, complainant changes their minds, the complaint is filed too late, result through other means, or in one case there was a policy change that satisfied the complainant.

This slide shows agreement rate analysis between the PAB and the police chief.

And what stands out here is that the of the 13 allegations that were sustained by the PAB, the chief agreed with none of them, and also not sustained is is a second notable figure here, which is only one out of 14.

And also not sustained is a second notable um figure here, which is only one out of 14.

So there was more agreement with the unfounded and the exonerated findings.

And this slide shows I it could be a little hard to read because the numbers are small, but they're directly um from the department.

So the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Police Department investigates misconduct allegations, uh, but against all Berkeley department employees, so it's not just the sworn officers, unlike our office.

So the numbers are not completely comparable.

Um all complaints that come to us where we find Prime Fasia um allegations of misconduct are also referred to internal affairs.

So there's a dual system there.

Um I think the thing that's noticeable about the uh police department's figures are that they break down their stats, their statistics by internal complaints, that is those that come from within the department, and external complaints from members of the public, and that includes uh the ones that are filed uh with our office.

Um and what I think is notable here is that most of the sustained allegations by IA come from their internal complaints.

And I'm going to pass it over to Mr.

Murillo to talk about policy work.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Director Lee.

Um, in this section, I'll provide a brief overview of the policy work uh that the board took on in 2025.

Uh, not just because this is my role, but it's my favorite part of the presentation every year.

2025 uh had a lot of interesting topics that the board tackled and that this body considered.

Um, some of the highlights that I think most of us are familiar with, um, given that there are also uh priority items this year was surveillance technology.

Uh the board did a lot of the review around the different proposals that were coming towards the end of the year, as well as some proactive um research, for example, AI assisted report writing, um, although the department was not considering it at that time uh during discussions of surveillance technology.

Um, that was a topic that has come up repeatedly, as some of our vendors uh currently are starting to offer it.

Um, and it was a great opportunity for us not just for the board to research and provide insight before something was potentially considered, uh, but also served as a great opportunity for us to partner uh with uh UC Berkeley's Criminal Law and Justice Center, uh, who helped us with the research on this as well as drones, uh, strengthening some of our um partnerships with both the uh university and providing opportunities for community um involvement, particularly in light of the staff transitions that were happening last year and the board's um vacancies that are now being filled uh thanks to your nominations.

Um again, various topics.

Um there's also vehicle pursuits policy that the board provided a lot of feedback on uh the controlled equipment and the MOUs, which the spottery approved uh this year.

Last year, there was a lot of work that went on between uh the department and the board.

Um this year they didn't provide um any additional uh comments because of that extensive uh collaboration.

And okay.

Uh in terms of the subcommittees, um, as you may recall, last year the board ended the year with a lot of subcommittees.

Um one of the priorities of the board last year was to um okay, just making sure the the slide was uh catching up to where I was speaking.

Um sorry, uh one of the commitments that the board had last year was that it was going to uh close and combine a lot of committees to really focus its work and most importantly uh optimize their resources um with the available staff members uh or the available board members.

The committees on the screen are the ones that were either closed because the topic had been resolved or the policy had already been discussed, or that were merged with uh other subcommittees, for example, the budget and metrics and the operations and processes committee, uh, which although served two distinct could be worked two distinct roles, um, both aligned very well with each other.

Um so those committees were um brought together by the board.

In terms of what was open, uh there's still six open.

We had the regulations committee.

Um it's now being handled by a liaison, so the committee in itself was closed this year.

Uh we have our policy review subcommittee, our outreach and engagement, uh, the metrics and operations, which I just mentioned.

Um there's an arrest quota prohibition that uh earlier this year also closed, given that their uh work was finished, and then there's of course there's uh one on encampment clearances that the board is actively working on.

One other way that our bo that the board receives policy review topics is through our policy complaint, which is really it's a vehicle for members of the public to request the board to review issues that they believe deserves a review.

This year we received seven, three of those were accepted.

The three topics for the ones that were accepted, whereas whether subject officers of a complaint should be coming into contact with complainants during future calls of service following a complaint, whether public recording or the policies around public recording of police activity, and as I mentioned earlier, encampment clearances.

There's four that weren't accepted, which involved investigations regarding traffic collisions of pedestrians, the use of LED lights in patrol vehicles was a topic that came up, officer cell phone usage while on a vehicle, and there's one that we didn't categorize because it wasn't clear what exactly the community member and we couldn't reach out to them.

Or we reached out to them, but we didn't get any additional follow-up as to the subject of their policy review.

We did complete one review from a previous uh year, and this was on the detention of inebriated individuals and the policies that uh govern what their detention looks like in their access to medical care.

Um, and that reports on our reports page on our website.

Uh this following section, we're gonna provide an overview of the vehicle stops and use of force as well as other enforcement activities.

Um this year looks a bit different than what we had presented last year.

Uh we took into account the both the feedback we got from this body, um, and also want to thank Arlo for bouncing a few ideas with me in terms of uh the way that we conducted our bias analysis of our stop data.

Um, and what we're presenting here today is really a mixture, or I'd say it's a fusion of what the police department currently does, uh, what the board presented, and some of the best practices used by the state as well as other academic sources.

Um an overview of the stops for 2025, or particularly sorry, unless lost my notes here.

Of course, there's 4,540 stops as was as was reported by the BPD earlier this year.

Uh, one topic that came up last year, more of a question was um how the stops for folks that lived in Berkeley, Berkeley residents and non-Berkeley residents compared in the distribution.

Um that the distribution of both is actually relatively um evenly distributed.

Um, there's about 5% where within the data set we can determine whether they're residents or non-residents or whether their housing status was housed or unhoused.

But overall, the distribution was relatively the same.

Um of the observations that the board wanted to highlight in particularly uh was the number of stops of unhoused individuals, which was 937 stops uh compared to the population of the last uh point-in-time count in 2024 of 880.

Um, and we could discuss that a little bit further.

Um just to provide an overview of the methodology we implied this year.

Uh, last year during our 2024 report, uh the board and our office used a population-based assessment uh following feedback from last year and additional research that we conducted, um, including just comparising best practices and the review, um, as well as again mentioning uh my brief consultations with Arlo.

Uh we implemented a multi, I guess we looked at it from various lenses.

Um not only were we looking at the descriptive, we not only did we conduct the descriptive analysis and our population-based assessment that we conducted last year, uh, we also looked at resident the residency context, uh, we conducted the temporal demographic analysis, how to stops compare across different times of day, uh, the types of stops, uh, whether they're vehicle pedestrians.

Um, as I noted earlier, we focused on the housing status of the individuals being stopped and what the outcomes of those stops were.

Um, and again, some of these this framework was largely embodied by uh combining both the BPD's framework and our framework with additional context.

Um quick summary um of the long section of our report.

Um I think the slide really doesn't do it justice based on how many uh insights we were able to provide this year.

Um, in terms of the population benchmarking, the pattern that we observed was similar as last year.

Uh, we did notice that compared to a lot of populations, for example, for black and African American community members, um, there was a higher rate of stops for them.

Uh, in terms of residency, as I noted earlier, there's a fairly equal distribution versus resident and non-resident.

In terms of the stops by race, individuals perceived to be black or African American were stopped as drivers are lowered than white individuals.

But then of course, there's also just when we bring it back into the context of our population benchmarking some of these other tests, there's more that we could look into that.

The temporal analysis, our distribution, although the percentages varied slightly, the distribution was fairly constant during the different points in time during the day.

And then, of course, the housing status, individuals perceived to be unhoused, were stopped far more often than expected based on their share of the population.

And in terms of post-stop outcomes, we noticed that the search rates varied across groups.

