Twenty five meeting of the citizen police review board to order.

Um as we have done in the past, we're going to begin with interductions, although I thought this time we might because we've got new members.

Um and we in a sense haven't had great opportunities to get to know who we are.

Uh begin by as we do the as we do our introduction just explain not just what your position is, but what brought you to the board, perhaps uh what what field you've been working in up till now and and things like that.

So Peyton, we'll start with you and we'll just come around the table this way.

Um, but to work with this board because I thought ought it'd be a great opportunity for me, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I think it's important that people have like a say and how their police department is run and like any complaints that they might have.

Uh along with uh the utilities department and sustainability and Sunshine Law and Boards and Commissions and other sorted things.

Uh I teach at Mizoo political science, I'm in the Truman School, and I'm happy to be here.

This is very exciting.

Um my background is in finance and accounting.

And I'm I decided to join the board because I was looking for opportunities to volunteer.

And I saw this and then I signed up for it.

Um not really knowing too much about that's how I do things.

So totally understand.

Stephanie Coleman, board member.

I have been here longer than anyone so far that's on that's here today.

I think Steven's the only other one that's been here longer than me.

And it was a few months, so what are we, three or four years in, not sure.

Um kind of runs together after a while.

Uh prior law enforcement background.

Uh currently for the last 19 years I've been a teacher here in Columbia Public Schools, and I joined the board uh just because I I want to make sure that we have good policing.

That's important.

So uh Doug Hunt.

Um I'm a retired uh English professor from the university, uh administrator as well to some degree, and I've been interested in policing for some time, partly because I got interested in the sort of race and justice issues in town historically, which were kind of interesting going back very far.

Um then um about 15 years ago I went to the Citizens Police Academy and uh spent a little time actually getting a sample of the training that the police officer were given, but also just learning about the department.

So that interested me.

So when there was a board opening, I think it was back in March of 2023, um, I decided to apply, and that's how I got involved.

My name is Ed Robinson.

I have uh approximately 30 plus years of law enforcement experience.

I worked here at Columbia PD.

I'm here because I think I'll get a bit a different thing.

Thanks.

Uh police officers do.

Uh my name's Harry Hastillow.

Uh lived in Columbia about 50 years now.

Um what brought me to the board essentially is I'm I I like activism.

And I thought this would kind of go hand in hand with with what I believe in.

Uh and again, trying to make sure that we have a good police force, police force that's uh works with the with the public and uh is cooperative and uh can be trusted and feel trusted.

My name is Steph Yochum.

I am the human rights commission liaison to this board, so I did not actually apply to be on this board, but I do consider it an honor.

Um day job and my passion is I run a small free medical clinic and I do some homeless outreach.

And I before that was in the insurance industry, um underwriting and brokering.

Um I've been doing homeless outreach and like food activism though for a long time.

So that was good and interesting.

Um next item uh is approval.

Oh, I'm sorry, Richard.

I you're so far down there.

I didn't even see unintentional.

I'm I'm Richard Haram, uh assist in chief with the Columbia Police Department, and I'm over the Professional Standards Bureau.

Thank you.

All right.

Um properly introduced.

Shame on you.

Shame on me.

Um next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda.

Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as written?

I'll make a motion.

I'll second.

Coleman.

It's been moved and seconded to uh approve the agenda.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

You should all have had an opportunity to look at the um meeting.

We only had an open session last month, so we don't have closed session minutes.

We have merely uh the open session minutes to approve.

I think everybody's had a chance to look at them.

So do I have a motion to approve the draft open session minutes from the October 8th meeting?

So moved.

I'll make a second.

Moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the last meeting.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Good.

All right.

Um business item.

Uh we turn to Earl, who's going to be talking to us about the annual report, which I think is we're getting toward the end of the year, so it's time to think about it.

Yeah.

Yes, that's right.

Uh and I'm talking about it because uh Stephanie is out of town.

Uh so I'm I'm uh trying to do my best to uh stand in her shoes at the moment.

Uh we she gave me a draft of the uh annual report which follows and mirrors prior reports.

Uh it looks like she did get some information from you guys or some of some of the members here because there is a section about additional board member activities.

Um there's things filled in that that uh Stephanie did and Denise and Ed and Xavier and Maury and Harry and Doug, Steph again.

So there's been a number of things in here.

I can if you like, I can read through those real quick.

It's not real long, and then if I'd like for you to think about, or Stephanie asked me to ask you to think about anything else that should go in the section to let her know so we can get it in the draft report that will then come back to the board uh in December for a review, maybe a final review if you are ready to do that.

Um so that's that's where it's at.

So these items include uh January 23rd, Stephanie Coleman gave a pr gave presentations to two classes, uh January 29, Stephanie Coleman gave a presentation to a class.

March 18th, Denise, Ed, Xavier, and Steph toured the Boone County Joint Communications.

March 19th, Mari, Harry, Stephanie C and Stephen toured the Boone County Joint Communications.

Uh looks like Doug doesn't have a specific date, so we need that.

Oh, I'll find it.

As best we can.

