Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Coverage of the Health and Safety Committee starts now.

Good morning and welcome to the Health and Safety Committee meeting. This is February 11th.

My name is Darrell Watson. I'm honored to chair the Health and Safety Committee, as well as to serve all of the fine District 9.

We have a jam-packed agenda this morning.

We have two items, one action item, 260125, Law Enforcement Identification Ordinance.

And we have a briefing from DHS that follows.

Before we jump into the agenda, let's go around the room for Council Member introductions, and we'll start on our left.

Good morning, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4.

Good morning, Amanda Sandoval, Northwest Denver, District 1.

Good morning, Paul Cashman, South Denver, District 6.

Morning, Chantel Lewis, District 8.

Laura Alvidrez with Lucky, District 7.

Love.

Hi, he needs to take it a little slower.

Good morning, everyone.

Serena Gonzalez-Caquillera is one of your council members at large.

Good morning, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

Governor Flynn, Southwest Denver District 2.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District 3.

Just wanted to check to see if we have anyone online.

Producer, can we verify if Council Member Parity is online, Chet?

She's not?

All right.

Once Council Member Parity signs in, we'll announce that she's online.

Our first action item, presentation for law enforcement identification, has a public comment.

after the presentation, and then we'll set up a queue for city council members deliberations.

Let me turn it over first to Councilmember Lewis and Alvideris for their presentation for 261025.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So this is an opportunity for us to cover what has changed since the bill

came to budget and policy previously, as well as the conversations that we've had with city agencies

and stakeholders in the time between the last time we came to budget and policy,

and also discuss some of the updates and litigation related to the similar laws in California,

which we've been following for quite some time.

I wanted to start this conversation off with,

this is a conversation about enforcement and protecting our communities.

What we've heard from community, and we want to be clear about this,

we are against illegal deportations and folks stealing folks from our communities as well as murder.

But this is intended to be able to slow those down if they happen to come into our city.

And we're working with state electives as well in order to be able to find some alignment between the state and municipalities.

Councilwoman Olidrez.

Great. Awesome. Well, we'll just get started.

I think you're all familiar. We've offered several briefings.

But to restate the problem, although we've already touched on it,

is that we are trying to solve law enforcement officers from masking themselves and refusing to provide identification.

It's creating fear, unrest and confusion in our communities.

and this is to help de-escalate and keep our community safe.

I also want to acknowledge that our local sheriffs and police officers have worked so hard to try and build better relationships with community over the years,

and this is really harmful for them as well.

And so we are looking to solve those problems and create a safer community, which is our job.

And so in order to be able to address this problem in Denver, we're proposing a Safety and Transparency and Public Authority Act,

and that name may change because we came earlier with the anti-masking bill.

This establishes a clear minimum standard for visible identification during law enforcement actions in Denver,

and this would become effective immediately, which we heard during budget and policy that that was an ask of council members,

in order to be able to deal with the urgency of the situation that's happening now,

and so we can get into the details of the bill.

So there are two major components of this bill.

There's a masking piece and an identification piece.

The identification component of this bill is new from the last time we presented in budget policy.

And that was based on the feedback that we received from council members either in budget and policy or doing our briefings.

And so we can talk about each of these in turn.

So the solution, it limits face coverings of law enforcement personnel.

And we have the definition here for you all to see.

and there are a wide array of exemptions as well that we have gone over with our chief of police and sheriff's office.

This is the masking part of the bill, which has not changed from the earlier presentation.

Just to reiterate, the bill prohibits law enforcement from wearing facial coverings

while detaining, arresting, and otherwise restraining physical movement of an individual in Denver,

and the bill also prohibits law enforcement from wearing facial coverings to conceal their identity within a city facility.

This bill will not restrict law enforcement from carrying out undercover operations, SWAT duties, tactical operations, or emergency response, such as the undertaken by a sheriff's emergency response unit.

