Okay, I've got some uh things to get through here before we get started.

Uh for the record, my name's Ben Weber.

I am the District Six City Councilor and the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee.

Uh today, apparently it's May 18th, 2026, and uh time is 1024 a.m.

Uh this hearing is being recorded.

It's also being live streamed at Boston.gov slash city-council-tv and broadcast on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, and files channel 964.

The City Council's budget review process encompasses a series of public hearings that begin in April and run through June.

We strongly encourage residents to take a moment to engage in this process by giving testimony for the record.

Uh, you can give testimony uh in several ways.

Number one, you can uh attend one of our hearings and and uh sign in on the sign-in sheet near the entrance and give uh public testimony.

Number two, you can testify virtually using this um our online form on our council budget review website, or by emailing the committee at ccc.wm at Boston.gov, or by emailing Karishma Choan at K-A-R-I-S-H-M-A.CHOUHAN at Boston.gov, and you'll be given a zoom link to testify.

Um, you can also show up at the fourth of four public listening sessions, the last will of which will be holding on Thursday, May 26th here in the chamber at 6 p.m.

Again, for that listening session, you can testify in person or virtually via Zoom.

Uh in lieu of testifying at the hearing uh virtually via Zoom, you can email written testimony to the committee at ccc.wm at Boston.gov.

Um, lastly, you can submit a two-minute video of your testimony through the form on our website.

For more information on the council budget process and how to testify, please visit the city council's budget website at Boston.gov slash council-budget.

Um let's see, this morning's hearing is on docket numbers 0733 to 0740, an overview of the fiscal year 2027 operating budget for the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

This is one in a series of hearings to review the fiscal year 27 budget.

These matters were sponsored by Mayor Michelle Wu and referred to the committee on April 8th, 2026.

Uh, today or this morning, I'm joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, uh, Councillor Flynn and Councillor Louis Gen.

Uh I think Counselor Flynn had to step out to attend uh the mayor's coffee hour.

Uh maybe he'll he'll return.

So I'm just gonna hand it over to our, I don't know, unless my unless you want to give an opening statement.

Um, we generally wave opening statements um at these hearings.

So we're gonna hand things to the panel.

We're joined today by the director of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, Ivandro Covarlio, and the uh deputy Director of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, Esther Lane.

Um, so I'm gonna hand things over to the panel and uh look forward to hearing from you.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

Uh members of the Boston City Council, uh, particularly City Council of Lugian, uh residents of the City of Boston.

I'm Evandro Carvalho, and I am the executive director of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

This morning I'm here with uh Deputy Director Esther Lenay.

You will often hear me say OPAT for short, which is again Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

Sometimes we say OPAT.

If you hear me saying that, just know that again I'm talking about the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

Earlier this month, May 6 marked two years of service for me to OPAT.

I can't help at this time to sort of reflect how much we accomplished together over the past couple years.

With a lot of resolve, commitment, and determination, we have rebuilt, re-energized, and reposition OPAT as an agency that is here to successfully and successfully serve the people of the city of Boston and meet the moment.

I know many people at home, certainly the city councilors, you're familiar with the work that we do, but I figured take this time to give a brief overview of our history and what our agency does.

Again, for those at home that do not know, OPAT was created in 2020 after the racial reckoning following the nationwide process for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd on May 25th of 2020.

We were created to serve as an independent civilian agency to provide oversight over the Boston Police Department.

We were created by ordinance directly from our ordinance.

I quote a language, chapter 12, section 16 of City of Boston Code.

We are created to provide a single point of entry for individuals with concerns or complaints related to the Boston Police Department.

We do, number one, we investigate complaints of misconduct.

Number two, we ensure that the Boston Police Department internal affairs review process is thorough and fair.

And number three, we review Boston Police Department's existing and proposed policies and procedures.

In short, we are here to undertake independent investigation and review of the Boston Police Department.

Next slide, please.

Here I take a brief moment to sort of share with the public again how our agency function, what our organization chart looks like.

Folks should know that obviously I was appointed by the mayor of the city of Boston, Michelle Wu, and so are the members of the board.

We are made up of two uh three boards specifically.

You will see again in front of you.

Uh I am the executive director, right?

Uh to the right of me or to the right of the chart, you will see OPAC Commission, which uh exists, which uh is is built with myself as the chair, um, the CRB chair, which is a civilian review board.

You will see Severean Review Board and Internal Affairs of a site panel right below OPAC Commission.

Those are members of the community that serve on our boards.

And you will see on the left side of the of the org chart as well.

You will know that OPAT administration uh led by me, including uh Deputy Director Lane.

In fact, I'm also present here with uh Michael uh Michael Berger, who's uh our uh data analyst and policy analyst.

I see uh Corey Jordan, who's our new community engagement uh person in the audience as well.

And uh, in fact, I see one of our board members with us present today.

If you go to the next slide, please.

Okay, it's okay.

Go back.

All right, looks like my talking points in this slide is a little trying to find where we are.

Uh anyways, I'll just mention briefly again that uh Josh Dankoff, who's one of the founding members of our agency on the civilian review board member uh side of of the agency, is present with us today.

Uh, there are nine members of the board, uh, or all members of the community who have deep uh community connections and long history of commitment and service across our city.

At this point, I'll go to this uh function, uh OPAT's core function slide, which is again to kind of just explain to the members of the public a bit of some core things that we do on a day-to-day basis, right?

I mentioned earlier that one of the core things that we do is conduct independent investigations uh and review of misconduct allegations and publish those findings on our website and investigations uh conducted by my team.

We have investigators on our team and ultimately reviewed and decided by the civilian review board.

Um, and on the other side, the internal affairs oversight panel, which sometimes we'll call IOP, those individuals are largely members of the legal profession who uh provide a peer review over the internal affairs decisions uh from the Boston Police Department.

You will see a key component of what we do on our second bullet.

There's transparency, we publish critical BPD statistics, including stops, arrests, use of force, uh civil settlements, uh, and the complaints that we receive uh on a day-to-day basis that are filed with OPAT.

We also uh in that same vein, maintain uh several dashboards with with reporting data again around the data that we collect both from BPD as well as those of the complaints that we receive.

We publish regular reports of our cases.

You will see again on that transparency that we produce an annual report of the FY25 and a report was released in October, and we just released a semi-annual report, which uh again is something that we're required to do on a yearly basis based on our ordinance.

All of our information, including what I'm talking about here uh in our uh office, you will find at OPAP, excuse me, Boston.gov slash opac, and for members of the public that may have questions towards us, they can email us at OPAT at Boston.gov.

Again, OPAT OPAT at Boston.gov.

One of the and I'll move on from this.

But you will see as I mentioned earlier that we do review uh and make recommendations of the of uh policies and processes from the Boston Police Department into that vein.

I'll talk a little bit about this later, but we created this fiscal year, we created a subcommittee that's called, particularly on the civilian review board side, to do this work to review policies, to review rules and make recommendations to the Boston Police Department.

One of the key things that I think, particularly since I started that I focused on, is community engagement, which I believe community engagement and education is critical part, a critical part of our ongoing work.

We educate residents in how to utilize OPAT, Office of Police Accountability.

We answer questions around uh policies uh regarding Boston Police Department, and we regularly engage on uh dialogue around the community around policing and police reform.

Next slide, please.

Here, next slide.

I talked a little bit about this, but um, those are the powers that exist again within the civilian review board.

You will see uh that its core, as I mentioned earlier, is to investigate complaints.

Um next slide.

Same thing with I mentioned this earlier with internal affairs of a site panel.

Uh it is to review cases of appeal from the internal affairs uh division of Boston Police Department for thoroughness and fairness.

They also are required to do policy reviews and have uh public hearings that we hold every quarter.

You I'll detail some of that a little later.

Next slide.

Here, again, I won't go uh in depth, but you will see particularly the flyer on the right that talks about you know the critical work that we're doing in the community engagement on the double on the bi weekly basis.

In fact, just this past Friday, we had a coffee hour, which is what that flyer indicates in Jamaica Plain.

We have those every other week on Fridays throughout the city.

We've been to every corner of the city uh the last year and a half.

You will see that we hired some team members, including investigators, and a director of administrative finance at the top there.

We continue to hire and build the capacity.

And the other thing that I want to mention, particularly around community engagement, is that we have a monthly open door days in our office at 2201 Washington Street in Newburn Square for individuals to come in and hear and talk to our team about the work that we're doing on a day-to-day basis.

The last portion of it again, you will see that, you know, I've talked to, I continue to engage particularly myself as the executive director in many capacities, including most recently talking to the members of the Black and Minister Alliance over in Roxbury.

In fact, after later today, you see that I'm going to the NAACP Boston chapter talk about the work that we're talking about, that we're doing at OPAT.