Yeah, I'll find it.

Uh tour the uh County Joint Communications.

And then in October, uh staff went to the NACOL conference.

So think about that.

And if there's other things that you're like, oh, well, I went on a ride along, or other things you maybe you did during this calendar year that we that you'd want us to include in there, then we can.

Some of the other general things that you'll see in the report, of course, it talks about the members.

Uh there's a history section that kind of lays out uh history there, uh an executive summary.

There's a summary of appeals, which is pretty much numbers.

Um it mentions to the extent you have reviewed complaints, which you have done a bit of that this year, at least uh that I'm aware of.

Um, and then board member activities we were just talking about, and then that's pretty much the report.

But I expect you'll see a draft of that in December, and then we'll see if we're ready to finalize or if we want to finalize in January when you are fully after the calendar year.

Uh and that's what I have on the annual report.

I I and I had uh one question which I maybe just testing my memory on this early.

I think that our obligation is to report by the end of March.

If there is some continuing discussion of what to include in the report, there is some time if if that's the that's okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Thanks.

I think any questions about that?

Um, new business, uh discussion of the Missouri round table on community and law enforcement.

Um Stephanie was actually our uh re uh representative Stephanie Brown was our representative there and might have been reporting on that.

Um, but I'm thinking I'm gonna speak a little bit about it from uh reviewing it.

And because I don't trust my aging brain, I'm gonna actually read what I think some of you may have read before.

I sent a sort of draft of this.

This will be a short, not shorter version, but here's my summary of what I saw.

Uh on October 16th, the Division of Civilian Oversight in St.

Louis hosted a Missouri round table on community and law enforcement.

Oversight boards from Ferguson, St.

Louis, and Kansas City were present.

Stephanie Brown was our representative at this round table and posted a link so we could view the session after the fact.

Did anybody get a chance to actually look at it yet?

Okay, good.

Not good that we didn't get a chance, but I understand that because it's a lot to look at.

Because I was unable to attend, I sent a rather long question for the panel on the CRPB's behalf.

Here's the question.

On September 3rd, 2024, the Columbia City Council revoked the Citizen Police Review Board's authority to review and make recommendations on police policies, procedures, and training, and its authority to host public meetings on those subjects.

It also eliminated the board's authority to investigate allegations of misconduct, except those that fall into one of the four categories specified by the newly amended section 590.653 of the revised statutes of Missouri.

The Board can no longer, for instance, investigate complaints of racially biased policing.

Are the oversight boards in St.

Louis, Kansas City, and Ferguson operating under similar restrictions?

Representatives of the Kansas City and Ferguson boards reported that none of their duties or powers had been altered in any way by the changes to state law.

Bergson's response was quite direct.

We didn't change anything.

Comments made during the session make it clear that the Ferguson and Kansas City Board still have the powers and duties.

The Columbia Board was stripped of last year.

They lead community feedback sessions, review a wide range of complaints, including bias policing, and make recommendations on police policies, practices, and training.

The Ferguson and Kansas City Boards have a more open relationship with the command and command staff of their police departments than Columbia does.

In Kansas City, for instance, when the board sends a recommendation to the chief, and the chief disagrees with it, the chief needs to explain in writing the basis of the disagreement.

If the board can't accept the chief's reasoning, the chief and the board confer to try to reach common ground.

In Columbia, we don't get that level of feedback.

In Ferguson, the Chief meets once a quarter with two or three members of the board just to discuss things and entrust this and increase the trust factor.

These are off the record informal meetings.

Here in Columbia, the Chief has made it clear that she is uncomfortable with the idea of having such off-the-record meetings.

The Ferguson and Kansas City Boards publish general summaries of each complaint and the way it was dealt with.

The comments of the chair of the Kansas City Board are particularly interesting.

I'll pause to say there, but I was surprised to learn during this uh round table that the Kansas City Oversight Board is 50 years old.

It is the oldest in the nation and the most experienced.

And the present head of that board has been the uh head of it for I believe 23 years.

We're we're down the road from the Mecca, so to speak, in terms of uh knowledge of and and and that I had no idea that that was true.

Anyway, the comments of the chair of the Kansas City Board are particularly interesting.

We publish information on every complaint that is filed.

Publish information on every complaint that is filed.

However, we do not attach any names or identifiers with it.

You can find that information on our website.

And if you have enough details about the interaction between the citizen and law enforcement, you'll be able to recognize it.

But again, we cannot by law put in any identifiers about the investigations there.

That was interesting to me because I thought it could become a source of some conflict.

One of the really interesting and delightful things that the uh chair of the Kansas City Board said is what a great relationship he has with the head of the Columbia Police Officer Association.

They meet frequently, and uh the he quotes, and I can't claim I'm quoting it directly, the the head of the uh police officers association say, you know, sometimes I really disagree what you guys have to say.

But I will defend to the death your operation and your continuing to operate as you do.

Pretty interesting.

They apparently have, despite inherent tensions in this kind of work, they seem to have a good relationship.

Our board used to publish summaries like that, but stopped doing so.