Black and African American individuals and white individuals were the two groups that were stopped at higher rates.

And then some of the other groups.

There's 276 incidents, 350 unique subjects, and 1,276 individual force applications.

Just means that in terms of one specific incident might involve multiple officers or multiple subjects.

So there might be more than one use of force for each one.

Consistent with last year, level one use of force had the highest percentage of incidents followed by level two, with the most common being level one grabs and uh control holds.

The top reasons as to why force was used.

The top was the two in effect and arrest, uh, followed by 5150 detentions or for uh mental health related cause, um, incidents where there's resisting arrest, uh, where the subject was combatant, um, or there is an assault on an officer.

Um, out of the incidents that involved these of us, 62% uh were arrested.

And then in terms of demographics, uh, the group with the highest rate of uses of forests was black or African Americans, 152 or 48.3% of instances uh followed by our white community members, i.e., 3% uh 83 instances and 26.3%, and then followed by the Hispanic and Latinx population.

Uh now pivoting to training.

Um, in terms of training, there's the increase that was comparable to uh last year's report out.

Um there's 6,872.5 hours of training conducted by the various personnel.

Um the way that we obtained this data is that BPD shares their training orders with us.

Um so we as staff we collect the database of the number of hours and the types of training categories that our officers are going to.

Uh this year, tactical and operational training was the bucket that had the broadest or the largest amount of hours.

Um tactical and operation includes everything from our tactical response to our crisis management response, uh, which were two of the highest uh training hours, uh, followed by firearm training, leadership and develop leadership development and supervision training, um, defensive tactics and employee wellness and support, um, which were some of the most frequent but not the only training topics.

And I'll bring it back to Director Lee.

So to wrap it up, uh there were quite a few accomplishments made by the PAB and the ODPA in expanding their oversight of various um of a multitude of policies and um technologies and equipment, especially in the area of surveillance technology.

Um the negotiations of the permanent regulations continued.

Um was not completed, but uh progress was made.

There was uh increased community outreach and engagement, and there was um there were new academic and uh community partnerships to help advance the goals of the PAB and the ODPA.

Um challenges, of course, as was mentioned was staffing shortage and vacancies on our board.

Um I know we're into 2026, but I do thank all the council members for uh making their um uh nominations when you had where you had a vacancy.

I believe we have two coming this evening, and the last one um at your next meeting, and we will have a full board.

So that's very exciting for us.

Um there challenges uh experienced uh by our organization were delays in investigations and policy reviews, which was really a direct uh uh result of staffing shortage.

Um because of that, it was hard to it was often hard to react um quickly enough under deadline um for uh some certain public safety initiatives and um the board and this office really feel that there is a need for greater um awareness on the part of the the public about uh our work.

So priorities for 2026 will be to finalize and implement um our permanent regulations to uh strengthen policy oversight and review, and I do think um you know that will happen now that we have um a full are about to have a full complement of board members, and you're about to have a permanent director.

Um I think that will go a long way into being able to advance uh policy work and that will provide the opportunity to um expand community outreach and engagement.

Um and I think a new director, a new permanent director can improve work on improving organizational capacity and performance.

And so I think uh the key takeaway is that despite uh the constraints of resources uh and staffing, uh the PAB did continue its important work in in many ways of advancing oversight, it continued partnerships with academic and community groups, and um expanded community engagement and looking look forward to 2026.

Um that's the end of our formal presentation, and of course, we are happy to answer questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

Um really thank you both so much for your uh presentation and also for the report itself.

I know it's a lot of work each year.

Um and I want to start with any questions from my council member colleagues.

Um council member Humbert.

I think council member.

Oh, yes, we pushed.

He's been having trouble with the parliamentarian.

I I know we've been.

So it's funny is they both say one.

They both say one.

Oh, and I didn't but I can I can I can go after if she'd like.

Yes, sorry, it's a very dim red light over here.

So go ahead.

Okay.

Uh well, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I really appreciate the presentation, and I I also apologize in advance.

My questions will not be in any particular order.

Um but I wanted to start with um uh you provided um I first appreciate your explanation um by of the different complaint dispositions.

Um that was something that I asked about in the previous report and previous years report, and I'm glad that was um added.

Um I was wondering um if you could provide any kind of context around uh just staffing levels right now and how that may support um disposition of complaints.

Do you find that at any given point in the year you may be getting more or fewer complaints that you have to work through?

Thinking about the bathtub representation.

Is there more flowing in than out, or are you closing them at a high rate?

I think they come in at a fairly regular rate.

There's you know, occasionally ebbs and flows.

Um, from what I can see, uh the investigations, the investigator, our investigator is is keeping up pretty well with processing the cases.

Um that said, I will say there are a few cases where we have had to extend our investigatory deadline.

Are our regulations um provide that we have a hundred and twenty days to complete the investigation of a complaint?

And that could be extended to 195 after consulting with the police chief and the city manager.

And I have I've had to do that probably in maybe five cases in the three months, three, four months that I've been here.

Thank you.

And then just for my own edification, um, can you speak to I I know uh step four in the complaint process as TPA presents findings and recommendations to the board.

Is that every single time you get a complaint, or is there some kind of administrative decision making and then a subset of those that might you you feel would need board resolution would come to the board?

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that.

What percentage of the complaints receive have to be adjudicated by the board, or is it all of them?

Oh no, not all of them.

Um, you know, there are a fair number that do get administratively closed because they haven't alleged uh a uh misconduct against an officer.

Maybe they're unhappy with the way something turned out with their case, but uh they haven't alleged you know any violation of policy, and so that would be closed.

Or there could be and another way that um allegations are dropped is a uh member of the public might make uh six allegations of misconduct, and we may find there's really four that constitute um a violation of policy.

So that's the way that's another way that we would uh weed those out.

Am I answering a question?

Yeah, I uh yeah, that makes sense.

Um I think yeah, the clock is ticking, so I'm gonna keep going with this.

Um I was curious about the policy requests just around what it uh what is the timeline for those once you decide to take them up.

Do those need to be um reported out within a certain period of time.

Um you also mentioned that they're on the website once um there's a report.

Is that something that ever gets shared with the council or could um just kind of how how are they communicated once the reports are complete?

There's no there's no deadline for handling policy complaints.

So it's pretty much and those are uh that's an example of something that might be put on the back burner when there's not enough uh there aren't enough board members, for instance, um, or say staff to support board members' work.

Um I'll let Mr.

Murillo talk about what's posted on the website.

Yeah.

Um so yes, for some of our reports, um well, every report gets uploaded to our reports page once it's been presented to the board.

Um for some of them, we do transmit them directly to the board, others are sent to the chief first um in case there's some form of response that wants to be provided or additional context before it gets sent up to the city council.

Um I think for the previous part of your question, and just adding to the director's responses terms to the timeline.

Um last year under the standing regulations, there's a new policy manual or a new process uh that the board implemented, but our reviews once we receive it, we have 30 days to give preliminary recommendation to the board um as to whether or not something uh should be taken up, um, and if so, what specific policies um they would be reviewing.

Um so that's the process, but in terms of an end product, there is an exact timeline.

Um, and the board helps us guide those priorities um in regards to the director's comments about um needing to put something to the side, like for example, if we're doing surveillance technology that does have a deadline, board might ask staff to prioritize supporting them with that over the policy reviews.

Uh thank you.

Um I I appreciate that at the end of the your report, you mentioned several 2026 goals.

Um a little bit past mid year, and um, is there anything that you could note about your progress towards these goals?

And also how are you prioritizing them or do they all have equal prioritization?

Um I'll let the equal prioritization question to the director, but uh one thing that we'll actually be sharing with the council uh sooner rather than later.