I've been to various TV, local TV stations and radio stations, including Spark FM, Java with Jimmy, the other page on BNN, and many others that are not listed there.

And finally, our social media is active on various capacities, including LinkedIn, Instagram, on Facebook, and I believe Twitter as well, or as we call it ex now.

Our community engagement individual, Corey, who's present with us, is regularly attending meetings, particularly those around safety and task force related to safety, Newbern Square in particular, Ella Baker House, Marcus Garvey Task Force, and many others throughout our community.

Next slide, please.

Perhaps a minute or two talking about the work that we've been up to.

Again, particularly the work of the boards that are that is fundamental to the work that we do.

And I'm proud to say that the boards have been fully active on the day-to-day basis and have met regularly every quarter, sometimes more.

You will see, particularly that the Severean Review Board has met nine times over the last 10 months.

And in fact, five of it includes a subcommittee policy that's been very active and meets regularly to talk about various topics and issues that are related to police in the city of Boston.

We put forth 17 cases in front of the Severean Review Board.

Sometimes we call it CRB at the title there.

That's CRB, Severe Review Board.

And I'm sure if members of the public probably have seen some of this, they've executed and sent some letters to the commission about the role of OPAT and what our expectations are and what their expectations are.

In fact, just another letter just went out a couple weeks ago, which I also shared with uh which uh with members of the city council.

It's also on our on our website.

All this information is our website for folks to access as well from home.

You will see below that internal affairs of the site has also been active, held four public meetings already.

And by the way, if I didn't mention it earlier, our meetings are all public and and largely held at our office at 2201 Washington Street.

And but the OPAC commission, the last bullet there, uh we and the OPAC commission comprised again of myself as the chair with the as well as the chairs of each board, the Civil Review Board and Internal Affairs of the Site panel.

We have meetings regularly in the community.

We've had them at Grove Old Library, we had them uh at BPS in Baldwin Building.

We've had some meetings over Zoom.

We're very active talking about, particularly around issues relating to uh you know subpoena regulations.

Uh and in fact, since I mentioned subpoena, I will say that I know this is something that members of the public have questioned uh OPAP many times in the past.

We we early this this year, a few months ago, um I believe it was February.

We we issued, we finally used our subpoena power that OPAT has.

And we subpoena uh Boston Police Department officers and staff.

This for folks that again don't understand the subpoena power, particularly exists within the OPAC commission, by two-thirds of the vote.

That is including myself, the chair of the Severe Review Board, and the chair of the Internal Affairs of Side panel.

We can vote by two-thirds to subpoena records and subpoena individuals to come and testify in front of the in front of the commission and certainly in front of the Civil Review Board and even the Internal Affairs Oversight panel.

Next slide, please.

As I close, I wanted to just kind of give you a sense of some of the things we're thinking about, thinking about going into this next fiscal year.

You will see at the at the very at the title of it, I made sure to add this morning, keep the momentum.

I think really this is critical for us to keep building on term in terms of the work that we've been doing over the past couple years, which is to continue to solidify our subpoena processes, uh execute uh the summer youth advisory council, which uh Corey, as particularly, has been leading in our office, and we should this summer uh have youth engaged in the work that we're doing.

We plan to continue to build the mediation processes to get cases done through mediation, particularly those that often you know uh involve things that can be resolved quickly.

Excuse me.

The other thing that we want to continue to do is stay in the community, engage the community on a day-to-day basis, particularly between Corey and I.

We are um every week, almost every day, daily in the part of the city of Boston, making presentations, talking to people, attending coffee hours, and engaging with the public.

Finally, you will see again that you know, my plan, our plan is to continue to update our regulations.

We've done a lot of that through the this fiscal year, through particularly through the OPAC commission, looking at our policies and procedures.

That work particularly has been led by uh uh deputy director Esther Linet to look at our investigation processes, our procedures to make sure that we update them and keep them uh robust and thorough.

And finally, one of the things that we've been working on that we should be able to release rather soon is a community survey to get a sense from the community in terms of the work that we're doing in terms of what's going on in the community and how they feel about BPD and other matters.

Um next slide, please.

I wanted to just kind of leave this slide here.

Um some of you know that I like to run uh and in fact I belong to this group called Black Man, Black Man Run in the City of Boston.

I belong to many other groups uh running.

And we're doing next Saturday, May 23rd, we're doing a 5K run walk out of Blair lot, which is essentially across the street from the OPAT office, the public, the public uh lot that's that's the city of Boston public lot over there across the street.

We're gonna be meeting there for folks that want to come in, hang with us, uh run, walk, participate, engage with the community.

Uh, we'd be happy to to have you there.

Uh I figured again, kind of ending on this point of of community engagement is critical uh in terms of the work that we do.

And uh all are welcome, please.

Uh again, the fly I should say, all are welcome and all are needed.

If you don't run, uh if if you walk, please join us.

And uh, you know, you can walk as low as one mile or even less, and you can run uh 5K.

Uh it's not a race, even though if there was a race, I probably win it.

Now that's uh I kid uh I do like to run and race often.

Um but it's a passion of mine, and I figured uh, particularly in terms of the work that we do, the more spaces we are in as OPAT, the more spaces we engage the community, the better it is uh for for the office.

Let's um I think I'm ending now.

Um I I wanted to to close with this by saying, uh, and then I'll take some questions.

Welcome uh Councillor Cope.

Uh this challenge and you know the work that we do, certainly over the past couple couple months, you've seen how how relevant, how timely, how needed it is in the city of Boston.

Unfortunately, we've had two incidents of office involved shootings and deaths in our city.

And you've seen us, you've seen me, you've seen Esther, you've seen uh Corey in these spaces engaging the community about the work that we do.

Uh this is certainly challenging work, but it's necessary work.

It's it's work of civil rights, it's work of of human rights.

And uh, you know, as I close, I wanted to just kind of remind us that next next week, actually a week from today, Monday the 25th, will be the six years of anniversary of the death of George Floyd, and um again to reflect on the work that's needed to continue to do in the city of Boston and certainly throughout the nation to move the ball forward.

I will say, you know, as I close again, I I've been reading a book about which is called His Life.

His name is George Floyd.

It was written by Robert Samuels, and it's about the life of George Floyd.

And it's interesting because they open he opens up the book talking about how much George Floyd told his family and friends, I love you.

And if you remember correctly, uh during those nine minutes and 29 seconds, which uh, you know, of his breath, his last breast with uh a knee of a police officer on his neck, he was screaming, I can't breathe, but he also mustered the courage and uh the willpower to yell to his mother, I love you, mama.

And you know, for me, this work that we do I think is really about love, and uh, you know, it goes without saying, particularly in the city of Austin.

We know Mel King often used to say this, uh, you know, love is the question, and love is also the answer.

And for me, as as we struggle, particularly in this time in the city of Boston, with so many relevant, complex issues.

I know you all are uh debating it on a day-to-day basis.

Uh I've been before the city council.

This is probably I was there last month.

I was there, I've talked to many of you offline, and I know that these issues matter to you, uh, but we all do it whether it's you know in Roxbury through OPAT or in your various councilor districts or at large, you do it for the love of the city that we that we that we serve.

And again, in that note, um I want to just thank you for the opportunity to serve, and I'll take any questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

I apologize, Deputy Director Lennet.

I said Lane.

Um, reading all this stuff.

Uh okay.

So we're joined uh uh by uh Counselor Durkin, Councillor Culpeper.

Uh we're gonna go uh six minutes, Councillor Louis Jen, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Chair, and want to thank you uh Director Carvalho and Deputy Director Lenay for being here.

Congratulations to Corey for joining the team.

Um, and thank you, uh Director Carajo for situating and reminding us sort of where this work originated and the powerful and overwhelming last words of George George Floyd reminds us that there's of the weight of the work and why this is so important.

Just remembering that was a life that should have that should still be living right now, and so just wanted to um thank you for grounding us in that.

Uh I have a few questions.

Um you talked about, you know, OPAT has issued its first subpoena, and that's more than that's happened in the past, so that's a good step forward.

Can you talk about whether the subpoena has been complied with or whether it's in the process of being complied with?

And on what date did you issue that subpoena?

It was before February 12th.

The meeting was we so we thank you um for that question.

We we had a meeting as uh CRB, the civilian review board met on February 12th, so the meeting, and the board, the the commission voted, I believe a week or two before that, to issue two vote.

So it had to be early set early February, okay.

And the answer to answer your your question, I believe, to be honest, both is as happened.

We the the subpoena has been complied with by by a number of officers.

We are still, you know, for many of those cases uh in that space, and and obviously, as you as I said, I think I've said this in the past before this board, it's the first time that we've done this step.

So there's some kicks, there's some challenges around it that I believe we're gonna be able to conquer.

But it's both being sub being been, you know, I guess.

Some officers have complied and did come before the board and testify.