And as I recall, it was because we got the advice that it was inconsistent with the level of confidentiality we're supposed to maintain.

So I'll end my summary there, but I encourage any board members who have uh had chance who haven't had a chance to do it, and that seems most of us because we're all busy people, I really would think it would be worthwhile for you to take the time to do it.

It's really interesting.

I also think it would be a good idea to make it available to the general public.

I don't know the best method to do that, maybe by attaching it to next month's agenda or something like that, because I think it is interesting to the general public.

It was intended to be a public meeting.

So that's what I saw.

Um, and I'll just pause right there and see if there are any comments or questions from any members of the board.

I'll go.

Well, and this relates to NACOL.

Um I heard of many anecdotes of differing degrees of relationship and cooperation coming from other cities.

They were far more communicative with their police chiefs.

Using large examples from the coasts, but also many Midwest examples, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Nashville.

Um sad that we're worried about that kind of relationship here.

For what the police chief states is a worry that confidential information will be discussed, et cetera, et cetera.

If other boards can be trusted to do to have this kind of dialogue regularly, I think that I think that would be helpful, but that's a part of a larger conversation.

Anyone else?

Could we get a copy of their policy?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It is available online and and quite thoroughly available online.

So I think you can get their policy.

Now I'll I'll uh I have not had time, Ed, to look at it in tremendous detail.

I looked at I looked at their last annual report, but um I don't know all their policies.

I'm I would just like to get a copy of it and read it.

Yeah.

And just see what would be possible.

Yeah.

I I I will say uh because it's very pertinent to uh your question, Ed, that one of the and and the the head of the KC board does a great uh job at the beginning of talking about all the different ways that different boards might operate.

He describes their model as a hybrid model.

What that means is a practical matter is the complaints come to the board.

Um there is an internal affairs investigation by the department.

The board looks at this and expresses concerns and then turns it over to the department to do any discipline or anything like that.

So they express their concerns, but they're not a disciplinary body directly.

So it's a it's a rather different setup.

Um and for that reason it would be really interesting to look at their at their what they're gonna do.

I mean, obviously for them it must work if they've been operating on these principles for so many years.

Any other questions or yeah?

Yeah, I I I I guess I'm curious as to I I think we made the change here because we were uh under the impression that we were proactively trying to be in line with what state ordinance.

Right.

So it sounds like we're the only board that did that.

Yeah.

Is is that uh that's the feeling that I'm getting.

I I I do not know the answer to that.

I know I I uh learned anecdotally, and I don't know that I would rely on the well I I do trust the person who told me this that uh he had attended a board meeting of the St.

Louis County Oversight Board, as opposed to the English City Oversight Board, and they had not made any changes.

Um the the question of what the St.

Louis Board is up to is really complicated at this point.

They've had uh terrible years of conflict and stuff like that, and they're now uh are under the, as I understand it, they're under the uh the state board of police commissioners.

So they're having to redo everything.

So they're essentially shut down.

But it doesn't have to do with the particular law that that we were running into.

It has to do with other problems.

So so far as I know, I don't know of any other board uh that has made changes as a result of that state law.

I don't know.

And that's what makes for me wasn't that state law, didn't they come in and say we weren't targeting Columbia, we were targeting St.

Louis and Kansas City.

Well, they couldn't target the city.

They could they certainly couldn't say that, but in a roundabout way, that's what they were saying, that it was more for them than it was for us, but we're the only ones that made that change.

The the the only, and it's been a long time since I've looked at this, but the only uh objective evidence of that that I can find.

Clearly, nobody's gonna say we're targeting the we're targeting.

But it turns out that the um the legislator who proposed the bill was from St.

Louis and had expressed concerns about the St.

Louis Board.

So there might be reason to think that the intention was to to focus on the St.

Louis Board.

But it's a you know, it's a it's a it's just interesting.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I don't know.

And and eventually you have to admit that you're over your head trying to do things.

But clearly, I I I can't imagine, particularly in the case of the Kansas City and the Ferguson boards, that they don't have legal advisors and whatnot, and they didn't seem to feel that it was necessary to change their rules.

Well, I I would say if they are operating the same way that they have and doing all of the stuff that we are told we can't and have not been prosecuted or penalized by the state that we overstepped ourselves by penalizing ourselves is the feeling that I'm getting.

And it's kind of frustrating.

Yeah, to tell you the truth.

I agree that it's frustrating, and a part of what I'm going to say goes beyond my knowledge.

But I believe Kansas City may have a different ordinance the way that it's written because they also have a staff budget written in more than just a liaison, they have an assistant who can help investigate on behalf of many cities.

Yeah, and and and in fact they're uh staff.

Citizen oversight, no citizen it's a COC.

I can't remember, but it's the is the citizen oversight of complaints or something like that board.

Uh the and this sell has been the um chair of that board for so long, the head of that board so long.

I think he's a paid employee, right?

And so it's it's a it's a much more sized up operation.

Their model, yeah, their model is completely different from ours.

Ours is just a review.