Uh one of our partnerships that we started towards the end of last year and continued into this year, uh, was our partnership with social sector solutions at UC Berkeley School of Business.

Um they actually helped us outline an outreach strategy uh for our current resources and our current reality in terms of staffing um and giving us a roadmap for us to one increase our accessibility to the public um but also be present proactively in the community.

Um some of the outreach that we did last year has been primarily, for example, Juneteenth.

Um our bandwidth really didn't let or didn't allow us for additional uh outreach, but through that partnership, we were able to um really create a roadman and a game plan for us to better prepare for these events uh moving forward.

Um they gave us a great presentation.

There's some recommendations that we staff uh still have to respond to, but uh we'll be sharing those as soon as those are ready.

I think in terms of um priority prioritization, uh a lot of the policy work is is driven by timing that's outside our control, for instance, things that are coming to the council from the department, and so um those necessarily take on um some weight because of uh those deadlines that we're facing.

Um I think in terms of progress for 2026, you know, uh the beginning of the year was sort of fraught with um uh losing the former director.

So I think it's been uh I have to give the board a lot of credit for um carrying on and the absence of a director.

Um and and with uh, you know, they only had four board members for quite a few months in this year.

So I think if you're looking at if you're standing at the end of 2025, I think the outlook was a lot more optimistic, and um then there was sort of a trough in early 26.

But I um I'm very hopeful, and I think the board is as well, and I'm very excited about um the new board members that have been appointed.

There's a lot of experience there.

Um we have a former PRC officer and uh another uh board member who served on the PRC um many years ago.

So um I think and I believe that's your appointee, council member.

Yes.

So I'm very appreciative of that, and and um I'm very optimistic for the rest of 2026.

Okay, thank you.

I think I have time for two more questions.

Um are there any common characteristics or patterns you may have seen that may have led to the 100% disagreement rate between PAB and BPD on sustained cases?

Because I wasn't here and I don't really have knowledge of those cases.

I'm sorry I'm not really able to help to answer that question.

Okay.

Um that's fair.

Uh and lastly, um, just around moving violations.

You um cited a higher than what might be expected percentage um when it comes to unhoused individuals.

Does moving violation include or sorry, I think you said stops.

Um do stops include stationary vehicles or RVs uh that particular element wasn't something that we looked at um primarily because of the amount of information that we have regarding to each stop is limited.

Um but it's something that we could look into and follow up.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, moving on to Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Ms.

Lee and Mr.

Marillo for preparing working on preparing this presentation and and actual the actual presentation.

It was very clear and I and I appreciate it.

Um I think this is a typo, but since it comes attached to a recommendation to the city manager and council, I want to double check.

I'm pretty sure it is on PDF page 28, which is report page 23.

The final paragraph notes that 20.6% of stops were people believed to be housed.

That's unhoused, right?

That's is that a typo?

Yes, that's a typo.

Yeah, that would make more sense and comport with the table uh on page 36.

So just having established that, I want to go to my more substantive question.

The PAB has recommended that the city study this presumed disparity, but the report itself identifies multiple factors from existing literature, which include increased time spent in public spaces for the unhoused, welfare checks, complaint-driven policing, behavioral health-related calls, service-related interactions, and quality of life-related enforcement activities.

So my question is, are there any data that have led the PAB to believe that these previously established factors themselves don't adequately explain higher interactions between this population and the police in Berkeley?

In other words, they could it seems to me to be sort of self-evident that there would be more interactions because these folks are out in public and these factors are present.

I think from the board's discussion when we were reviewing this exact uh point, actually, um, is that it doesn't necessarily provide a conclusion of terms of like yes, the expectation is if you're out in public more uh and you have higher contacts, uh or if you have higher exposure, you're likely to have higher contacts.

Um I think what this leads us to is not so much of um again making it a conclusion more making us ask questions of what we could do uh to potentially reduce those contacts and what resources we could provide as a city to make sure um that those interactions are handled with the best resources that we can.

Um so in terms of the board's recommendation, that's the way that they're um perhaps not conveyed in the way that it was written, but that's what they want to us to convey.

Okay.

Um just because some factors aren't necessarily controlled purely by policing action, uh, but maybe influenced by other resources that we as a city as a team can uh provide our employee us, yeah.

Okay.

Council member, actually um Chair Cayetano is online.

Um perhaps it might make sense to have him address your question.

Sure, although I think that was Mr.

Murillo um addressed it perfectly well.

But if Mr.

Cayetano has additional comments, I'm happy to hear them.

But Chair, are you I think raising your hand online?

Yes.

I think that iPhone might be can you all hear me?

Yes.

Um thank you, Councilmember.

Yes, I think that um Analyst Modillo's uh answer was accurate.

I just wanted to add that we didn't do a control study for those variables.

I think we want to we were pointing to them as likely factors, but we were encouraging the council to um refer out a study that would allow us to um actually control for those variables and identify the root causes because that is not what we were doing when we were just noting the disparity based on population.

That would be my only clarification.

Thank you.

No, I appreciate that.

Um it they made explain they may dis explain just on their face the disparity, but it'll be interesting to find out whether that's correct.

Um perhaps I missed this in the main report, but is there anywhere in that main body of the report that lists what type of allegations were among PABs sustained findings and in how many cases the complaints are spread across.

Now I think that information is in the is in the appendices, um, but it's not present in the in the main body of the report, is that correct?

Just the question was the kinds of allegations that were sustained?

Yeah, what identifying the types of allegations that were sustained.

I mean, there's they're raw numbers about sustained findings, but but nothing identifies what sort of what's the the type of allegations, the seriousness of the allegations or the lack of seriousness.

Right.

Uh if you look at no never mind okay.

Probably only in the appendices.

In the appendices.

Yes.

Yeah, that's where that's where I found him.

And so it appears that of the 13 allegations sustained by the PAB, these all fell across four cases or complaints.

Is that right?

Can you tell me?

Let me catch up with you.

This case.

Sorry.

But yeah, in terms of sustained allegations, that number is accurate.

So 13 of them and but within four complaints.

That's correct.

Okay.

Were any of the sustained allegations for improper use of force, false arrest, threats, or dishonesty?

Yes.

In those serious categories, how many of the how many of the thirteen involved?

Use of force, false arrests, threats, or dishonesty.

One of the questions probably the most, you know, among the most serious of issues.

I don't have that number immediately available, but we could get that for you.

Okay.

But what we seem to conclude was that none of them involved those those categories, but I could be wrong.

But in general, the the report itself doesn't highlight that most of the sustained allegations were for lesser issues.

Is that correct?

And I'm wondering why that is.

Right.

Sustains are for lesser.

Yes.

Okay.

It seems to me to be significant.

Well, I think that's a fair observation.

Um, and I really couldn't speak to the thinking on that.

I do know I am noticing that we do not have a section that breaks out that sort of um synthesizes the information that's in the appendix, and perhaps a note for next year could be.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful because if I'm not saying that any complaints are you know immaterial, but there's some are more material than others, and it looks to me like this the sustained uh issues were less significant, and none of these really serious categories.

Councilmember, there I I do recall off the top of my head um a serious complaint where there was a ser where there was a serious um violation that was not sustained by the chief.

And I'm happy to talk about well I can't I can't speak publicly about it, but um we don't differentiate based on serious versus unserious, and we can we can take those categories and apply them for the future, but that's not typically how we think about them.

Well, I I think it would be important to to do so, because that you know that shows us I think an important uh uh set of information if if all of the complaints that are sustained are again not minimal but not at the highest level.

We we want to know that.

Council wants to know that.

Um yeah, you can have some left how much time do you need?