We also had officers, we also had officers who um we had one meeting on February 12th, and then we had a next our next meeting um after that, and we had some officers in between the two civilian review board meetings also come in um to um interview and to cooperate.

So, as you said, it is something that's in progress at this time, um, but it it's the first time, so we are trying to iron out all the case.

Thank you.

And then I guess another question that I have is um, you know, I think you're still in the process of compliance with the subpoena, but let in the event that it's not honored, what is OPAT's actual enforcement protocol and who makes the decision to go to court if necessary.

The you know, OPAT, like all city departments, I believe, we are represented by the chief legal counsel uh and you know, the law department of the city.

So the process is for them to go to court and and try to enforce the subpoena.

Okay.

Um ordinance says that when CRB sustains a complaint, it has to make disciplinary recommendations, and if the commissioner chooses not to implement the recommend recommended as discipline, he has to notify the CRB of the discipline imposed and explain why the recommendation was not accepted.

The letter from last year from the CRB says some recon recommendations remain unanswered for more than a year, and that only a small number of sustained findings have led to discipline, often less serious than what CRB is recommended.

And you know, I it I said it before, and I'll say it again, we can't have an office that has no teeth, and that's not um actually like living up to the intent behind its creation.

So I'm wondering if you believe, and we've talked about this already, uh uh Director Carvajal, if the ordinance should be amended to require a fixed response deadline, uh, either 30 or 45 days so that CRB findings cannot sit unanswered indefinitely by the pro by the police department.

Great question.

Uh I number one, we the OPAC commission voted actually, I believe it was 40 before.

I think we we voted for 45 days, and so which attempting essentially to do that through regulations, and uh, but the city council is welcome to weigh in as well, obviously.

So you think that's something that could be accomplished via regulation?

Correct.

Okay, understood.

Yeah, that's something that my team has cared uh about because if they could just not answer any of your recommendations, like there would there is there's no point to this to the thing in chance.

So um so I have a question about sending CRB cases to internal affairs.

The CRB uh letter identifies several cases where after CRB findings and discipline recommendations were made, the commission submitted the cases to internal affairs.

Um but uh there's statute uh CRB that there's a statute that doesn't allow the commission to change or undo a sustained finding.

Correct, but only to decide whether to implement the recommended discipline and explain why not.

As a broader matter, uh, does the practice make OPAT a true civilian oversight body if it could be disregarded, or does it effectively turn a OPAT into an advisory intake process?

So that's that's the critical question that that we've been debating over the past, you know, nine months if you were when the first letter went out, which ultimately the decision, you know, is is with the commission, right?

So in that point, it's recommendations, and so that's the reason why the CRB, the civilian review board in particular, has been sort of uh very uh active in that space through letters expressing.

Can I ask you one more question before my time is up?

Sure.

So, you know, in the letter that you sent to the commissioner, you said um, you know, the department said that moving forward OPAT will need to share with the department the evidence and materials relied upon in reaching its findings.

Just want to hear from you why is this a point of contention, why is it something you wouldn't want to share with the police department?

Yeah, so that I'm glad another great question.

That's another issue that we are debating, particularly the OPAC, well, both the Civil Review Board and the OPAC Commission, the OPAC Commission can try to regulate that space to to decide which in the ordinance to decide what we can share.

But ultimately, you know, our position and the position of the CRB in those letters is that we cannot share uh information, particularly those that come in from civilians that file complaint, right?

Because they came to us, uh, because they don't want to go to Boston Police Department, right?

And so that sort of beats the purpose.

If we're doing if somebody's coming to us as often says to be heard and seen, and then you know, months later, years later, they have to now go before the the the you know the internal affairs division, right?

Or get questioned by police officers or detectives question them about the cases that they come before.

So they come in, and that's why we were designed.

I mean, I think I said in the beginning, at least based on what the city council said, it was to be a single point entry, right?

And to find a back doorway, that's concerning.

And so that's a space that we're not gonna, and talking to the certainly what the CRB has discussed, and and both chairs of the boards, uh, this is a space, uh space of contention that we're not willing to to work on.

And the bigger question as well that we're debating is around the ability for uh, and this is you know the commissioner's position and the BPD's commission to send it back to CRB to internal affairs for revision, right?

Or for further investigation, which is the the where they are now uh that we send cases from the CRP, they send it to Internal Affairs Division for for further investigation.

So this is another big issue that we're publicly debating.

Thank you.

Okay, and part of it too is 80 percent of the uh information uh we are getting it from BPD.

So the evidence, the discovery, a lot of it is you know, for the body one camera and everything else.

So it as far as their possession in their possession, and as far as uh the um complainants themselves, um, the roadmap would be to also acknowledge the fact that you know, with confidentiality that they came to us, um, and there was no nothing ever signed by them that that information was going to be shared the way that it does, but we do provide transparency in the sense that the complainant, the intake form, there's a redacted version of the complaint that um Boston Police Department does receive, um, representative from the BPD does receive, and they can um go from there.

So, and then we also publish everything online once the board makes its decision.

There's a case report that the investigators um have created that the board also has had the opportunity to review and making their decisions that's also published as well with some redactions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

But you mentioned civilian complainants.

Like, are there also uh you know police officer whistleblowers that you would have to devote?

Like, is that an issue also?

That that's uh great question.

We we in fact we do have we don't you know mostly we have civilians, but we have a number of police officers that continue to come to our office.

And again, in those situations, uh perhaps even more sensitive, right?

Uh, in terms of you know, turning over information about who filed complaints and what they're saying, uh, we do our best, as I just mentioned, to kind of capture the the testimony and redact information and give it to BPD so it's there where in terms of what people are saying in a particular complaint, and again, the particularly the intake form, which is one of the ways that people can complain.

Um, actually, I didn't mention this, uh, members of the public.

You can complain on our website.

We have an intake form there, you can call our office.

Uh, we have intake coordinators that can take your complaint, you can walk in.

Um so uh, but you know, confidentiality of that information and protecting people that come to office.

I think it remains paramount and and to the work that we do.

Okay, yeah, no, sorry.

Just I had a for my colleagues, I had a case where it's a police officer in a small town in Massachusetts, and he there was a video dash, there was like a dash cam footage of somebody using excessive force in an arrest.

And he let someone outside the department know that that there was excessive use of force and they should look into this.

And then they did an investigation, they had the video, and they said, Well, this isn't an excessive force, but we should uh terminate the person who alerted, you know, outside people because he violated departmental rules by divulging that this existed in the first place.

So I mean I uh my colleagues can follow up on that.

Anyways, real it's a real issue where if you just try to blow the whistle on on something, you could get, you know, you could lose your job.

Anyway, so Councillor Durkin, are you up six minutes?

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, I thank you, um Director Carvalho, and um I'm just curious.

One thing I heard from folks that are on um the review board is that they're they feel like they're not keeping up with like all of the complaints that exist.

Can you explain?

Is there a backlog of complaints?

No, I don't believe this backlog of complaints, uh at least at this point.

We, you know, when I came in the first you know, spring of 2024, we didn't have a deputy, you know, some investigators left, and um, so you know, our dashboard, in fact, you know, that was something that was published, our dashboard went went down for a bit.

But I believe since we have, you know, particularly since Esther started a year ago, we were we're caught up.

There's cases that certainly, you know, maybe a few years old that have various complications happening, or maybe it's a pendant case in court that we have to wait and other things that are happening that uh that have perhaps you know cause delay of some cases, that happens.

But we have been, particularly since Esther came on a year ago, been very critical at thinking about how to move cases forward, particularly those that are older cases, and at the same time moving cases forward that are that are coming in.

Um so I don't believe that.

There's not currently a backlog, no.

Okay, yeah, just to be clear as um Director Clavalo saying is that you have cases in this is all part of the investigation piece, right?

There are some cases that um there might be an open criminal situation going on and we're trying to have it to its course as far as visibility or us having um visibility of those complaints, we have visibility.

The investigations are continuing.

Um the CRB board obviously meets, you know, um they don't meet every month, but we try to have as often meetings that we can.

So what we're doing right now is you know, trying to push the cases that we that are ready to go before the board.

So there are cases, yes, as far as the date of incident or the date that they were submitted to um our office that may be a year or two years old, but we are we have some visibility over those cases, and um we are trying to push them forward to the board.

And what is the regular cadence of the civilian report review board meetings?

They meet uh minimally quarterly.

Okay.

That's the required, but I think certainly this year we'll likely over overpass that.

Okay.

As I mentioned, particularly the subcommittee where we've met several times, and uh so I I think you know, as we go towards FY27, we're gonna continue to look closely at those cases and make sure that we're moving cases along.

Um, and can you just uh follow up on some of counselor Louis Jeanne's questioning, um what exactly is the reasoning for the open letter to Commissioner Cox, and is it can it be explained towards just different legal uh interpretations of whose job is what or how do how do we how do we as city counselors interpret that letter?