Columbia Police Officers Association request to the C PRB, and um boring as it is, I'm going to actually do some reading here too, because I'm trying to be very careful about uh.

So um here is my introduction to our discussion of it.

On October 27th, the attorney for the Columbia Police Officers Association sent a letter requesting that this board recommend the removal of a member who participated in an online discussion in which a Columbia police officer was accused of inappropriate behavior.

The attorney's letter offers two arguments for the removal.

First, that when a CPRB member publicly accuses an officer of misconduct, people might assume that the accusation is based on confidential information to which the board member had access.

Second, that posting the comments violated the National Association of Civilian Oversight Law of Law Enforcements, that's an AC hold code of ethics, which the CPRB members are required to adhere to.

Since public discussion of the dispute might damage the reputation of the officer involved or the board member, or both.

For that reason, I hope we can avoid naming names or giving other identifying information this evening.

At this point, I'm going to give my personal view on how we should respond to the CPOA's request and then invite other board members to do the same.

Okay.

Here's the way I see it.

In the ordinance that govern our board, there is a sentence giving the us authority to recommend the removal of a member.

Here it is.

The board may recommend to the City Council that a board member be removed from the board if the member persistently fails to perform the duties of office.

In this case, the CPOA attorney has not accused the board member of a persistent failure to perform the duties of office.

He has pointed to a single incident.

And so our authority to act is blocked by the word persistent.

In addition, it isn't clear that this incident amounted to a failure to do the duties of office.

The duties of the board are specific specifically listed in Section 2149 of the ordinance.

They all have to do with reviewing complaints, hearing appeals, and submitting annual reports.

Nothing in the CPOA letter indicates a failure to participate in the execution of these duties.

CPOA's letters suggest that the social media post violated the code of ethics of NACOL, which members are obliged to follow.

But the code offers only very general guidelines for board members.

It says, for instance, that we are to, quote, pursue open, candid and non-defensive dialogue with our stakeholders, and to, quote, educate and learn from the community.

These are, as the preamble to the code makes clear, very general and aspirational guidelines.

They are intended to express the spirit in which we will serve, not descriptions of particular actions that are required or forbidden.

Using such aspirational guidelines to justify ejecting someone from the board is clearly problematic.

Now it may be that the city should modify our ordinances to include a more specific statement that board members are to refrain from publicly criticizing either police officers or citizens who complain about police officers.

At this point, however, there is no such explicit statement.

All things considered, it appears that the board would be exceeding its authority by recommending the removal of this member.

Therefore, my inclination would be to take no official action on this matter at this time.

And apologies for taking up so much time in reading, but I wanted to get that on the table and then comments, I would be glad to hear them.

If if we're in agreement that there's not an action to be taken, there's not a reason to have a motion on the floor or anything like that.

But uh want to make sure that we're I that everybody gets a chance to say something.

All right.

As to any kind of response to the association, do you want there to be any kind of response from the board to the association?

Can we I would use the exact verbiage that you used.

Is that agreeable to the board?

Yeah.

I will recuse myself from that decision.

Yes.

Okay.

That's fine.

Let's let's we'll just do that.

And and what I'm thinking is that makes sense because in effect, by reading this out, it's in the public record anyhow, and we'll go ahead and send this response to the So kind of by affirmation, we'll send that as the response.

Right.

Okay.

Right.

Right.

That's very good.

Okay.

All right.

Um to human rights commission report.

Hey, it's me.

I have so much to cover, and I know we have a lot on our plate tonight, so I will skim much of it.

I have spent the last month immersed in NACOL and then doing a little bit of other stuff, and then I reviewed the case this past week.

A lot of the learning I did constantly focused on a desire not to have punitive powers, but a desire for continuous improvement.

And a lot of the conversations I've had over the last month emphasize quality assurance and not punishment.

Different cities that I spoke with had different budgets.

But I do think that my intentions are not necessarily nefarious and never have been.

And most of what I have to say next goes into the NACOL report.

Okay.

Can I ask a question just about the human rights commission report then?

When you say defaulting to mediation, so and and if I a complaint comes to you and automatically it becomes a mediation issue or there has been a process for complaints for a long time, the way that the ordinance was understood.

And then about nine months ago, it was determined that the ordinance should be interpreted in a different way, and that before cases can come before us, they must be offered professional legal mediation.

And we said I don't actually think that's the spirit of the law.

So we are going back and rewriting the ordinance so that it follows the spirit of what we have been doing.

It is I can't remember the ordinance number.

It is something that is so trivial, and it is a sentence structure thing.

But until then, again, we're erring on the side of caution.

So the the Human Rights Commission is requesting that the city change that makes that change, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Right now, the way the present verbiage is written.

Complainants must first attempt to resolve that complaint through professional mediation before it comes to us if it's filed through our board.

It's a little confusing.

Well, verbiage is important.

I mean the way things are written is very important.

Right.

Instead of choosing to change our methods and our process, we did decide let's go back and change that verbiage to properly reflect the correct process.

Yes.

Any questions or comments on the Human Rights Commission report?

If you if you're feeling you're now bleeding into NACOL, if we if you go on, is that right, Steph?