Another couple minutes, maybe.

Okay, two.

Two minutes from council member.

All right, three minutes from council member key.

Oh, I probably don't even need three minutes.

Um, but don't start the clock yet.

Um this is not so significant.

Let me let me ask this final one.

I'm also confused by the report's statement that the city manager's office issued decisions on only five allegations.

Looking at the appendix, it appears that the city manager's office issued at least nine decisions, and depending on how you count them, potentially as many as 13.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

And maybe it's because the case from 2024 that appears to have been reviewed in 2025 doesn't count in those numbers.

Um it was just really uh confusion on my part.

And it if you can't answer it, I'd understand that.

No, I'm sorry.

And again, because I I was not here last year, I just don't have enough depth of knowledge to be able to answer that off the top of my head.

Yeah.

I guess I didn't need the two minutes.

So I'm done right now.

No.

You can reclaim it.

I'm just getting he's like reclaiming my time.

All right, council member Blackaby.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I want to thank uh interim Director Lee, Mr.

Marillo, and Chair Caetano for being here for their hard work and dedication to I know what's been a challenging year, uh, and for putting together this thorough report.

So thank you.

Uh I did read, I think like Councilmember Humbert did read the whole report, including Councilmember Trega, but I think most of us have spent a lot of time with this.

Uh I did have some follow-up questions.

One of the concerns that sort of bubbled up through the report was this question about operational challenges on the ability to advise council um on the deadlines.

One thing I wanted to dig into was on items that come from council, like for example, the items that are coming later tonight.

Best I understand, kind of from the clerk's office all the way through the process, there's usually like about a 19-day window, plus or minus when something shows up on the agenda for the agenda committee, goes to agenda committee, and then it gets advised for a council meeting.

I think there's about a 19-day window.

And I was having a conversation with Chair Caetano about this too.

Is that sufficient time for you to, if you see it on an agenda, for you to be able to respond to it, agendize it for your own meeting, respond to it, and then come back to us.

Is that time frame work?

I guess it depends on the issue.

If it's very complicated, I mean that 19 days generally allows uh one PAB meeting, possibly two.

Um but I think complexity matters.

Yeah.

And you know, if it if it is something that requires quite a bit of thought or maybe some research, then one meeting may not be adequate.

Okay.

And that's in some ways that's the minimum.

Because I think usually happened, for example, these items from Councilmember Casarwani, they came up and sort of 19 days in advance, but then actually were referred to a policy committee, then that they went to a policy committee track, and then they came back.

So there was actually substantial time.

I think in that case, probably enough time to engage.

Right.

Well, just timeline-wise, yeah, I was just gonna say um that also though things sometimes can change in policy committees, yeah, and so something to take into account is you know, if something changes having an additional time to review it.

Yeah, so I just encourage like like let's figure this out because the the cleanest way is to sort of pick it up as it's coming through the agenda process and then bring it into your own process.

I know stuff that comes from the police department, then is a separate track.

It's not it's on a different timing, and hopefully there's more collaboration and coordination on especially policy matters that are happening, because it's not on the same kind of fixed timeline as stuff that's coming to council is once it gets on an agenda.

So anyway, for a separate conversation, but I I do want to make sure that this operational piece is ironed out because it feels like we keep hearing, oh, we haven't had enough, and and I think that's true in some cases, but I just want to make sure if there's something that's always a hurdle, what is it so that we can get at it?

Um, because I don't want the timing piece to be the part that always becomes the well, so therefore we need more time.

Like let's figure out how to get you the right time at the at the right time to do what you need to do.

Right.

I would say in the time that I've been here the past few months, it's um more of the items that are coming from the police department.

Okay, okay, which we don't which we may see on the agenda but committee, but okay.

And hopefully, in that case, before it gets on the agenda committee, there's been a conversation.

I mean, the the departments at every one of your meetings, there's some alerting that something is coming on the department side, even before it comes to a council agenda.

Anyway, uh I I don't have enough time to go into that here, but I do want us at some point to figure this out because I I just I don't like the answer being we haven't had enough time.

I want to make sure you have enough time, but I want to make sure it's baked in to the process uh and then doesn't get kind of slow things down at the at the back end of the chain.

Right.

Um I appreciate that.

Yeah, yeah.

So digging in on the um on some of these numbers, and I appreciate uh my colleagues have already answered uh or asked a bunch of these questions.

The 43 complaints from 27 complaints, can you remind us how that works?

Is that um are those at 27 complainants made 43 complaints?

And so does that mean some of them had multiple incidents at different times, or can you have the multiple complaints about a the same event?

It would usually be the former, um, because sometimes complainants will talk about two of the different things in one complaint, and we would consider that one complaint.

Got it.

So more likely it's uh completely separate submission over the course of a year from the same person about multiple things.

Okay, got it.

Right.

Um so 378 allegations from 43 complaints from 27 complainants, I think was the total N as I went through the report.

230 allegations met the prima facie standard to proceed of the 378.

Can you explain that process and how what how that works, how you determine that?

Because you you take 148 right out of the gate and say it didn't meet the standard to proceed, but 230 do.

How do you how do you do that?

Well, we basically we take what they say on the on the face of it, yeah.

And um, if they say the police officer looked at me sideways, that's uh the that's not a yeah, that's a silly example, but right it makes the point that that's not misconduct.

Got it.

So it's if as alleged, it's not doesn't even meet the standard.

Right, even if it's true, it's not misconduct.

All right, so you start with 378, 148 don't meet the standard.

That's how you get the 230.

And then of the 230, um another 162 allegations were administratively closed.

So 148 didn't meet the standard, 162 were administratively closed.

So about 310 out of the 378 or so leaves you with the 69 that got investigated.

That's I mean, I'm just working the way through the chain.

Go ahead.

Uh I'm I'm not sure.

Those are comparable numbers because the first numbers are what came in, but the 69 is what was decided.

Got it in 2025.

So that's a mix of cases that could have been filed in 2024 and just investigated to finality.

Got it.

So it's not that.

But there's there are but there's like the the prima facie hurdle, and then there's an administratively closed hurdle, and then there's a the stuff that actually gets real follow-through.

Um, you know, how much staff time is being dedicated to the big number that don't proceed versus the ones that really my my whole point here is I just want to make sure that the resources you do have are being targeted on the things that are impactful and that you're able to kind of upstream of things or are dropping out that you're doing that as quickly as you can and spent do you feel like I think I think so because um that threshold question of whether the the misconduct alleged, you know, is that actually a policy violation tends to be fairly easy to figure out and does not require a lot of time.

Okay.

Um you observed that there are some staffing constraints that affected administrative closures, that was actually the biggest factor.

Um do you feel like that forced you to prioritize credible cases, or do you think that some of the cases that were closed were actually credible, you just didn't have time?

Or is it just a prioritization?

Okay, I I wasn't the person doing that, so uh but I my sense is that there was a prioritization of cases that were credible and more serious.

I mean, I think there were cases that were closed that could have made credible allegations, okay and just sort of some decisions had to be made about uh the importance.

Okay.

But moving forward with Council Martrago's questions, feel like at this point we've got the investigator, at this point, things are kind of stable on track.

Fairly stable.

Yeah, it's it's a lot.

Um as I had pointed out, we were originally originally budgeted for two investigators.

Right.

You know, um the police department's internal affairs bureau has two sergeants working investigation.

So on the agreement rates, and again, if I I might maybe I'll use some of the minutes that okay, great.

Uh on the agreement rates, uh, one of the things you observed was uh I know there was no agreement on the sustained, but in those other categories, I'm wondering if the um because sort of there's the not sustained, unfounded, and exonerated, which means it either didn't happen, you couldn't prove that it did happen, or it happened and there was nothing wrong about what happened, I think generally.