The well, so I think really it's a debate around the role of of OPAC.

You know, as as the counselor said earlier, particularly, you know, I will say one number one things have progressed in terms of response letters being provided to us, and but it's sort of you know initially as she was saying, where we're sending recommendations and not being a dead too.

We're not getting responses in a timely fashion.

And again, now a lot of that's progressed in terms of timely uh responses, but it's it's it's saying we are here to do a job and you're not listening to us, right?

Our job is to recommend recommendations.

Now, within that, yes, we were created by law, and obviously the BPD uh as uh you know legal requirements as well.

So that's sort of the debate there, right?

You see the commissioner pointing to some language, even around.

Do they have different attorneys?

Are you relying on different attorneys for your interpretations?

The attorneys, yes, in a sense.

And to be honest, I'm not sure.

Like the letter that comes to us are signed by the commissioner, and most recently by um but superintendent, right?

Uh Rachel Dahill.

So it's not necessarily in a far end, you know.

It's it it's it's the board debating mostly, right?

It's interpretation by the board, it's it's you know, subcommittee meeting and looking at those, and it's looking at the ordinance, right?

And so I can't say whether you know it was a lawyer on their side that wrote the letter in a sense, right?

The letter is, and you know, the letter, which is one of the things that the that the board, our board, severe and review board has issue with it's sort of just a state laws or like broad language, it's just not sort of in legal, you know, I'm an attorney, essence of attorneys.

Sometimes you point to the to the exact language and say we have to follow by this or that, right?

And what I'm trying to get at is, like, is if corporation counsel is your attorney, then you're essentially represented by the city of Boston.

Correct.

And they have different legal counsel at BPD.

No, they're they're the legal, as far as my understanding, the legal council, the they have, we're both represented by the by the city of Boston, law department.

We have rules.

And that's where my confusion's coming from.

It does feel like there should be the city's legal counsel should be speaking with one voice on what the role of OPAT is.

That's what I'm getting at.

Right.

Yes, in a sense, right.

But um, you know, I guess to go back to the the legal department provides counsel to both agencies.

We're both city agencies, right?

We, you know, and again, BPD, I actually know a couple of their lawyers over there, they have lawyers over there.

We have lawyers assigned to us through the law department.

The debate that that's happening through through the civilian review board is through the severe review board, is what I'm saying.

Right.

So that's that's what I'm trying to get you to understand, in a sense, right?

I don't want on the BPD side, it could be the lawyers, it could be someone else.

I can't make that inference, right?

But the debate, I think it's yes, it is it is legal, but it's also policy and in public policy, right?

What is the role of OPAT, right?

So I think that's sort of the law matters, right?

Because the framework, particularly of OPAT is designed through the ordinance.

We can so when the civilian review board is speaking to the to our ordinance, you know, it'll point and say this is based on that.

So all of that's there, like a simplification of law.

But I think there's a larger conversation that's happening uh from the Severe and Review Board and OPAD is what is the role of OPAT and you know what what else we need to do.

So there that's what I'm trying to get you understand.

Thank you so much.

And I do know we have two attorneys on the council too that might weigh in on this, but sorry, go ahead.

No, no, I was saying too is through our ordinance, it's required for us, you know, what the civilian review board makes its decision is to send those recommendations to the commissioner who then has to respond.

So when you see the letters, and as Ivan Joe um pointed out earlier, you know, since he has he started um at OPAT, there's been more um regular civilian review board um meetings as well as IP meetings, and so those letters are coming out.

We were dealing with a situation where we were waiting for them to respond to some of the cases that were decided.

And so this back and forth with letters, this is something that through the ordinance regularly happens because once the board makes its decision, the board has to send um well OPAT sends uh notice to the commissioner via letter of the decision, and the commissioner, according to the ordinance, needs to respond.

And so um part of uh the dialogue has been the prior um board decisions that were made, some of them before Ivan Joe came on board, as well as the new ones that came in at as and we're trying to iron out as Yvonne stated, the cadence with regards to giving a timeline of the responses to the cases that the board has reviewed.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, we've been joined by Counselors Warrell and Braden.

Uh Councilor Culpepper, uh, six minutes for first round.

Thank you.

Uh Chair Weber, and good to see you again.

Uh Vam Jewel.

I wanted to pick up on what uh Council Durkin was asking about the letters, and I wanted to ask about the letter that the civilian review board issued uh regarding the authority of OPAC and the investigations and the findings under Massachusetts law.

Do we have that letter this morning?

Do you have that letter?

I have it.

Can we have a copy of that letter?

Yes, yeah, and and yes, you can.

And I I actually sent it to you via email as well.

Uh, you might have missed it.

I didn't see it in the in the in the information.

Okay.

I I'm happy to if you want me to hand it to you now.

I can.

Yeah.

And you just let it copy.

So they issued a letter, and was it uh a letter questioning OPAD's authority, or was it a letter affirming OPAT's authority?

It's affirming.

I mean, the letter is it responding again.

So the sequence of events was in in September of 2025.

Uh, the CRB, the civilian review board first wrote a letter.

This was mid-September, if I remember correctly.

Okay, just saying, you know, we made recommendations, we're not getting letters back, we're not getting response.

So the letter that happened in in you know, September of 2025.

And then go ahead.

That letter went to the commissioner?

Correct.

The letter went to the commissioner, it was also public uh on our website, and then the commissioner sent us a letter, I believe, in December, replying, uh, particularly pointing to you know the fact that one he wants now, one of the cases that would be we go on to the internal affairs division after we make decisions, right?

Uh that those that's the protocol.

Number two, that he now wants us to send all of share of our information which we just talked about in terms of what evidence we've relied upon to make decisions.

That's number two.

Number three, you know, just pointing to uh, you know, state law in and collective bargaining agreements that he can't just essentially take our word for it, that he has to, you know, that he can't that he has to abide by the state laws and collective bar agreement agreement.

Uh, and in that case, in order for him to for him to do his job, we need to send him information and do all these different things.

Now, this is number three.

This is the now, few months a few months later.

Now, this is the reply to that.

Does that make sense?

There's three letters now.

Right.

So the commissioner responded to you.

I wanted to just look at for just a minute, the cases that uh the letters that have gone to the commissioners.

Correct.

How many in fiscal 25 and fiscal 26?

I don't know that off top of my head.

I can get back to you.

The letters about the cases, yeah.

So uh let me see how I can best respond to this.

The letter that you sent.

Yes, so the letters, the every time we uh we met, we've met several times, okay.

How many letters did you send to the commissioner?

I'm trying to sort of okay.

So, so let me just kind of try to separate the two issues here, at least in my mind.

The let we're talking about these letters here, right?

That's just from the CRB policy side, but every time that the board meets and make decisions on cases, right, those those cases are now packaged into a letter with reports and sent to the commission, right?

But those uh I don't remember exactly how many, but every time we meet, and we typically have eight to eight cases, five to eight cases, those decisions when they're made, we send those decisions with the reports to the commission.

I don't have the exact number of so the CRB heard 17 cases, right?

Yes, they sustained four of the 17, right?

Correct.

And 15 of those 17 sustained rule violations during the fiscal year 26.

Correct.

Now, when you sent those rule violations, that was the letters right that you sent to the commissioner.

15 of them sustained violations.

Correct.

How many of them did you get answers to?

I I believe uh where we are, and uh I kind of overstated here, generalizing here, the the spaces that we are with all those cases, is that the commissioners now sent the letter, okay.

What let me just back up again.

Just hold on, Councillor Cope, I'm pausing your time.

I'm just okay.

But uh if you look at the the uh the director's response on May 1st, there is a sentence on the third pages.

There remain eight cases of sustained findings for which your office, this is the the police the commissioner, police commissioner continues to be unresponsive.

I was about I was just about yeah, just so I just it's in there.

I just want I know you just got the letter, so I wanted to highlight that if you wanted to ask about it.

You read a little faster than I do, yeah.

But let me I was just about to get to this to those cases.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, I'll start your time whenever you're ready.

So you said there were eight that were unresponded to that's the letter says there remain eight cases of sustained findings for which the police commissioner continues to be unresponsive.

That's just what the letter states.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So so with those eight cases that have not been responded to, what action do you take next?

So good question.

Number one, just by way of an update, since that letter went out, we've gotten responses back.

Now the response is to the eight that haven't been responded to, right.

But the responses are these now.

The responses are saying we are sending this case to Internal Affairs Oversight, excuse me, internal affairs division, ID of BPD for further investigation to review the decision that you made finally violations.

Correct.

And so do you make recommendations to the commissioner about disciplinary action?

Correct.

On a sustained case, correct.

And so when you make the recommendations to the commissioner, the commission is now saying I understand you want us to discipline this officer, but we're now going to refer to the internal affairs.