All right.

Uh let's then do that.

Let's go on to NACO.

Uh NACOL was incredible.

Um excellent use of the city's tax dollars, and so I'm sure they loved getting that letter at the same time.

Um again, the amount of people I interacted with and the amount of resources I was had very easy access to was incredible.

Um the independent police auditors and the independent independent police investigators, some cities had models that hired out to various third parties.

There's this one guy, I really drank his Kool-Aid, um, integration, and it's this former NYPD officer who is now again coming from the insurance brokering and underwriting world.

He was approaching misconduct not from a singular rule violation, but his whole process had a great emphasis on let's look at the entire process.

What went wrong where, let's go back there.

And it's not focused on discipline.

Um I will actually be forwarding a small training document he has.

A couple of people have excellent training documents on good investigatory practices that I felt would be useful for us that I was going to forward on.

Um I learned so much about the use of force and proportionality and how and when it should be applied, and the threshold okay, the determinations for each step.

Um I learned all about restraints, I learned a lot about ICE.

And the 287 G agreements, these Department of Justice agreements.

Um Philando Castile's mother spoke.

Um it was very powerful.

The current Minneapolis chief of police spoke.

Again, there were a handful, a small handful of officers there who were active participants in this okay, in this event.

Um there were a handful of cities under federal mandates and state directives, and the common thread I saw was something terrible happened first.

And I just hope that never happens anywhere else.

Yeah.

Um I think that's it.

I want to send those few training documents that I found on good investigatory practices.

Um this guy was really cool.

I've agreed with a lot of his values and principles and reasoning.

Um yeah, I thought it was a great use of my time.

Uh for those that have not gone.

I think we should all go once.

It was it was a great experience.

So much to learn.

Even if we are one of the smaller ones, we were we are not the smallest.

We may be one of the weakest.

Um, but there are smaller cities.

Some of those smaller cities are adjacent to larger metro areas, some of them are not.

Um there were a variety of good intentions in there that were not all just activists.

Um there were a lot of public civil servants, there were ombudsmen.

Um, some people had really old city setups, and they had a longtime city employee who investigated on behalf of the citizens in the city.

So yes, I do think we should all go once.

I was a little bit more.

I will be freer at the next conference to go than I have been for family reasons.

The one day session, the pre-one, the 150 dollar bonus, which I'm like, I don't know why this isn't a part of it.

Yes, it's critical too.

Why is this the bonus day?

Why just not make it a part?

Okay.

It was very important.

Thank you.

Um General Commons by member of the public.

Look, and you're probably not going to make a comment, are you?

Okay.

Um.

And uh general comments by members and staff.

Any members that would like to make a comment at this point?

I um, let us see continuous improvement.

I will make a comment and then I will look at my colleagues on the board about this.

It came up last time whether we have now reached the point where we really should go back to the city council.

And I think the parliamentarians would say a motion to rescind those that that September 3rd, 2024, to restore us to where we were.

I'm not sure, and this is very pertinent to what you're saying yet.

I'm not sure where we were was perfect anyhow.

We might want to look at other models at some point.

But uh I uh I think a first step could be to go back to the City Council and ask for them to reconsider that's not technically it's rescind the motion that they did September 3rd.

Now as it turns out, and this is why I'm looking at everybody as I talk.

It as it turns out, uh we have limited powers on this board, and one of our powers is not to make recommendations to the city council.

Nonetheless, it's true that we're in a public meeting here and we are talking about whether this seems like a good idea.

And so I think it would be possible if it's clear that members of the board think it's a good idea that we could go ahead and do so and perhaps even put in our annual report that we think it would be a good idea to powers.

So this is not a question of uh of a motion that can be put on the floor or anything like that.

I just wanted to bring it up and see if we seem to be in the same place with regard to feeling that we need to go back to the council and ask for the change.

And I'll having said that I'll give other people a chance to talk.

What was the uh initially the process that uh we had before?

I I think the the the main things uh Ed are that it didn't change the process by which complaints were heard substantially.

That they all the there's always uh a complaint that gets first investigated by the department and then the um complainant, if unhappy, can come can appeal to the board.

That was was fixed.

It used to be that the complainant, you know, under under the rules that we're going by now, the complaint has to fall into one of these specific categories, or else they can't appeal.

Um in the in the former days, anything that was seemed to be a violation of police policy or procedure could be complained about, and if the complainant wasn't happy with the resolution, they could appeal to the board, right?

So for instance, to to take an example that I think about a lot, searches and seizures, right?

Um searches and seizures aren't one of the four things on the list, but if somebody feels that their house has been uh inappropriately gone into or they've been inappropriately detained or something like that, uh right now it's not one of the four categories, so it can't be uh uh set up for appeal unless we have a very broad interpretation of one of those things, which is abuse of authority.

We could decide that all those things are abuse of authority, but that seems a little kind of an odd way to operate.

So one is just the narrowing.

The other one is uh which I think could be pretty important, um, hosting public meetings to discuss police policies and procedures.