Yeah, that's correct.

Um if you looked at that more broadly and just said of those three categories, because I think what the chief might say is not sustained, you might say is unfounded, or what you might say is unfounded, someone else might say is exonerated because sometimes the differences are very small.

Right.

My guess is is it fair to say that the agreement across those three categories?

If you just looked at all those three categories together, the agreement rate's probably pretty high that something fell into one of those three.

Right.

Uh I thought we had that number in there.

You kind of you looked at it by individual slice and said, did the chief say not sustained when I said not sustained, or did the chief say unfounded when I said unfounded.

My my hunch is actually, and I kind of remember a little bit from this in the time of the path.

Sometimes you're splitting hairs about what exactly the dispensation is, but like you basically all you agree that hey, there's nothing to pursue here.

If you look at page uh 10 of the of the report.

Yep.

And the top right uh table.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm just saying that agreement rate is for each slice.

So what I'm saying is if you could if you combine not sustained, unfounded, exonerated together.

Yes.

Yes, that's a fairly high number.

Okay.

That might also be useful because at some point we're we're splitting hairs about things that anyway.

I think what's most important is there's general agreement on the stuff that shouldn't proceed, I think.

Anyway, we can again I'll leave that for separate time, but that's just my observation on it.

I see your point.

Yeah.

Um because it would make that look a lot better, actually.

I my guess is combined, that's probably 80 or 90 percent you know, agreement across all of it.

Um couple last things on the stop data.

I really appreciate the deeper and broader analysis here, um, because I think looking at this with all the slices helps give us a lot more flavor.

And I'll just observe that across the temporal data, because really what you'd expect to see on the temporal data is if there was bias, you'd expect in the daylight to see it show up.

I I think, and I'm not an expert, but if in the daylight you would expect to see that's when if you were biased against a particular group, you would expect to see stops because you can see folks in the daylight as opposed to at night time.

So I think we should be we should feel good that there's actually very little variation, and there's nothing really that's moving in that direction.

Um so that's one observed observation.

And the other piece is on the search data, and again, you you talked about Mr.

Mario, but the fact is, yes, like there are different search rates for different groups, but the yield rate is remarkably stable.

And so, like sorry, Wendy, can you give him just another minute?

Thank you.

I'm almost done.

Thank you.

Um I guess my sense is that the on on the issues around bias, to me, that the temporal data and the search data are the are the ones that go most directly to bias.

And there wasn't anything that was shouting out at me in those numbers that said here's evidence of at least systematic bias.

And I just wanted your reaction to that.

Um I think uh yes, that's a fair approach to the data in terms of the test.

Uh, one thing as I was drafting this report was that as we went through each test, that test brought out other questions as well about the factors that aren't reflected in the data, um, which is why we tried not to be conclusive with with our analysis, apart from just being descriptive, um, and what was provided and then for this discussion to happen essentially.

Yeah, um but that that was something that we observed within the data.

Because I I take your point on in the summer, you suggest that again ongoing monitoring is necessary, and there are there are real disparities, like we see the disparities.

I think the question is what's what are the drivers of the disparities?

And I think what we're seeing is uh, you know, yes, there are some groups that are being policed more than others, those might be because of their location or their use of cars or walking or whatever, there whether they're unhoused or not, these are all factors.

Absolutely socio socioeconomic pressures, inequality, availability of housing, all these things are big drivers of what's happening here.

Um, and so I'm I'm not saying they're unimportant, but it at least the piece that the police department itself can control, which is how they're using their resources and how they're training their officers systematically.

At least I'm hopeful that you know some of those other factors absolutely exist.

I just feel like they might be beyond what the police department has direct control over.

Council member, do you have additional questions?

Uh one last question.

Okay, go ahead.

But maybe you can keep your comments brief and save them for the common period if you could just focus on the question.

That would that would help us yeah, just because um how do we broaden to a broader cross section of residents?

Um you talked about I thought the LinkedIn pilot program was interesting.

Do you what are you guys doing on LinkedIn?

LinkedIn was really um that's the pilot program because it's really the first social media where we tried to be more active with it.

Um in recent months, I will say that it fell off just because of bandwidth.

Uh, for example, I'm one of the administrators, but I'm keeping lots on, you know, uh, in terms of our administrative operations.

Um we're in the age of social media.

Uh that's one of the areas that um in our discussions and our program with source sector solutions was an area that we could brought in.

Um we have areas where we talk about uh just partnerships with schools in general um and reaching out to their parents and using as an educational potential partnership of not just about learning about oversight, but learning about the different public safety um components of our community.

Um I'm a strong believer that the more the community knows, the easier our job gets, um, because things get narrowed down.

So those are just some of the first initial steps in terms of broadening um just general community education and being more present in different areas of the city and not just yeah, um what's generally closer to us.

Right.

Yeah, I think you know anything that continues to make it as representative so that as much of our residential base is participating in some way, shape, or form as possible.

So you're getting the the most representative cross-section of the public involved is fantastic.

So thank you.

Thank you for letting me take some extra time.

Thank you.

Councilmember O'Keefe, you have two and a half minutes.

Okay, that was my first question.

How much of my time did I give away?

It's okay.

I just have two, maybe three questions.

Um my first question is uh um when you when your office is conducting its investigations, do you find that you have or your investigators have access to the information that they need, or have there been any barriers, or can that process be improved?

If you're talking about the access to records from the police department, well, I would say um they're actually very recently, maybe not very recently, but it since the time I've been there at least.

Um because of staffing issues in the police department, we are not getting records as quickly as we would like to.

And I will say that that accounts for uh at least a couple of the time extensions that I've um consulted with the mayor and the chief on for our investigative for our investigations.

Um I uh you know, I it's not a question of bad faith or or incompetence, it's simply uh a capacity issue at the department um in getting records to us.

And have the time extensions that have been granted, were they able to accommodate, or is it still a barrier to ultimately doing the investigation?

The charter is kind of funny, or the regulations are are kind of odd in the way they're worded because it said it says that the uh director of police accountability may extend the time in consultation with so it doesn't really ask the director to ask the chief or the city manager to grant, but it just says that the director shall so basically I I send an email to uh Mr.

Budenhagen and Chief Lewis and say in this case here's what's going on, and here's why we're not gonna make the 120.

And in every case, they say thank you very much.

That sounds fine to us.

Um so that's it's it's worked in that sense.

And and I think um, at least since I've been here, we've hit the 1950.

That that's the extended um timeline.

So great.

So it sounds like it's working, but maybe that particular issue could use a little clarity as to who's who's I who has to authorize the time extension.

I don't know, that's not really important, but I'm just I'm just noting.

I don't think it's that important.

It's if I'm if I may, counsel.

Yeah.

May I so I think I would be remiss if I did not raise the fact that um the former director in 2025 sued the city in order to get records that we had requested, and the city decided to oppose that request.

And so, you know, the board decided that those records were necessary for it to resolve um the questions that were presented before it.

And so because we didn't have those records, and we ultimately did not get those records.

Um we had to punt on some of the decisions and some of the findings.

And so there are certain times where even if the department does we do get an extension from the department and we're given um time extensions, we're not still given um complete records in the departments and and the records that we asked for, and later we find out that there were responsive records that were not given to us, and that impairs our ability to make findings.

So it's not just about the timing, but about the complete the completeness of the records that we're requesting.

Interesting.

So that that answer, thank you very much for that.

Um that answer seems to maybe not contradict, but doesn't can you comment on what he said?

Because it you you didn't mention the well, I was talking about timing.

Um and the chair was talking about actually what is produced.