Correct.

And after it's referred to the internal affairs, what response do you get or have you gotten on those eight cases from the internal affairs?

We have not gotten response in those eight cases.

Nothing.

Correct.

And with regard to the subpoena power, your subpoena power is broad enough to subpoena uh police officers.

Correct.

Information that the internal affairs division has, or could you subpoena the internal affairs reviewer to hear from them about the status of those cases?

Yeah, but technically we can, yes.

And have you thought about that?

We have.

We had actually one case that that was case 18 in which you know they produced a 30-page report indicating that you know essentially they weren't gonna follow our our uh our regulations, excuse me, our recommendations, your recommendations, right?

Mr.

Chair, I just have one question, or is there a second round?

Do you want me to wait till the second?

There will be a second round, but you have to have one more round.

No, I'm not sure, but I mean if you want me to go, I'll go.

No, no, it's okay.

Respect to our colleagues.

Uh thank you, Councillor Culpepper.

Councilor Orrell, six minutes.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the panel for being here.

Um, one of my questions is around I know we have like the Finance Commission, which is an independent um, well, more of an independent body than OPAT.

I believe the governor appoint um the chair, and I uh Council Braden is uh has been champion um more investments into the finance commission.

Other departments across the country, um that are comparable to OPAC, are they built into the system like the one that we have here in Boston, or are they more independent like the Finance Commission?

Good question.

Uh in fact, we we are exploring that option now.

Looking closely in terms of finding out other departments that are uh and what they're doing.

I would say, you know, I think our office is highly unique in this space that we have, you know, the various boards, and uh but mo I will say most of them are within like a city or or county agency, and uh even state, right?

The question that I think you're trying to get to in terms of the decision making, right?

Um, I don't necessarily have the answer right now to that question, but we are exploring.

Got it.

Um, when it comes to um investigations, can OPAT investigate things automatically without a complaint being filed?

So if you know you or anyone in your office read something in the newspaper or um something was said to you.

I think the independent um well the inspector general kind of has has these powers on going after something or investigating something that is not formally being submitted as a complaint, correct?

Do we have those powers um currently with OPAC?

Yes, and we particularly my team and I we get videos and complaints, like inquiries all the time, right?

In terms of particularly now with social media is what's going on in this area or that area, right?

Uh, with a police officer involved.

Uh we've seen some particular youth-related matters, and typically what we we done with those is uh inquire of BPD, you know, to send us information around those cases, okay.

Now, to answer your question, the power we, as in the OPAC administration led by me, can do, you know, can start looking at things.

But in order for it to become an official complaint, if you will, if it's not submitted by member of the public, we would then the CRB, the civilian review board, has to vote to create that complaint.

So it's not it's not automatic, right?

In a sense, in fact, I believe the threshold for voting is a little higher too than um then than 50%, if you will.

Uh so they need uh, I think two-thirds um uh decision, right?

So in order to create a complaint, automatically.

But we also, you know, not to discourage individuals, we you know we take complaints particularly anonymously, so folks just sending a note, sending a text, coming on our website, people do that all the time.

So uh I do think I mean that's that's that's a good tool to have.

I think, you know, I think in terms of the complaints that we have and what we're looking at, particularly some of the debates that we're talking about now.

Um, I don't think that's one of the things that I'm sort of focusing on, at least in terms of utilizing that too.

Now, if members of the CRB particularly see something, they can we can take a vote.

Got it.

But every time we get uh kind of close, every time I get something from someone in the community, I'll start, you know, looking at it and then sort of figure out is this BPD already looking at it?

Is there was this you know, was this a crime, right?

Uh again, one of the things that you know we have in our ordinance is that if if somebody's arrested uh uh they you know that we we're not supposed to interfere with with criminal investigation.

So those things all factor in um in terms of what we do.

Got it.

And then we have posts on the state level, OPAD here.

Is there I guess seamless like coordination with OPAD and post, like, talk talk to me about the coordination and the relationship um with post.

Well, I will say number one, uh, I personally have a good work relationship with the my counterpart over there in RIKE.

We've I've met with him several times, we talk once in a while, and but that's number one.

Number two, the Severean Review Board as well as the OPAC commission is uh particularly commission is voting to to have our reports sent to to them automatically, particularly those that are sustained cases.

So this is something that we're gonna put in place um to make sure that our decisions along with going to to BPD commissioner, and obviously we share them with you as well that it'll be going to to the post commission.

Good to hear.

And so we'll continue to build that that that's partnership.

And then um, this goes to the cost of police misconduct.

Um can you state for the record how many uh civil lawsuits claims or settlements involving allegations of excessive force, police brutality, or serious misconduct the city has faced in the last five years, and if you could break it out right year by year, um and what is the total dollar amount paid by the city?

Again, if we could break it out year by year, been in those matters, and then whether OPAD has reviewed those cases for patterns of misconduct, supervision failures, or the need um for disciplinary and policy reform.

Great question, counselor.

We in fact I was looking at Michael to see if we have we have data in that in that uh in that space.

I'm not sure we have it to detail that you're talking about, particularly annually, uh, for the past five years, but this is something that we can consider, particularly as we do the annual report to to make sure we break down that information further for people to consume.

But I don't know.

But I do believe it's part of the ordinance for OPAC to track that on it.

We do.

Yes, we do.

We are tracking it.

I'm I'm asked to answer your question now to sort of tell you the information I don't have in front of me as well.

I do have another question, but um, if it's quick.

Yeah, no, it's fine.

Okay.

Okay, uh Councilor Braden.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good morning.

Good to see you both.

Um my colleagues have covered a lot of ground already here.

Um I was just wondering in terms of um compliance enforcement when BPD employees refuse to comply with OPAD subpoenas.

What is the escalation process and and what what sort of tools do you have to uh push for more uh cooperation?

So uh great question, madam, madam president, I should say.

And that process we're figuring out now, to be honest, because as I just said earlier, we just uh is we just issued subpoena for the first time, and we are working out you know a lot of those cases, a few of those cases have s have closed, a few of them are pending.

We are talking with the law department in terms of what that you know to flesh out what that process looks like, but ultimately the the you know the process that's in the ordinance requires you know the city, if you will, um, and obviously through the law department, because there are lawyers to go to the superior court to essentially you know compel the the testimonies.

Okay.

And I will say that's the just uh we have particularly since then um been in collaboration with union reps, particularly those uh that represent the uh the patrol mission association to figure out what uh what that system looks like going forward.

Okay, and then does OPAD refer cases to the law department, the police commissioner, or other entities, like if you find cause for further action, like who do you refer to?

So, our our processes currently, there when decisions in the cases are made by the by the boards, which is also again within the ordinance, the processes that we send uh the reports to the commissioner asking them to execute.

We also are required to to share with uh CC the mayor and the city council.

Those are the steps that primarily we've been taking.

And as I just mentioned, we are increasingly getting in the space to work with the post commission to start sending those decisions as well.

Yeah, um in the budget book, we have targeted um a target for next year of 140 complaints.

How do you how do you come up with the number?

Last year it was 145, or for this year that we're just finishing out 145.

It you somebody talked about cadence.

You sort of there's a prediction, you've been in this, it's been how going on now for four or five years, so you've got a sense of what sort of cases volume comes through.

Is that yes?

That's a fair assessment.

We you know, we usually have about 130 plus cases last year, and a report we had 137, I believe, or 143, and that was the largest amount.

So we just look at you know the pattern and try to do better next year.

So that's how we make the assessment in terms of you know what the what the next year will be like.

Is there a you know a sense of the the community, the public are more aware of your existence and that you're getting more more referrals, more cases for third.

Um how is the are the complaints um still of a serious nature, or they're in terms of seriousness or frivolity?

Like are they how do you how do you sift out the um the cases that you're going to take on?

Yes, uh so uh the cases, ma'am, uh they all obviously people come to us with with their with their matters and uh they they often uh are upset about what happened uh in terms of you know determination of seriousness.

I would say uh in fact I have some data on that.

The cases that we're seeing in terms of breakdown, we call them nature of cases, right?

I believe about 30% of them are uh neglect of duty.

Right?

The police officer comes to someone home uh or meet them on the street, and the person needs help and the person does not feel that the police officer um was helpful or was helpful, right?

And along with that, you're also seeing disrespectful treatment in that same incident, right?

Where the person feels that we've yelled or said something that they shouldn't have said to them, you see a lot of those.

And then uh I think the third component of that is abuse of authority, uh, in terms of uh people feeling again that the police did not act uh appropriately, right?

That they did something they shouldn't have been doing.

We asked you to do this, you instead, you know, I call the police, you will see those.

I called the police because I believe I was a victim of a crime.

You come in, you arrest me, or you're yelling at me, right?

Uh you see uh you see some of those happening.