So we would have meetings and we'd say, let's let's talk about handcuffing policy, and let's invite people to come in and talk about it and uh stuff like that.

Let's just get input, yeah.

Yeah, give input and stuff like that.

And that was we would they we were um that power to host public meetings to discuss uh police matters in a sort of back and forth way was removed as well.

And suggestions to um policies.

Oh, that's right, we that's very important.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, uh we we used to be recommendations on policy used to be one of our duties, and now that's been taken away from us too.

So those are those are the main things that I know that was not a very coherent answer, but those are the main items.

Community outreach was one of the things.

So how far would you want to go as far as um want to get yourself overworked per se.

I think you have to have if you're going to do it, you're gonna have to trim it down to what possibly is most complaints that they get or are stuff like that.

Yeah, well, uh again, what the the initial model didn't have us, as as of the Kansas City model does have, it doesn't have the board looking at all complaints.

It's only the ones that are appealed.

And so in a typical year, and people whose memory are better than I and been on the board for a long time, might reaffirm my number.

In in a typical year, we might be looking at a dozen appeals or something like that.

We're not talking about an overwhelming amount of work uh in that respect, right?

And then we have that other that's another thing that was technically taken away from us, so I think we found a workaround.

We used to do what we called audits, and we can no longer use the word audit, but you know, and you've been involved in those, where we we look at uh uh a series of complaints that have come in on some area.

Now we're not making an official uh recommendation to the chief necessarily or anything that we're just reviewing and making comments on what we saw when we looked at say the search and seizure complaints that we uh but we can we can pace that at whatever pace we need to in relation to when we're hearing appeals and stuff like that.

I don't I think what it would add in terms of being time consuming is the amount of public-facing things we're doing.

You know, we you might, for instance, aspire to do a quarterly meeting, uh open session hosted on some topic uh, you know, and having to do with police policy and procedure, and you have to get ready to do that and you know giving up another evening and stuff like that.

But I don't think our old way of operating, and actually you're in a better position to know than I am.

I don't think it was overwhelming the amount of work that the board had to do.

More to say on it, but no, it wasn't it wasn't bad at all.

I would propose my fully spinning NACOL wheels and what happened last year to us and Ed's questions and say, I think it would be a great idea if early next year after the holiday season, we were to have a small work group or committee.

And before we go to city council, we maybe look at if we were to rescind it, and then is there anything else we should be looking at just to create best policy before we make that change?

There's a question for Earl.

I don't think we can do that until we have a change to back to our previous ordinances, right?

Well, and and that goes to your point earlier about adding something to the annual report is the board clearly has as its duty to submit an annual report.

What you put in the annual report is up to you.

And so is that a method by which you could communicate concerns or requests or something like that?

It probably is.

That's very different than the board itself or assigning a subgroup of some kind to have a meeting and have it staffed and do things that maybe aren't directly within your duties.

You know, you're getting outside of your authority.

But the annual report is within your authority, and that's a vehicle you can use.

Um again, I I I think we're in the awkward situation with can you put official motions?

But I what I'm what I'm thinking, Steph, it might be a possibility here, is if the annual report were to say that in light of what we're learning from NACOL, in light of what we're learning from the round table and things like that, it would be really a healthy thing for us to wholeheartedly look at whether there are other models that should be considered.

But in the meantime, could we you know go back to where we were?

I I that's that's kind of what I'm thinking because I think that's a more reasonable request to the city council.

It doesn't ask them to take it would take a lot of study for the city council to figure out what to do.

You're good.

The work group, the subcommittee was simply to do that quick round number of the other models, and no, I don't think we should be making any other large changes.

Um if we want to do it in two steps and have them first rescind that, yes, I think we should consider it.

Where we kind of just squeeze in some of these things that we want, as opposed to saying we don't like what you did and we want to change it.

A good a good question.

And and I guess what I would say uh about that is when this changed um last year, it went before the city council um on the day that the city council voted.

Um I did offer a comment.

We we we sent in something as a board to the city council.

There didn't still have the power to do.

And I talked uh to the city council uh at that meeting asking them not to be hasty, that it wasn't clear that the law actually required us to do this, so could they table the motion until the next meeting?

And the motion to table was defeated five to four.

Four of the nine members of the city council wanted to delay and think about it a little bit longer.

So this wasn't a question of a huge overwhelming vote on the part of the city council saying it's got to go this way.

There was hesitation, and I I will say I think I say this because I'm not I don't think it's revealing a confidence.

One of the people who voted against tabling the motion has since told me that's the biggest mistake I made since I got on the city council.

Now the city council has changes over time.

So we're not necessarily dealing with exactly the same people.

I'm not saying that, but I I don't know that we would receive overwhelming opposition to this.

I think there might be it's just when you say I want to resign your decision, it sounds very like.

We might want to say you might want to reconsider.

Like we really appreciate your input, but we kind of feel like maybe we should go in this direction.

Um might be a more approachable way.

The other thing that's that's very true, and we all should remember this is the way city government works is uh you can always approach your council person and say, uh, you know, this is what we've always got that right as individual citizens to do that.