In addition, the bill does not prevent law enforcement from wearing helmets, transparent face guards, medical masks, protective gear, or religious items.

In briefings, Councilwoman Sawyer asked about whether the bill would exempt such thing as a hijab, and the answer is yes.

The bill allows exemption for reasonable accommodations, which would cover those wearing religious garb.

And if I just might interject here, these exemptions that we come up with came directly from stakeholders with the sheriff's,

the city attorney's office, the chief of police, and the Department of Safety, as well as the feedback that we received from each of you.

So now on the identification piece, the identification must be clear and visible from no less than 25 feet in a manner that is visible and readable during direct engagement.

This will mirror a proposed state law.

Indications must be worn on the outside of the garment or gear and not be obscured by tactical equipment, body armor, or accessories.

Any personnel that does not display their information typically does such as detectives shall provide their name and badge when asked.

This provision applies to law enforcement officials, state, local, and federal.

The bill exempts active undercover operations, assignments authorized by supervising personnel or court order,

and grants exemptions based on applicable law governing occupational health and safety and applicable law governing reasonable accommodations.

Officers who fail to comply with these provisions are presumable to be impersonating an officer under the DRMC Section 38-33.

So now let's talk about enforcement.

So officers who violate either of these provisions are subject to the general penalty in the DRMC Section 113B of a fine of up to $99 or 300 days in jail.

Officers who fail to provide identification specifically may prove that they are officers in court

to overcome that presumption of impersonating an officer, but in doing so, they will have to provide ID.

Because those violations are the general penalty, it is up to the discretion of the officers

to issue citations in lieu of attempting to make an arrest.

Citations can be issued retroactively in instances where officers' identity is later uncovered.

Finally, this bill simply gives DPD and DSD another tool to use in the form of issuing citations.

Nothing about this bill as it is written changes the obligation and practices of the safety departments

in terms of how they show up or stay away with regard to the Public Safety Priorities Enforcement Act.

So, we're going to focus a little to litigation related to the law,

similar to this proposal.

So in California, lawmakers passed two acts.

The first, the No Secret Police Acts with,

Councilwoman Torres, you provided to us,

and I really appreciate that, is an anti-masking law.

The second, the No Vigilantes Act,

which is related to officer identification, excuse me.

Both were challenged in federal court.

The United States government sought to block these acts

as violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

And on Monday, you all might have seen

that the district court judge released a 30-page opinion page regarding the Fed's motion to

preliminary injun. Judge Christian Snyder found that the anti-masking law likely violated the

supremacy clause because it treated federal officers differently than state officials

and enjoined the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit proceeds. However,

Judge Snyder found that there was no violation of the supremacy clause with regard to the

identification law because the law did not differentiate between the types of law enforcement

the law applied to and seemed to suggest that if the masking law had been written in such a way,

it also would not have violated the supremacy clause, which is important

if we talk about the specifics in our bill. So the Denver ordinance does not conflict with the

supremacy clause. We have added a preamble to the law with the help of the city attorney's office

that the intent is not to interfere with federal or 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 or related laws.

Additionally, the bill is drafted and has been drafted since the start to apply to all law enforcement,

state, federal, and local.

Finally, in conversations with the code enforcement team within the city attorney's office,

it has been stated multiple times that citations, especially retroactive citations,

would not violate federal regulations regarding obstruction of federal law enforcement.

Wonderful. Thank you for all that information, Councilwoman Lewis.

And I will just state that we have been working with other elected officials.

We have been getting questions across the country,

but we've also been working with our state legislature,

who's looking at similar things that will also cover Colorado State Patrol.

And everyone has been very supportive of Denver leading the way

to empower other cities and communities to continue the work that they're doing

and stand up in this extremely difficult time.

Back to the timeline.

It hasn't changed much. As we mentioned before, we've been working on this actually since June when I was looking at my email. So before August, we brought it to budget and policy in January. We met with state reps on January 22nd, PACE on the 27th and the city attorney on February 9th.