So in and this is why uh cases outcomes you will have one case, but they may have three or four allegations of misconduct, which in that one incident you can have various things happening.

So um I'll go back to this uh this letter, the the remaining eight cases of sustained findings for which your office continues to be on responsive.

That was the letter to Commissioner Cox.

Um what what recourse do you have if if you feel uh if you understand that you're not getting the response that you as an as uh opad require from the commissioner?

Is there any recourse?

I'm just wondering.

To a certain extent, you've seen the recourse, right?

You see in the debate, the public debate, right?

You see in the civil review board reacting to to lack, at least they feel of of due credit, right, to the work that they're doing.

The in terms of decisions of the case, right, specifically, is the course, you know, ultimately the decision, and it's built in the ordinance, is that the commissioner has the final say in terms of determination of whether he uh uh disciplinary action is going to be taken or not.

The one of the things that the letter, this letter in the past is sort of debate in opposition to the review board's position, is that you know the decisions of the board are final to vote whether the person did something wrong or not.

The commissioner can only decide what kind of discriminate uh discriminator, excuse me, discipline discipline, thank you.

Discipline they can it can issue or they can issue, they cannot unsustain if if if the board says something that uh somebody did something, they cannot choose to say no, this did not happen that way, or I'm gonna sustain it.

So that's another point again that's you'll see in the debate happening, uh, in which we had at least one case, which the commissioner unsustained we call it, right?

They voted the board, voted, and they are sustained the case.

So a lot of that, you know, that's the process uh that exists right now.

But again, you know, the the good news is that you can see that.

You can you know the debate is happening, yeah, and hopefully, you know, we can settle uh, you know, in years to come, we can settle in terms of protocol, yeah, in terms of where things go.

And and really you're it's a it's a fairly new office, so it's the five years seems like a long time, but it's it's evolving and your um it's a commitment to openness, transparency, and accountability.

So um thank you for your work.

I have to go to another meeting, so I'm gonna leave before another round, but thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, uh thank you.

A few questions, and then uh go to Councillor Culpepper for uh some follow-ups.

Um it looks like from the permanent employees, uh there's like forty-one thousand coming out of that line item.

Are you losing a permanent position?

We are not losing any permanent positions.

We uh we have two openings right now that uh per obviously the citywide decision to to you know maintain and lower costs where we're delaying some some hiring of people uh of a couple of people, but we're not officially losing anyone through this budget.

Okay, and just in terms of like staffing levels, like are you are you able to handle the the complaints coming in and deal with them in a timely manner or do you feel like the that you don't have enough staff and maybe counselor cobalt asked this before but I I um do you have enough staff to to handle the work or great great question honestly I think we we you know like many other city departments can use more help but we also understand that you know the predicament the city is in now and uh more importantly I think we the team that we are now we're small but we're mighty I think we're we're we're doing great work moving the the work forward um but you know hopefully as as we continue to execute and complaints continue to increase um there may be some space for for increase in the future okay and then I see yeah you had like thirty two thousand last this this fiscal year for emergency employees but zero for next year is that gonna is that part of the just you know tightening belts um is that gonna impact your your work uh let me take a oh no I should I shouldn't okay no I'm just I read that wrong okay so uh it's just it's zero is the amount it's changing so that's okay yes I guess that makes sense I was I was again I was getting a little alarmed I was like I thought we had some I just I just crossed some stuff out um uh okay and then so generally what I feel like one of the issues we're talking about and how this should work is is it still that the police department says it needs to basically review your own fact findings like by sending it to internal affairs it's like you you find Officer Smith drove through a red light and that he should be suspended for a month and they're saying that like it's the my sense of reading the or the ordinance is like you're supposed to send we found he drove through the red light a month but yeah I'm just example that month suspension is appropriate and the commissioner can say well I'm gonna deviate from that month because I you know he driving through a red light in pursuit of someone you know maybe he's suspended for a day uh but he's not supposed to go back and do his own investigation and say the light was green you know you're like you're you were wrong about that so is that still kind of that's where it's at the heart of this debate and then like so I I when they drew up this ordinance were they did they think that the like is this just an error in drafting or did they do you think that when people were talking about doing this that they they thought internal affairs should be able to just review the fact findings of the great question I think you know this is I sort of articulated earlier the ordinance you know in 2020 was life changing right it was it was amazing to create this agency and you know like anything uh once you start putting pedal to the metal we start executed it you start seeing gaps you start seeing uh things that are perhaps perhaps in the ordinance was was silent on or uh wasn't clear on but you know to kind of go back to your question I think at least from our point of view the obviously they should review what we send the question that's that we have stand firm against is sort of to redo the investigation like obviously you any time you make recommendations you want you should review right what will happen but the the the redo the investigation through the internal affairs to contact all the people involved right that's where like we're not seeing out of yeah I guess like an appeals court they don't redo the trial correct you know they uh they don't call the witnesses and they say okay here's the record that's been produced by the lower body and this this is how it usually works right um correct and and and to be honest that's how one of our uh you know boards function the internal affairs division functions like that right it's review of the internal affairs division of the PD's decisions and those come in through file and review those things and send uh and make you make recommendations.

Um, but the core again of this debate is is that you know people come to office and uh to feel heard and seen and um they may feel intimidated, you know, years later to not have to talk to the police again about something that they would you know they already talked to us, it perhaps they've often they've already gone before the board, right?

So it almost gone unfortunately makes you know a chilling effect in terms of what this office was designed to do.

Okay, and then the the eight of the uh sustained findings that they've been unresponsive on.

Can you just give us a sense and not in like you know, asking for confidential information?

Like what are those cases about?

It just do you have like a you know excessive use of force, something I I just I don't know.

I'm trying to, good question.

I'm trying to remember if there was any excessive use of forcing amongst those cases, um, you know, but I will say I think largely you know the data it's probably aligned with what I said earlier that that mainly uh abuse of authority, neglect of duty, yeah, and is there a theme in the ones that get responded to and the ones that they're just ignoring?

So here's the thing, right?

Then at this point, they're not ignored, right?

The and I'm talking to the council here, the the processes now that it's gonna go to further investigation, right?

So most of the cases that we've recently produced under this fiscal year are in that space now, right?

So we're not you know, we we don't have any recent, particularly on sustained cases, okay that says okay, we did this, so they agree with the IAD.

Correct.

Okay, okay, thank you very much.

Uh Counselor Culpepper.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna set the timer at five minutes.

So obviously.

So before OPAT was created, there was an internal affairs division.

Correct.

And community member may come to the Boston police and file a complaint with the internal affairs division.

They would investigate and make the determination.

Am I correct?

Correct.

And because of the outcry from the public, and the public feeling that internal affairs wasn't meeting their needs in terms of the cases that were filed, OPEP was created.

Correct.

And so as a result of OPEC, the letter that they sent was really to try and make it clear to the Boston Police Department that IED really had no authority to review your decisions.

In fact, in the letter it says, please explain, and this is a letter to the commissioner, ID, please explain your reasoning, citing to specific case law and legislative authority that led you to the assertion that Massachusetts general laws, civil service rules and guidance, and collective bargaining agreements take precedent over the OPET ordinance, and that the Boston Police Department cannot sustain an allegation or impose disciplinely solely on the basis of OPEC.

Now, my first question is did they ever give you a response regarding the request here to explain their reasoning into cite to specific case law and legislative authority?

No, that letter sir is new.

Um, so um there was a couple weeks ago, so they haven't given us response.

But you know, this issue was outstanding even before the letter was sent.

Correct.

This is the third letter in this in this right.

And what response have they given you to justify the IAD reviewing your decisions?

I don't think we've gotten anything specific.

Nothing based on the case law.

Correct.

Nothing based on ordinances.

Correct.

Nothing based on precedent.

No, and is there a rationale that makes sense that they responded to you with without putting it in writing?

I mean, I'm trying to understand how this makes sense.

Help me understand how IAD reviewing your recommendation makes sense.

Common sense.

I'm not even talking about the law.

What makes them think they're gonna get a better decision out of IAD who the public had a problem with before you were created, that now they can review your decisions and come to what conclusion?

Can they reverse your decision?

We're saying that they cannot reverse our decision.

And so you really need an ordinance change so that we can, if we can in the city council, resolve this issue for you.

Is that what you're saying we should do that to try and resolve this issue?

If they can't answer you, we should answer you.

Let me read something else to you, Shaw.

They want all your evidence whenever you review something.

They want all everything you've used, they want you to turn it over to the BPD when you give them your recommendation.

Correct.

And yet, if you ask for a body cam and they decide not to give it to you, they can say you can't have it.

Right?

Correct.

And so let me just read something to you that's really interesting.

And a review of body camera programs across the United States reveal wide variance across policies, and the policy landscape is constantly evolving.