So if you are bored enough, you could go back to the old city council meetings.

And there was low level confusion that night on that conversation and that vote and stuff like that, and parts of that conversation weren't quite completed.

It wasn't like a drastic, you know, overhaul of justice or anything, but there was some misunderstanding possibly.

So I would agree that yes, I feel if we were to hold that vote again, things may be different.

In good faith, again, not trying to drastically overstep.

Um we have this one of the reasons uh I asked earlier, Earl, about the deadline on the um report.

We could look at some drafted language about that comment we want to put in, and and we are, I think, authorized to approve the drafted language.

So that would that would take care of it.

And do we want to try to sneak in some suggestions to policy in that report?

If that's something that we want to that's what I was gonna say, like hey, let's wait, let's take a breather.

Let's not open that until next year.

But that would be my preference.

That's just be like, hey, we're trying to help you out here on some stuff we're gonna be looking at this.

Yeah, yeah.

I I I do think you don't want to overwhelm the the council.

I sort of one step at a time uh might not be a bad question.

And and whatever you're interested in in including the annual report, I'd encourage you to communicate that to Stephanie because she's gonna be relying on you guys to come up with that and so that she can put it in.

Okay, any other comment, general comments by members.

General comments by staff.

It have something, of course, you know, that we're all aware of an issue with being able to see view, hear, listen to materials regarding appeals that come before the board.

Um, which is why this time we tried to go back again to flash drives, but then have had issues with those.

Nothing's perfect.

Um we have had a discussion recently with Rick about maybe transitioning, or well, we're gonna look into maybe transitioning from dashboard approach and certainly the flash drives, to as Axios type of access that members could have.

We'll have to figure out how that might work, what's the contractual provisions that need to be done with that if any out ourselves to make sure it's it shows you what we think you would need to see and how it worked for you and it's user-friendly.

And nail down any issues with regard to accessing it outside of the city system if that matters.

You know, there may be hurdles there to address anyway.

That's that's where we're at and and looking at and hopefully can come up with something better.

As efficient as we would like.

Is that diplomatic?

Good wording, good wording.

Yeah.

Other comments by staff.

Um I I think before we consider that motion to go into closed session, we need to clarify where we are on things because of the difficulty accessing the information.

Uh I I heard directly from Stephanie and and I sort of feel the same way.

Um I would be reluctant to make a substantial uh uh finding on the uh has access to it.

Now, there could be an argument to say why would we go into closed session then?

I think it is possible and uh agrees with me, I think on this one that it might be possible to go into closed session to make a determination about whether we have just jurisdiction in this case.

Um I I think I'm open to either one.

The the other just clarifying thing, and I'll uh uh again try to make sure that I understand uh because Earl I think has done the numbers so to speak about when the complaint was filed and when the extensions were filed.

If we don't act on the complaint tonight, I guess are we still okay to act on it in December, or does that require another extension?

Another extension would be needed.

But if there is another extension that would carry us through December beyond long enough to hopefully get our stuff.

So our we're in a situation, it seems to me that we're gonna be end up asking for an extension.

Yeah, because we have a quorum of people that have accessed it, we can't discuss it.

And I definitely can't did not access it.

And neither did I.

I couldn't access it.

So I haven't reviewed most of the material whatsoever.

Would it be a possibility?

I don't know.

Uh um Yeah, I don't see that the complaint loses anything, but since we can't act realistically tonight, if if what we do at this point is to ask the chief to ask for another extension, so we'll be equipped to handle it uh in December and later to if that if that doesn't procedurally make sense.

Does that procedurally make sense to you?

Well, and and the chief has uh uh a need to seek extensions until the process is over because if you run out of time, the chief is the one that loses authority to act.

Oh, that's she doesn't want to do that.

So she keeps the extensions going to the extent they're allowed under law um to get through the whole process.

Do you do you think that we need a motion on the floor asking her to uh No, I don't think so.

Uh that's that's something that's just that's their normal business.

Right.

Uh and that's their role.

Yeah.

I it it seems a little superfluous to me to go in and have a discussion of jurisdiction and then leave and then are Ed and I the only ones who were able to do that.

And you okay, okay.

Not you.

Not you.

Okay.

So we don't wouldn't have had the forum anyway.

Okay.

Um yeah, cool.

I'll just curious.

Why don't why don't we go with that?

Why don't we just ask for an extension and and figure that this is plan on it for next meeting?

And I know several of you said you may be out for next meeting.

Do we preemptively not have a quorum?

That's a good question.

That's a good question.

Because if you won't have a quorum for December, we should probably talk about a special meeting date.

Right.

So you can take this case up and hear it before the time for the second extension runs out.

When's the December date?

I shouldn't have any issues.

I should be here.

Go on with.

There's three of us.

Three, unless I know.

I'm sorry, what's the question?

Will you be able to attend the December 10th meeting?

Yes, I I'm pretty sure I can do that.

Denise should be back.

Did she say she'd be back?

She I think she said she would not be back in December.

Not until the first two.

That's why.

And then I don't know where Stephen is.