During that time, we've spoken to Sheriff Diggins, Chief Thomas, Director Gardner multiple times and incorporated their feedback.

We've also adopted proposed language from the city attorney, which you'll notice talks about the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and how this is not intended to break federal law.

That is absolutely—we're not trying to impede on rightful enforcement.

We're just trying to have a little bit of accountability and identify these individuals that are bad actors.

We also worked with community groups, and we have several letters of support from the clerk and recorder,

who I will say talked about, you know, protecting democracy.

And the presence of unidentified law enforcement near polling places serves no legitimate public safety purpose.

And there has been threats, and it's something that we could see coming down the line.

We have talked to the Office of Independent Monitor.

We have had conversations with the PPA and also the Colorado Community Justice Reform Coalition and Better Together Denver,

a group of young people that are trying to really impact us and what's happening today.

And with that, Councilman Melissa, I think you had some thing to say.

So as Councilwoman Alvedris mentioned, we've been working on this for quite some time.

This is not reactionary.

This is before you knew the names of folks like Renee Good or Keith Breyer.

We started working on this in June, and we wanted to be thoughtful in this work and bring in the proper stakeholders in order to be able to do so.

We've had asked by members of this body as well as members of the mayor's office to be able to pull this and to come back and have a different conversation.

And Councilwoman Alvigis are willing to have this conversation to figure out what the concerns are because they have just been concerns.

There has not been language that you all have provided us outside of the sheriff's office as well as the city attorney's office.

And so if the mayor needs some time to be able to really lead into his courage, we are happy to be able to do that.

But there is urgency here in which we are working within, and we want to make sure that we are both in partnership with each of you,

but that we're not using stall tactics in order for us to not be able to move this forward.

And so with that, we're happy to take any questions you have.

After public comment.

That's right.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council Member Alveders.

We have time for public comments.

City Council members, the queue is open,

so a lot of public comments is going on.

If you don't mind IMing me, I'll add you to the queue.

Council Member Parity,

thank you for joining the meeting as well.

We have 17 individuals signed up for public comments.

Public comment, there's two minutes per speaker.

Alyssa, we'll be checking to make sure that the timer actually is displayed.

If it's not, we'll provide you a 30-second notification, and then we'll have you stop and continue with the next speaker.

I'll call each speaker's name.

We have folks that are virtual, so we'll pause for their comments for them to be promoted virtually.

So our first speaker and speakers, if you don't mind, please stand to the mic right there.

you may announce yourselves and then jump into your questions.

15 minutes.

We have 15 minutes, correct, for public comments.

So starting first with Mariah Petty for two minutes.

If you are here, please come up to the mic, announce yourself,

and you'll see the timer on the screen.

We'll begin.

Hi there. My name is Mariah.

I'm a constituent of Ward 7,

and this is my first time speaking to City Council.

So give me some grace here.

But this issue is just really important to me.

I'm born and raised in the Twin Cities, and it's just been so hard to watch what's happening there.

And Denver has been a really welcoming home to me, and it would really hurt for me to see it happen here as well.

Public safety is a part of any well-functioning society.

We know we need public safety, but we have really eroded our trust in law enforcement over the last five years.

And really before that, I just wasn't paying attention before five years ago.

Um, masking agents really just brings up the risk of people impersonating agents to kidnap

people off the street.

It brings up less options for us to press legal charges when they violate the Constitution

and they do their law enforcement practices.

It just really limits our resources that we have right now when we know we have a federal

government that is lying to us about what's happening, not having our officers accountable,

giving them impunity.

We need other resources in our city governments to protect us as citizens and then hopefully later press those charges and get people out of detention when they're wrongfully detained.

And I think unmasking is a really great first step.

I've seen the St. Paul City Council also pass.

They started actually an ordinance for banning masks right now.