Well, no one policy is perfect, some are better than others.

Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability, COPA, is an inclinary model of sound policy with respect to body cameras and offers guidance for Boston.

This is something we pulled in.

This is what they say COPA has direct immediate access to body cam footage.

Immediate access to body cam footage that they get from the police.

They also have the authority to release the video, whereas in Boston, Rule 405 stipulates the body camera footage is a sole property of Boston Police Department and shall not be released without authorization of the commissioner.

Astonishingly, even Boston's own police oversight agency has been denied the access to footage of the King's Gillet.

So what they're talking about is in Chicago, they automatically get whatever they want from the police department, even body footage.

Because they have somewhat of oversight.

You have that same kind of oversight and authority to get the information from the Boston Police Department.

Am I correct?

Mm-hmm.

But there are times when they tell you that you can't have this.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And so what do you do when they tell you you can't have the information to make your review?

We are we talking about cameras in general or just in general.

I'm talking about any information.

I mean, because obviously COPA has access to whatever evidence they need.

My question to you is what do you do when the Boston Police Department tells you and you make a request that you can't have this evidence?

So what we've been doing is is is pushing back.

Have you gotten any information that you asked for, and that they refuse to give you?

I'm not sure I understand the question, sir.

Have you they tell you wanted information?

Correct.

They said you can't have this.

You said we gotta have this to review this case.

Have they then given you the information that you needed to make your review?

We've had instances in which that's happened, where they said we can't give you this, and then they're turning up.

But we, you know, there's times also including again what you alluded to with body cameras, particularly of the recent incidents where we have not gotten those.

And so what do you do when you don't get the information?

You can't make the review, right?

Because you need the information to make the review, right?

Correct.

So you need the authority, like they have in Chicago, to get whatever information you need, especially since your role is to review the actions of the Boston Police Department.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Am I going to get a third?

Uh yes, starting right now.

Uh, if you do you have some more questions?

Yeah, I do.

Okay.

Uh I'm gonna give you another four minutes.

How about that?

Okay, that's fine.

Okay, thanks.

And so um I want to be clear on what we see as a problem.

That's not based on the law or ordinances.

And so, number one, you need the authority to, well, there needs to be an ordinance that allows your recommendations at some point to take effect.

Is that correct?

It's correct.

And do you think if we gave 60 days to the commissioner or 90 days to the commissioner to respond?

And if they don't respond within those 90 days, then your recommendation takes effect.

Would that be helpful?

In terms of closing cases out, and coming to finality for the complaint or families?

I, you know, I it's a fair question.

I think, you know, we, as I said earlier, we the OPAC commissioner particularly is trying to regulate in that space to make sure that you know there's a timeline to get responses back, but to to be frank, you know, I'm not sure ultimately the issue that we're talking about gets resolved, right?

Well, if you make a recommendation, and the recommendation is not acted on in 90 days, then your recommendation takes effect, that would at least bring some finality to that issue or that case, right?

Correct.

Except that if if if it's the recommendation, if sustained case, the recommendation is to suspend the officer, and if that doesn't, you know, just automatically, how does that kick in?

Well, that's the issue, right?

That's not your issue, right?

Because you make the recommendation, then there may be some issues with uh the civil service, they may have to go to the union.

I mean, there are other kind of avenues for that officer to pursue an appeal or to challenge your decision, right?

But you want your decisions at least to have some kind of finality to it, and then if the officer has to go to civil service or if he has appeal, then the officers take whatever action that they can to challenge your decision.

Right.

But you want the decision to be final.

I agree.

And and you don't want, and I, as the Internal Affairs Division, doesn't have the authority to overrule you.

Is that correct?

That's that's our interpretation of the ordinaries, correct.

Okay, and so my next question is you need clarification of the ordinance, so it's clear that IAD was never intended to reverse the decisions that OPAT makes.

Yeah, that that's not clear in the ordinance.

Okay, so it needs to be clarified.

Okay.

Okay.

And with regard to the letter that you sent to the commissioner, explaining and challenging the procedure that they've implemented, uh, when there's a violation that you refer to the commissioner, and the violation is never acted on, you need the city council, if possible, to amend the ordinance so that IAG has no authority to amend or overrule your decisions, okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Director.

Thank you, gosh.

Okay.

I did have one more question, but I'll submit it to you and you can submit it.

I do think you wanted the commissioner to or they have the commissioner under currently has the power to review.

Yeah, so, you know, I the it's what the ordinance says, okay, uh, and I'm paraphrasing some here, as I'm thinking out loud.

The ordinance says that the commissioner has authority to change essentially disciplinary actions that we recommend, right?

The ordinance also says that, you know, in so many words that the decision of the CRB should stay, right?

So that should not be overturned.

And that's again, you know, it's not clear in that, you know.

You can't read something in the ordinance that says the decision as counselor cope was said that says you know the decision particularly as it relates to the decision of the outcome of the case whether something's sustained or not there's nothing in the ordinance that says it's fine right but we can read we and I'm happy to to take a closer look in the ordinance you can tell that at least this is where some some of the the interpretation of the law illegally comes in that the decision of the of the CRB should be fine right I mean when you think about why again this office was created to have you know members of the community making taking time out of their busy schedule volunteering to come in and hear these cases often hearing it from from the vic from the complainants watching videos uh you know doing an investigation doing the due diligence and then to have the the commissioner uh at BPD to simply overturn it I I think it's sort of really chills the effect and what this office was uh was meant to do so it's more it's also a public policy I think uh discussion okay thank you thank you very much uh counselor Flynn is with us uh if you have uh five minutes thank you Mr.

Chair and thank you to the administration panel for being here I do want to apologize I was at a community event in Chinatown that I needed to be at but I wanted to get here as soon as I could um but I apologize for not hearing your testimony yeah it's okay um you and I met maybe a couple of months ago in Nubian Square the opportunity to visit talk to you and talk to the team there and was impressed with the professionalism of your of your staff thank you you're welcome and what what I'm basing my question on is prior to that I was at a community meeting at Mamlio which is the Massachusetts associate association of minority law enforcement officers Jamal Crawford I believe and others put on a forum um the patrolman president Larry Calderon was there you were there Evandro yes um the community was there I was there for about three hours I think the the meeting probably went for five hours I left after three hours my my point is and this goes to whether or not the city is taking your department seriously or not the police commissioner wasn't there or there was an official representative from the Boston police department there I believe that was a mistake I don't know how often we have meetings public meetings important meetings for OPAT and Boston police how they interact and from from what I gather is there's a breakdown in communication between the Boston police and OPAD whether or not Boston police believes OPAD is a serious organization or not I don't know but that's the sense I've received based on that one meeting I went to when the Boston police didn't show up you know it's for me it's about respect if you show up and you're engaged and you're talking about issues that's respect.

If you don't show up you know you have other things to do that's that's a different story but am I wrong on my judgment about that.

Um counselor, as you said um again thank you for for you know mentioning the work that we've been doing particularly you know I was at that meeting right and that was a very charged meeting right in terms of the work that we're doing.

And obviously you as you alluded to, you came to our office often, we uh continue to have discussions around the work that we're doing.

I will say, you know, for us, you know, for me, I think I mentioned this earlier I'm I'm two years at this office now, May 6th will be two years.

You know, the fact that we're having these discussions, whether in the community or here, um, in many other places to me, says that OPAT uh is here to do business, and we'll continue to do that.

Uh most re in fact, most recently, before you got here, we're talking about another letter that the that the that the board, civilian review board, uh, wrote to the commission.

I think, you know, to kind of wrap up, I think you're summarizing as a miscommunication.

I think it's it's an interpretation of what the role of OPAD is and what the role of of you know, certainly the BPD is in the city of Boston, and what do we want from BPD and what do we want in terms of civilian oversight, right?

That's where we are.

The debate is and so I'm proud again of the work that we've done to get us to the space.

And but Evandro, does sure does Boston police treat OPAT as a serious body?

Do they treat it with respect?

And if they don't treat it with respect, you know, that's good to know.

But what but you have to you have to, as a leader, you have to know whether or not Boston police believe that you in this department are a serious organization.

But from my sense, just from my sense, I didn't it in and have great respect for you, I always like to, but from my sense is I don't think the police department treats OPAD as a serious organization.

That's that's just my sense.

Yeah, I mean, I appreciate your comments.

Okay, okay, and and again, Evandro, I uh no criticism again against you.

I have respect for you, I like you.

Um Mr.

Chair, I have no further comment.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh Councilor Culpepper, did you have uh a fourth round?

Well, you know, if you give it to me, I'll take it.

Okay, I'll give you it.

Can I give you uh three minutes?

You're setting precedent too.

Yeah, precedent.

So I just want to get back to the body cam and the information that we pulled that one of the scholars wrote regarding uh well to police rule 405.