As far as I know, yeah.

It appears that we'll have a uh quorum.

So let's let's assume that that's our course of course of action.

If we if we hear it, please, if you hear something, if something happens in your family or whatever where you're not going to be able to make the meeting, let us know.

Uh let the staff know.

Yeah.

Let Peyton know.

And and we might be able to to plead for enough enough time and and set up a special meeting.

Especially if we know that more people were able to view that stuff.

Right.

Right.

It's long.

Question.

Let's just know what those materials are.

Those haven't changed.

We can go ahead and revamp and and get you.

Flash drives.

I mean, we're not going to have the Axios thing figured out by December.

But we could get you flash drives that are full of the materials that apply to this appeal that we've looked at that do play sound and video.

And then the other issue have time to contact us to say, well, I know you had sound and video, but I have video and no sound.

What what do we do?

Let's get together for lunch, right?

Yeah.

Well, another suggestion was made that not that you want to do this, but that's not very convenient.

No, not for those of us that work until the city's closed.

Right.

Let's have I wouldn't mind doing that.

Is it unconvenient for you to be for me sitting back?

No, no.

If you want to do it.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can set you up and then we could go, but everything's gonna work.

Yeah, we could do that.

I think that that's that sounds like we've got a resolution there.

And I so I assuming unless somebody wants to make a motion to go into closed session.

Yes.

Uh in terms of the items that we get in the drive.

How do we know in advance that we've gotten everything?

Because like I didn't have like an itemized list that I could go through.

I just had a bunch of stuff.

You sit there and write down what you saw.

I look for the notes.

The report, the full report first.

I look for the officers' names who were mentioned, and I'm like, okay, so do I have those?

Do I have their body warm cameras?

Okay.

Do I have their NOIs, their NOFs for each name?

I do think that's a very sensible approach.

Start with the I think pictures and videos.

Well, I start with one audio.

Yeah.

I want to know what the point is before I move.

Yeah.

I definitely read well but I read before I watch anything, but that I know it's a good idea.

And I watch before I read anything.

Like if so, I am visual.

I don't like to read 20-page reports first.

I read.

So I like to see it.

And then I go in and say, oh yeah, that's what that's.

So the the issue on this, just so I'm clear.

The issue on this was some of the drives didn't contain whole pieces, or they contained it, but those pieces didn't play or didn't work.

All of the above mine didn't have to be a good idea.

Mine had all the files, and I took Harry's and plugged it right in, and it was missing half of them.

So we were talking earlier about you know we use flash drives this time because it w the video wasn't all on the dashboard, which is what we call it, which is a system sign on to to look at all this stuff.

But all the the videos weren't on there, so that wasn't gonna work, and so we're so why why aren't videos on there?

When they're long, it's doesn't work well.

And this one had a bunch of videos, many hours long.

And they just don't work very well.

Get loaded, maybe they don't open, and you of course we don't want you to download it and open it.

So not a complication.

While we'll march through.

So is that all okay, Charles?

We got pretty much.

Yeah, I just I wasn't sure if there's an issue where we didn't know individually what we were supposed to what was supposed to be on our drive, so we might show up with some of us not having seen it and not having even known that we were supposed to see and then we wouldn't have a quorum.

Have you both had any of the official training to even know what you're looking for?

And so we need to have yeah, I didn't know there was such there is and isn't.

Um as I understand Charles, what's going on here?

You know, you and I just have one little talk about things.

Um I believe Stephanie said that she would try to try to organize the a sort of proper onboarding step.

Okay.

Stephanie Brown.

So there is a plan to do that.

So you and Lynn if you're interested.

That can be as as broad or narrow as as you.

Because that'll go into what we're talking about.

Do we have jurisdictional, you know, review?

Do did the timelines, I mean, you don't know what you don't know exactly.

You know, exactly, yeah.

And I was I sat there for a while.

I mean, I I was one of several of us all at one time, so we had days worth of training.

It's like, oh, okay, well, this is making sense.

So I can see how that would be a problem.

The only thing that helped me was that right when I joined, we were dividing into our subgroups to divide up cases for review, so I had just two people I could ask all of my dumb questions to.

And then not dumb at all.

But yeah, and that's why we did it.

That was why one of the reasons that we did that is so that an experienced person could work with people that hadn't done it before, and then you know, it was just it was training in itself.

That's a good point.

I I uh you know, I I think it would be sweet in some ways if we could that process and and be doing a review uh with Lynn and Charles, but it always happens that uh an appeal has to take priority.

And so I have to focus on this appeal for now.

Yeah, we'll get caught up, but yeah.

All right.

Um unless somebody else has other things that need to be discussed.

I think we can uh have a motion.

Oops, look, I think I should look, make sure there's not something hiding.

Okay.

Uh I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll make I'll second.

That'd be good.

Moved and seconded to adjourn, and this requires a roll call vote, I believe.

No, it doesn't.

Okay, good.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed to the question.

If we were going into closed, it'd be a roll call vote.

Yeah, that's right.

That's what you usually do.

Yeah, it's based off there.