But their first thing they passed was banning law enforcement from staging on city property.

So that's like parks and libraries and city-owned parking lots.

I think that would be a really great first step for Denver City Council to consider.

And I know the city of Philadelphia is discussing that right now as well.

Those are our city resources, and they don't have to be used for compliance with ICE actions.

Thank you for taking the time.

Thank you so much, Mariah.

Next up, Brian Baselko.

Well, thanks for having me today.

I'm Brian Paselko.

I'm the president of the Denver Police Protective Association.

I want to thank Councilperson Floor for allowing us to be part of the conversation and being

here today.

Thank you.

So our main concern with the proposed ordinance is enforcement and how that's going to affect

the Denver police officers if they do have to take an enforcement action against a federal

agent.

The concern is also possible conflict with other federal agents.

As you know, we do not work actively with ICE in any fashion, but we do assist with task forces with the FBI, ATF, and DEA,

and we don't want to see these partnerships get diminished because they do so much great work in our community.

But enforcement and how that's going to look is our major concern going forward.

what will happen if an officer does take enforcement action and a federal agent

then tries to arrest that officer for impeding their operation what happens to

them if they're charged with a crime is there an internal affairs process is

there they sent home are they suspended without pay why that's going on these

are our main concerns with how these things are going to affect our officers

and their well-being.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

And I was remiss with announcing,

please do not address council members directly.

Please state your name and any affiliation

that you have prior to presenting.

The next city council member,

next city council member,

next member of the community, Uriel Espinosa.

Good morning, members of Denver City Council.

When I was 12 years old, I stood at Civic Center Park and I watched my mother raise her hand and swear an oath to a country she trusted to see her face, not hide from it.

My name is Uriel Espinosa, and I'm here to urge you to adopt the ordinance requiring clear and visible identification by federal law enforcement operating in Denver.

Public safety begins with trust in the rule of law, and when agents conceal their identity, it increases fear, invites confusion, and erodes faith in government.

Not just within immigrant communities, but across the city as a whole, and that makes everyone less safe.

This policy is a statement about how authority should be exercised in a free society with transparency, clear identification, and basic accountability.

This ordinance is not just about our immigrant neighbors.

It's about the safety of Denver as a whole.

The way ICE operations have unfolded across the country should concern all of us.

And Denver must lead with our own values when it comes to public safety and the rule of law.

This ordinance is a bare minimum to ensure safeguards that constitutional rights are respected and fear does not undermine public safety.

This ordinance provides clarity, not conflict.

and enforcement of this law should not be taken as a defiance to public authority,

but rather an expression of local leadership here in Denver.

It ensures that the responsibility should rest with the city

so that local officers are not left navigating legal uncertainty on their own.

So I call on this body to adopt this ordinance,

and I ask that Mary Johnson carry it forward

that reflects Denver's commitment to transparent and effective governance.

This ensures that federal authority exercise in Denver

aligns with constitutional and community safety.

How we treat immigration in this country

is a test of our belief in the American promise of opportunity.

And President Kennedy said it best.

Our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the American ideal.

Neither race, nor creed, nor place of birth

should affect one's chances to succeed in the United States of America.

Thank you.

Thank you, Uriel.

Lidien Sofner.

So I just want to start off by saying that you all as elected officials, when you're

campaigning, you come out and you ask us to show up for you.

The community is here, so I suggest that your 15-minute window that you are giving for community

to engage in this process, make the adjustment.

Everyone has a voice.

You ask us to show up for you.

This is what it looks like.

So the comfort of your schedule needs to be modified and adjusted for your constituency

that you asked to vote for you.

With that being said, the work that I do in community, I am walking alongside families

who are in real pain.

And what I see when I'm working with them is that grief teaches you more about a system

than comfort ever will.

When we talk about the egregious things that have happened in history, we read those stories

and we may ask ourselves the underlying question of how were people doing this?

How was this happening in a culture, in a society where humanity is supposed to be present?