And uh in this uh document, uh what it says is, with few exceptions, policy stipulates that information covered by the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability, such as body camera footage, be released to the public no more than 60 calendar days after the event.

And my question to you is with regard to the information that we were talking about earlier, when you make a request to the Boston Police Department, and either the stonewalling or refuse to give you that information.

I'm wondering if it makes sense to also put a timeline on when that information is to be turned over to you.

Yes, because it seems like some of these cases have been pending for quite a while now.

You haven't gotten what you wanted, and it seems like it makes sense to put a timeline on it.

If they don't turn it over to you, whatever you asked for, then they automatically turn it over to you.

In this case of the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability, 90 days, they have to turn it over to them.

And so I'm wondering if that if that would be helpful if we could amend the ordinance in the same way, that if they don't give it to you within 90 days, that they're required to give it to you, or you can take other kind of action.

Yes, uh, as I mentioned earlier, sir.

I you know, the OPAC commission is looking at that.

We came up with 45 days uh in terms to to make to give us information.

We um particularly as a response to the letters that we we're sending.

You know, I'm glad that you're looking at at Chicago and other places.

We are looking at those, right?

Um the reality though is that all of these infrastructures, you know, are different, right?

You know, OPAC, OPAD is is uniquely built in a sense.

Now, for instance, in Chicago, at least up until recently, had a a consent decree with the federal government because of the case of I believe uh Laquan McDonald, if I remember the name of the uh the young man that was killed in 2019 there, right?

So we uh I we're continue to and we'll continue to look at those state laws and and other other city agencies and I think Chicago's actually county, right?

To think about how do we move forward and and and improve OPAT, but it's harder to sort of just say, you know, they like for instance, New York just did uh earlier a couple months ago, they said 30 days uh in terms of the video, right?

They they issued um I think I think through the mayor's office and or you know the commissioner that it would be 30 days, right?

So what does it make sense for us if it's for us to talk about and um you're under you say 45 Chicago 90?

What makes sense?

What do you need?

Are you are you saying 45 is sufficient?

It's you know, this is what the our commissioners debated, uh and that's the commissioner, and it's the chair of each board.

So for me, obviously I leave the office and I'm proud of coming to these spaces and represent the office, but largely our decision making, particularly around regulations about you know what we want.

You saw even the this the letters the CRB makes the letter.

So I try to sort of listen to to the team uh to to the stakeholders, listen and go back.

In fact, when we meet, like like I did last time, I'll go back to them and say this is what the city council said, and make decisions together, right?

But we are at a 45-day, doesn't mean that that 90 or or others wouldn't work either.

Is that 45 to get the information?

This was largely on on response letters, right?

On response letters, and 45 on recommendations that you sent to the commissioner to become effective.

That I'm not sure we we can't regulate that.

No, no, no, no.

Look right.

I'm asking a question as a city counselor.

Yes, we can amend ordinances.

Correct.

My question is, is it 45 days sufficient to give the commissioner time to respond to you?

Correct.

And if not within 45 days, then that recommendation that you make becomes effective.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, uh, thank you very much.

We do we have one person online uh for public testimony.

Uh is anyone here no uh giving public testimony?

I don't think so.

Um, Lawrence Brown.

Can you hear us?

Can you see me?

Yes, we can see and hear you.

Uh whenever you're ready, you'll have two minutes.

Hold on, hold on one second.

Can you stop my two minutes?

Hold on, no, I haven't started.

Just let us know when you're ready.

All right, I'm I'm ready now.

We're getting a walking tour of uh wherever you are.

Sorry about that.

Okay, no problem.

So um I'm Lawrence Brown, uh representing the whole city of Boston.

And um, uh, so I wanted to say with like the FOIA request.

I put in foyer requests to the Boston police, and they end up using some uh like weird legal loopholes to not give any type of uh body cam or even just names of police officers, uh their information, and they're supposed to give it in 10 days, and as long as they respond with a denial in 10 days, then they basically like uh fulfill their obligation, and so uh there's really no oversight on that.

It like I think the director of uh public information for the Boston Police should get uh subpoena to have to explain why this is uh also uh Eddie Crispin is uh was the former president, and he has expressed that he faces racism within the Boston police and he was a sergeant, so it can only like that just shows that like on the street, people have to deal with these same police, and if they if if their own brothers in arms or whatever are facing racism within the department and sexism with the the lady officers, then people on the street have to deal with even worse.

Uh and hold on one second, sorry.

And uh the Boston police doesn't take OPAT seriously at all.

That's one thing I do agree with Flynn on.

I disagree a lot with him, but that's one thing I do agree that they don't take it seriously, and you could just tell by the budget of one million dollars compared to 50 million overtime dollars for the police in over 100.

It just shows how important the city takes uh OPAT as well.

I know that they don't deal with state police, but state police also harass the citizens of uh Boston over here on Massing Cass.

And I've had an incident with them where they've arrested me for recording on the sidewalk in Boston recording, no, no, riding my bike on a sidewalk, but it was really just to record because I was recording them.

Boston police was there, and they said nothing to them.

And he took my information, and over the weeks, I would see him, and he would ask me personal questions about my life, and it wasn't anything that had to pertain with the warning that he gave me for riding my bike on the sidewalk.

So, like I know that, like, uh maybe this is where missing Mr.

Brown's.

You got your time.

If you just want to wrap up, I'm not cutting you off.

Uh no, no, I understand, I understand.

Um, so I mean, I guess overall I just think that OPAT needs more funding and more help to get the police to actually like work with them and try to solve some of these issues within the department.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Okay, um, so I uh just gonna my do my colleagues have any more follow-ups.

Uh okay.

Uh I guess Councillor Flynn and Councillor Copever if you want to finish after that's okay, the direct okay.

Stopping by and give us some critical information that we may and we'll look into what we can do to help thank you.

Make your agency more effective.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean it's it definitely sounds like there's policy discussions that we should be having going forward.

Uh Counselor Flynn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Again, thank you to the um administration to the OCAD team.

That's here.

The the um public testimony mentioned um deputy superintendent Eddie Crispin and an outstanding police officer.

Don't I don't believe he was treated with with the respect that they've that he earned.

I I filed a city council resolution several times advocating for a little bit of a little bit of justice, a little bit of respect for Eddie.

I think I think he earned that.

I don't think he received it, but I think a year and that he should have been treated better by the Boston Police Department and uh and uh Eddie Crispin was at that meeting um a couple of months ago.

Um, andro um just a couple brief questions.

The commissioners um that sit on the OPAD board, who are they appointed by?

Um, everyone is appointed by the mayor, sir.

Okay, the I will say that the ordinance of OPAT specifically requires that um, and we actually went through that process last year that a number of appointees on the both boards come through the city council.

So we have recommendations made by the city council um and we interview those candidates and uh uh but ultimately the mayor makes the appointment.

Okay, and you're appointed obviously by the mayor.

Correct, sir.

The police commissioner is appointed, appointed by the mayor.

So everybody's appointed by the mayor, but still there's uh the there's the issue that it's that's still not resolved is the communication, the relationship between OPAT and the Boston Police Department is discouraging as far as I'm concerned.

If you're gonna have an OPAT, and to to be effective, I think they have there has to be a little bit of mutual respect between OPAD and the Boston police.

I don't think that is there.

I think it's probably hindering progress on a lot of issues, and let me just ask another question.

When you have your budget, was it was it cut?

My budget, um, like many other city aid entities, right, through this time.

We I think it was about $30,000 that that we should have saved by merely delay in hiring uh one or two people.

So we you know so was it cut not necessarily, but you know, so just uh so it's hard to explain, but uh, but we did adhere to the two percent uh requests.

Okay, we just delayed a couple um hires.

Okay.

I I do acknowledge um Evandro, I go to all these community meetings on the weekends, and sometimes there's different booths out there, and you have a team that sits there in the booths and they interact with people, they talk to residents, they hand out flyers.

In terms of if residents want to know about what's happening at OPAT, there's someone that's always there, always engaging people and thank you.

I've met a few of them, and they're very professional.

Um, you know, I I want to I want to work with the R office, I want to learn more.

I want to see how I can be more helpful and effective.

Uh don't have all the answers, but willing to um stay stay the course and try to develop a more mutual respect between Boston police and OPAT.

I think without that respect and communication, and communication, um you have you'll have an OPAT that's ineffective.

Um, Mr.

Chair, thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh I just want to thank uh the panels, nobody else for public testimony.

I thank the panel for for their uh uh thorough answers and and my colleagues for who attended the hearing uh for uh being here and um so again thank you very much and really I mean thank you for all the good work you're doing.

Uh hope to see you continue and how we can you know sort of fulfill the mission of the of this.

Sounds like we still have some work to do uh to make sure that happens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, well, uh thank you very much.

Uh this morning's hearing is now adjourned.