Well, okay, so yeah, I guess that was actually my question is like do you yeah, that was more uh all of it.

I'm just curious if you're getting what you need in any interpret that question anyway you need you need to.

It's you know, that's hard to answer because sometimes we don't know what we're not getting if we don't know that something exists.

Um, but I would say that so far I have been getting we have been getting what we've been requesting.

There might be an exception or two I can think of, but okay.

Yeah, well, thank you.

Um and then okay, good.

Uh my other question is also about uh data, but it's about um I'm curious about you know, I want to say first of all, thank you.

Thank you for everything.

This is a lot of work.

I appreciate it.

Um and the I would you know I had to looked at with great interest at the um stop data analysis that you did.

Um, and by the way, I I checked your math and it's correct.

So you know, and the way I was able to do that because you could anyone including me can download the the data set and just you know do this kind of um analysis yourself.

And so my question is um, do you have any uh like feedback or like a wish list for what should be on the transparency hub?

What type of data that you know is it I think it's already in a few of the answers to the questions tonight.

Um you've mentioned, like, well, we don't really have that data, we don't really keep track of that.

Is there do you have like a wish list for things you wish that were kept track of so you could do a better analysis?

Um there's comments that I'm linking out on right now.

Um, but I guess I'll bring it back to the dilemma.

Sometimes there's data that we wish was included.

Um, but it might create a lot of noise with the data that we actually need to report on.

Uh what I would say is that generally speaking, like for example, I think of the stop data.

Uh, we know that's generally set up on the standard set by the state's RIPA uh requirements.

So there's some context that sometimes we would like.

Um I think, for example, I'm thinking of the earlier question about for you know, for our and has populations, how many of those stops, what was the context of that stop?

Um would be good to know because we could categorize things a little bit better.

Um, how that's done in practice is always the challenge with uh with our data analysis.

Um, but I'm happy to share some observations once I compile them together.

Um I know updates to the transparency might be coming up soon.

Um, so that might also be a good time for us to share our comments and our feedback.

Um I think transparency of is currently is it's a great tool, as you mentioned that anybody could download and check our numbers, which is always nice for uh our personal accountability on our policy and data team.

So member, did you want the chair to respond to that at all?

Just since he's here.

Yes, yes, Chair Kayatano, would you also like to address that question?

I'm I'm so sorry, I missed the question.

And I don't think I have anything more to add to what he did, unless is it about data?

Because I if it is about data, I don't have anything more to add to that question.

Yeah, it was about data, so thank you.

And um I'll I'll just say, and I love anyone's response to this.

Um actually this is for later, I guess.

But uh I am in general interested in that question of like what data is what data are we not collecting that you uh your office um would be find valuable.

And I would say maybe don't worry about the um when when answering the question, which I'd love a you know, if you have an answer later, just I'd love to to hear it.

Um and don't worry about the logistical reality of collecting the data.

Like that's you know, it may be that we can't get it, but I would just I'm curious, like just don't let that stop you.

I'm curious what information you wish you had, and just it's good to know, and and maybe there's a way.

So thank you.

Those are my questions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um any other questions?

I don't see any hands, but I'm I'm not trusting our parliamentarian.

Go ahead, Councilmember Lunapara.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And and thank you for the presentation and all of the work that has gone into this.

Um I had a question about the training time.

Um it describes the the report describes that only 54.4 of percent of BPD's training time is in post-certified um trainings.

What can you uh explain that a little more?

Um what what that means and yeah, so um in terms of when we talk about posts for the peace officer standards and training commission for the state.

Um we looked at training data from our two previous reports uh was how many were done through like official post vendors.

It's really maybe that's not the correct way to say vendor, but sponsored by posts essentially.

Um we don't conclude that whether one is superior than the other.

We just highlight which one is part of sort of the state's curriculum, um, which is the point of that statistic.

Okay.

Um, but it's not insinuating that the rest of the training is not compliant with the state.

Correct.

We we're not insinuating that.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then I had a question about the the force um incidents are that there's a large percentage of the force incidents that um do not lead an arrest.

And do you think you could talk a little more about some examples or reasons why you think that is yeah, and um I guess back to the previous question of data that or information that I would like to add?

Uh sometimes uh knowing the context for those um would be important just so we can justify it.

Um one instance that I could think of was, for example, um, and perhaps it's not the best example, but 5150 detentions is something that I used to see uh in my previous line of work where they need to further own safety restrain somebody.

Um that could be an instance where I could see that doesn't lead to an arrest, um, but where force has to be used, um, particularly with level one uses of force that has currently has a broad range of what classifies under that level.

And council member, I think the chief is on as well if you want additional context.

Thank you.

I think I think that that helps and to answer the question.

Um, but thank you, Chief.

I think it would be helpful in this um data to separate out arrested institutionalized and not arrested.

Um, because I'm interested in knowing how many of these use of force um incidents don't result, aren't I aren't because of anything.

Uh um I I'm just curious, I would I would like to see that data.

Um how I want I would want to know how many what percent of this 37.8 um of the non-arrested section is because they were institutionalized in some other way.

Um those are all my questions.

I have comments later, but it's thank you.

I agree with that.

I think that would be great information to have.

Um, so I see no other questions, so uh, we will go to public comment.

I think there's anyone here for public comment.

Um, and just to reiterate, we are on item number one, which is our only item for the special um council meeting at 2025 police accountability board and office of the director of police accountability uh annual report.

I think Carol is making her way up.

Um first, as far as encampments, it might be clearer.

Uh the staff is act, I mean rather the police department is acting at staff's choice as to clearing those encampments.

And there it might be better if the encampment residents had more certainty as to their clearing.

And I'm going to give you an example.

For example, uh, the Amtrak was recently cleared where the residents are there.

Yeah, actually, that was on June 2nd.

And other people around the area were saying, well, they didn't receive any notice.

So I checked with staff and they did receive notice, but they received notice on April 29th for June 2nd clearing.

And when that happens with people, many of whom also have cognitive issues already, and have certainly have a lot of uncertainty into their life, and they receive some notice, and that doesn't happen anytime soon.

They think it's not going to happen.

And so if it happens five weeks later, there's some it that's doesn't give them the kind of certainty that they need.

And so I it staff has indicated in a dialogue that it would be um uh more difficult for staff to give them 72 hours notice.

However, there must be something that can be worked out that there wouldn't be notice closer to the time so they know within a certain period of time that that removal will be uh occurring.

Uh next, I wanted to speak um on uh the unhoused people being stopped more.

Do we have any sense of why that is?

Is it because of the community reporting them?

And um last I want to say that I was told contacted by the police department last August about having coffee so they could tell me that there was a part-time CIT coordinator coming on.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Carol.

Um, I think there's one person online with their hand raised.

Andrea Pritchett.

Hi there, thank you.

I want to Andrea, are you cut out?

No, she's good.

Okay, restart.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we're we're restarting your time.

You are caught off for a second.

Thank you.

Um I want to talk about the CIT training.

I'm interested on the schedule of trainings that BPD officers have received.

Since they're the only people responding to wellness checks and mental health calls, I would expect that they would be broadening the amount of training for CITs for crisis intervention.

I'm also curious to hear about the early warning system.

How is that working?

What is it made of?

What criteria are being included in in order to uh to alert administration to potentially abusive officers?

And I also want to uh remind you that because you have this high proportion of basically poor people, you know, if 20% of the stops are of unhoused people and so forth, they are the least likely to be able to bring a complaint to the PAB.

And I'm curious to hear what kind of accommodations are being made to support them and to help them right now.

You it feels like you've got to be a lawyer.

You know, I I certainly tried, I had a very serious complaint that I brought to the PAB, and it was not it was not heard, it was not sustained.

I was hardly even informed about it.

Um so I think there's a there's a lot that really needs to be dug into here.

I appreciate where you've gone, but I think there's a long way to go.

And I hope, council members, that you can ask some of these questions for those of us who can't.

So thank you.

Thank you, Andrea.

Any other public comment on this item?

No more hands raised.

Okay.

Do we have any comments from council members?

And again, I'm sorry, I think our parliamentarian isn't really working, so maybe just raise your hand if you comment.

Yes, Councilmember Traco.

Uh thank you so much.

Um again, I want to uh just extend my deepest gratitude to um to you uh director Lee, um to um Mr.

Murillo um to uh Chair Cayetano and to uh everyone on the PAB and the OPTA side who has been um hard at work and doing very important work um despite of all the chorn that you have been undergoing.

Uh just a few broad um strokes uh uh uh comments from me.

Uh I am I'm interested in digging in more around uh these policy complaint or resolution reports that um are authored or produced as a result of policy complaints.

Um while they're on the website, I'm inter and I appreciate that they are.

I I would be interested in the possibility of communicating them to council uh in a more um externally forward way, whether it's via an informational report or a work session subject to um council uh resourcing and time availability.

I would uh also be interested in uh better understanding um the clearance rates of complaints year to year uh relative to the complaints that uh go into the system.

Um I want to make sure that the number of complaints and resolutions are relatively balanced, accounting for the fact that there would be some chorn, probably at different times in the year.

I uh as um some of my colleagues have already mentioned, I too would appreciate um well I appreciate the additional data you provided around uh police stops um and agree that uh it appears on the face um to pass the veil of darkness test around accounting for uh bias.

Um and I would like to dig into what's behind the data around police stops relative to unhoused individuals, um, including how a stop is being characterized in this case.

Um and I would like to dig into what's behind the data around police stops relative to unhoused individuals, um, including how a stop is being characterized in this case, um, and better understand uh other um um methodologies um vis-a-vis um accounting for stops.

For instance, um there was a biracial identification, and I wasn't sure if that is something that like who reports that is it the complainant or yeah, I mean, this is police stops.

So um, yeah, basically how how is that data generated?

Um I'd like to better understand in whatever venue may be most appropriate, um, what may be behind the disagreements between the Pub and PD uh in the um allegation in the sustained allegation category.

Uh I would also be interested in continuing to remain informed on the length of time it takes to receive record requests and ensuring that ODPA and Pub receive the documents they request to the extent that they're fair game for receipt uh from my own uh experience in uh previous career where I was involved in federal oversight.

Accessibility of data is foundational to sound oversight.

Um, I would be interested in additional data as it pertains to the nexus between situations that may involve mental health challenges and use of force, uh, and would echo council member O'Keefe's point about uh what other information would be useful to you um within the data um you might receive for you to be able to continue to do your best work.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Blackaby.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Since I had a lot of questions, my comments will be briefer.

Um thank y'all for being here.

Um and thanks for the report.

Um a couple of just observations and comments for uh future.

Um I thought the data is really great, but um the ability to put it in some context, trends over time, comparisons with relevant jurisdictions, all that would be really useful to the extent it's possible.

Um, because then I think we actually have some some comparables that we could say uh, you know, you could highlight the red flags where things are moving in the wrong direction, or we're out of sync, or highlight the green flags where things look like they're moving in the right direction or that we're performing particularly well.

So that would be really helpful for me because sometimes I find in reading through it, I can't tell is that good or bad.

It's just it is just is what it is.

But with some of that context, I think it would help give us that flavor.

So be a request.

It'd be really even make this even more valuable, I think next time.

Um appreciate kind of the conversation on the operational time limits.

I would love to again a separate time figure that out if uh on the two tracks of the the items that are coming from the council, the items that are coming from the department, and making sure that it's fitting in the timelines that you have to participate in those discussions, and just make sure that lines up.

And if there's anything structurally that needs to be done without further lengthening timelines, I would love to I would love to figure that out.

Um I'm I'm hoping that just the current agenda process getting you that advanced notice will help, but please let us know if that's not working.

Um the regulations, super excited and hopeful, knock on wood that those will be done this year.

I know that will be a huge time savings for you all.

And um just again, ability to focus your resources on the things that make it a difference.

So again, we're we're interested in helping get that over the finish line as well.

Um the stop data, again, thank you for the conversation.

My again, my takeaway is we know there are disparities.

Um there are racial disparities in the stop data.

Um I am and none of that is is uh is none of us feel good about the disparities that we see, but uh but a lot of those are driven, my sense is by things that are outside of the control of the department specifically.

But again, if if there are things that show bias or things that show problems, we we need to know about those.

But at least based on my reading of the data, I'm heartened to see that we're not we're not seeing clear signs of bias.

Uh if that's not the case and you have other data that shows that, you know, let us know.

There are other things we need to work on as a community in terms of housing in terms of economic development, um, in terms of um greater access to resources that will help, I think some of these other numbers that we're seeing in the policing data, but it's separate than the conversation about how I think how the department is doing its policing.

Uh and then lastly, I'm super encouraged by your um goal of doing more outreach.

Like I said, I think to the extent that we can uh broaden the conversation, have an even more representative group of people who are participating in this process, representing the voices of everyone in the community.

I think we'll all be better served by that, and you play an important function in providing a place where that conversation can happen.

So thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um I I really want to acknowledge the amount of work that went into this, especially with the staffing concerns and the issues with um staffing the PAB.

I am very thankful and impressed and really appreciate all of the work that I know went into this.

Um I the um disagreement between the PAB and the Chief I is is pretty concerning to me.

Um I want to figure out how we can get to the bottom to the bottom of that.

I hope that the regulations will help.

Um, but I I would really like to see more alignment on that in the future.

Um and and this is kind of just a general statement.

Um really am excited about something really small included in the in the um report around um collaborating with the UC Berkeley Social Sector Solutions program.

Um I think that's very exciting, and there's a lot of really amazing work coming out of the university, and I'm excited to see whenever I see our city partners um work with the university.

So thank you for that.

Um, I did actually I did want to ask about one of the um allegations um around the the non-wearing not wearing the body worn camera, where the chief agreed with the PAB, but was not the off that it says in the report there was no formal discipline.

Um can you talk a little more about that or how that if you're able to describe, I don't know how far we can go into this kind of conversations, but I'm I'm curious if there's more information there.

And this can also be sent to the chief if that's a better place for the question.

Sorry, I don't know enough about that to be able to answer me.

Okay, that's okay.

Um is it possible for the chief to answer?

If not, I can I can come back to it.

I'm just curious um about this piece.

And I guess it's more of a also how discipline works once um an allegation is sustained.

The chief could speak to that more broadly, not with specifics about certain cases.

Um, and the chief is there, so chief, I can turn it over to you to give more of a uh sort of a broad overview of how you look at these things.

Yeah, thank you.

Um it's absolutely correct that we can't dive too deeply into the specific facts of a personnel complaint, um, as that's a confidential personnel record.

Um, but uh I can share that for particular serious cases, uh, there is space written within the charter that allows the PAB and the DPA as part of their findings to make recommendations to the Office of the Chief on uh what the uh level of discipline or appropriate level of discipline may be uh for the uh for other offenses.

Uh um discipline can be uh there can be aggravating or mitigating factors, and really it's a case-by-case uh basis as to what discipline an officer might receive stemming from a letter of advice or letter of a recommend to more formally um days off or up to an including uh termination, depending on the severity of the case.

Uh I I'm not sure exactly what case you're referencing as far as uh we agreed on findings.

It would be unusual for us to even say in um publicly uh what discipline was uh provided for a case that didn't fall within those charter um uh named cases.

Um so I I could do a little research and see what maybe that references, and maybe it just wasn't written clearly, or or we can provide some more information on it.

Happy to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Um sorry I didn't ask that earlier.

I I it got lost.

Um those are my comments.

I'm I'm I I'm appreciative of your work.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Um going to Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I want to thank interim director of police accountability.

Um Ms.

Lee.

I want to thank Mr.

Marillo.

Um the PAB for the work on this report.

And I want to thank BPD for their collaboration and all their effort to carefully collect and track the data.

These reports are indispensable in reviewing BPDs and the PAB's efforts and performance and our progress on you know fair and just policing as we go along.

Um I want to re-emphasize my gratitude to Director Lee for coming in, taking the reins, and helping us out on a pinch.

We're very grateful.

Um although I clearly have some concerns about the report, I think many of the issues I identified are a hangover from past practices that Director Lee and our future director will have the task of sorting out.

And as I pointed out in the past, I think that the stop data and recovery rates are extremely telling.

Uh the fact of the matter is that these key tests have shown the same thing year after year.

BPD, and this is happy news, does not appear to have a statistically significant systemic bias when it comes to whom they stop.

And and Councilmember Blackaby made reference to this, but recovery rates are actually slightly higher for stops of African American individuals and stops of African American at night, and stops of African American individuals are actually slightly lower during the day when individual features are more discernible.

This may seem controversial, controversial, but if anything, these data may indicate that BPD officers are actively trying to avoid bias as they think about whom to stop.

Now there could there are for sure and certainly could be instances of individual bias, and we've got to continue to work to prevent them and ferret them out when they occur, but the data don't support a systemic issue here.

And in general, I'm very disappointed that we continue to see people fixate on the stop composition data, which are not by themselves sufficient without the the yield rates, et cetera, to create a narrative that is simply not supported by other better metrics.

I think that the practice is emblematic of the locally unjustified adversarial approach.

We see some members of our community take toward police accountability.

Um it is clear from the data that there is no again, no evidence of systemic bias.

And and when we don't when we talk, continue to talk about that, uh, we're missing opportunities to work together to shore up areas where we could still see improvement and even taking our chiefs and officers away from other important work they could be doing to serve our community.

Um as far as the report, despite its incredible wealth of data and usefulness, I think that any new permanent director of police accountability needs to prioritize improving the presentation and consistency of the data in the report and not bury you know um at certain issues that I think at least are very significant.

Um I recognize that some of these issues may you know be carry over from prior years, but going forward I'd like to see more attention to to those sorts of issues.

Um again, I'm I'm disappointed by the report bearing the fact that we saw no PAB sustained allegations against BPD for improper use of force, false arrest, or would appear any of the more serious uh severe misconduct categories, although um maybe council member uh maybe council member chair Caetano can can educate me on there may be one out there.

And if I recall, recent years have seen similarly low or non-existent levels of more serious sustained allegations.

Um the fact that figure two buries this in what amounts to a catch-all category is a footnote in in a footnote that bother that continues to bother me.

This is frankly something we should be celebrating and looking at closely to understand what about our policies and systems are working beyond not giving the PAB and BPD credit where credit is due, doing a good job, it looks like we fail to highlight these successes, and we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to identify and double down on what's working best.

It also deprives other communities of the opportunity to look to and emulate what Berkeley is doing right.

Quite honestly, we should be rubbing conservatives' noses in the fact that Hippy Dippy Berkeley has an excellent and effective police department with relatively high clearance rates and policies and practices that have resulted in very low instances of serious police misconduct.

So again, I want to thank Interim Director Lee, Mr.

Marillo, the staff of uh her office, members of the PAB, um, especially my longtime appointee Randy Wells, Chief Lewis and Deputy Chief Tate, the city manager's office, and everybody who worked on this.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do any other council members have comments?

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

I I just wanted to say that I do have concerns about separating the um the allegations between serious and unserious.

I think there's varying levels of what can be defined as serious and unserious, and I don't think we should characterize them in two buckets like that.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um I did just want to again say thank you very much to the both of you and your entire team for all of your work and to this report.

I think especially coming in really after to pick this up and to do the presentation, all of your work that went into, I really want to thank you.

And um also, Mr.

Murillo, I know you've done us so much work here, so thank you very much.

And I really appreciate also just want to uh comment on the fact that you are also our our temporary kind of person holding on to this onto the role.

So I do want to thank you again for your service to the city.

Um yeah, I'm just very happy that our our police accountability board will be um filled very soon.

I know we worked really hard to make that happen.

Um, and just generally I've been able to meet with the both of you many many times this year, and I think that I I want to continue to do that with also the the new person who's coming in to ensure that we continue to have strong um communication as we're going through these processes.

It's it's complex, these issues are complex, and um and of course I do think you know to Councilmember Humbert's port uh point, it is important to celebrate our successes in the areas in which you know we should be proud of as a city and and also to the points that others have made.

I do think it's important for us to take a hard look at uh uh you know some of these numbers and things that have happened um and be able to see where we can improve.

I think that both are important, so I just want to make that point.

Um to council member Brockabi's point about giving PAB sufficient time to review policy.

Um I I do want to thank you for making that point, Councilmember.

I do think it's uh important to acknowledge that you know these PAB members are not salaried employees and that they receive a small stipend per meeting, which is really limited per month as well.

And so, you know, the amount of work that we're having them do in terms of reviewing policies and getting back to us, and then there are changes, and they have to review those.

I mean, it is a ton of work.

Um, and with these meetings between the policy changes and different um, you know, of course, the investigation is the actual you know huge part of their role.

Um, it is quite a lot.

And so I did just want to comment on that.

Um, Councilmember Blackman, you made another point which I agreed with about getting trends and comparisons to other cities.

I think that would be very helpful for us to understand, you know, how things have changed over time, if there are any trends we should be paying attention to, what it looks like in other cities, although I I recognize that's a little challenging given that different cities have different police accountability boards and structures um different from ours.

Um I want to highlight a few other things.

Was really happy to of course read about the progress in our with our meet and confer process and the permanent regulations for PAB.

This is one of our big priorities that we've all um stated for the police accountability board and the director of police accountability.

And so I am really glad that we've I know we've just got one more issue to kind of work through, and so I want to thank you all for your work there and to PAB and to our city staff for being very diligent in moving us forward, also to um our labor negotiator.

And um really glad to see that community engagement was part of the report, want to see that continue.

Um, definitely with this new director of police accountability.

I want to make sure that that's something that that they're very focused on.

I think it's so important that people understand the work that you all do and and ways that they can continue to interact with you know police accountability in the city.

Um and also want to give a plus one to Councilmember Luna Paris' comment on UC Berkeley's social sector solutions program.

Um that's so amazing that they did that work, and I'm really looking forward to reviewing their presentation.

I know it's it's being sent over to us.

And um just generally want to highlight just the importance of community engagement when it comes to police accountability.

Um it's just it's so important that people are aware of the work that you all are doing, and I also want to thank the the chief for being on today and you know for her support of this work.

It it is so important.

It's a it's a huge part of our public safety work in the city is police accountability and us working together is is essential.

So I want to thank you all.

Thank you, everyone, um, and to my council member colleagues.

So um I think that that's it for the evening for this special meeting at least.

Um thank you all for being here and for the presentation again.

Okay, that was our final item.

So I will see if there's a motion to adjourn.

Some of the can we take the roll on that, please?

Okay, to adjourn.

Uh Councilmember Taplin.

Yes.

Dragob.

Aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Luna Para.

Yes.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Sorry.

We are adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.

Recording.