And we'll ask ourselves, what did they do?

Well, now this is your moment.

What are you going to do?

You see what is happening.

You can't unsee it.

History is not kind to the bystander either.

Each of you has a responsibility to simply be an echo of your community.

There is no way that your community will stand still while this pain is happening.

And it is up to you how you insert yourself into that story.

We will be watching and we will hold you accountable.

Ashe.

The next speaker, Veronica Seaburn or Seaburn.

My name is Veronica Sebron, and I am Jalen Sebron's mother.

I stand here not only as a grieving parent, but as someone who has learned what happens when systems operate with accountability.

What our family experience forces us to look beyond a single tragedy and into the structure itself,

how authority is exercised, who is protected, and who is left vulnerable.

This ordinance is about transparency and law enforcement, whether local police or ICE.

When officers hide their identity, communities are left to navigate fear, confusion, and power without accountability.

That is not safety.

That is instability.

The lust for control sends a message that the badgeless are worthless than those who are deputized to steal, kill, and destroy our people.

Our family has chosen to lean into this intersectionality of this fight because harm does not exist in silos.

The same patterns that endanger black and brown families during police encounters also destabilize immigrant families during enforcement actions.

When authority is unidentifiable, communities lose trust, and trust must be a priority for public safety.

This ordinance says something simple and necessary.

It says that if you have power over someone's freedom and safety, you must be visible and accountable to the people you serve.

We support this measure because dignity must be consistent.

Safety cannot depend on who you are or where you come from.

True public safety is framed in transparency, humanity, and accountability for everyone.

Don't let the badge list be worthless.

Thank you, Veronica.

And I'll say personally, I'm so sorry for your loss,

and thank you for choosing your voice today.

Next up virtually, we have Kenneth Crowley II.

We just want to make sure that he can be promoted.

And, Producer, please let me know if Kenneth is online.

Thank you, Producer.

Thank you, Producer.

Good morning. I'm Kenneth Carley II, the program director of the Coley Foundation,

and I urge this council to adopt this ordinance for amending Chapter 28. The citizens of this

community are not new to illegal tactics and mob-like federal officers. Jalen Sebron served

as an ambassador of the Coley Foundation's Boys to Men Leadership Program. Through his leadership

and the collective experience of boys and young men of color in our organization,

I witnessed firsthand how young people navigate a justice system that is tamed with criminal profit.

What became clear to me is that accountability is not optional.

It is essential to real safety community.

Our organization created programming to teach young men, especially young Black men,

how to better understand how to navigate encounters with the police.

We do that work in good faith, hoping that these young men approach these interactions with awareness and humanity.

They will also be seen as people first through this, hoping that.

But too often, they are still perceived as threats, and it is gut-riching to watch these same patterns of fear dehumanized and unchecked authorities play out again in the way that ICE is engaging with our communities.

Safety cannot exist when entire groups are treated as dangers instead of human beings deserving dignity and accountability.

When federal officers operate masked or unidentified, they satiate our communities with antagonistic and baseless operations that should be governed by trust.

Communities cannot build trust with institutions that conceal their authority.

This ordinance is about restoring balance.

Our movement is leaning into the intersectionalities because systemic harm is an American issue.

Black families, immigrant families, working-class communities all experience these destabilitizing

effects of law enforcement without transparency.

True authority does not need to hide.

When identification is clear, accountability becomes possible.

And when accountability exists, trust can grow.

I urge this council to adopt this bill.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

Keeloni Fennery.

And I'm adding all kind of different

pronunciations to your name.

So if you don't mind, correct me.

Keeloni, why don't you get up to the mic?

And producer, we have Samantha

Carrente next on

virtual. If you don't mind, begin promotion.

My name is

Keeloni Fennery.

I stand here today, as

Jalen's partner and as a parent, but today I'm speaking about systems, not just personal loss.

Our family's experience revealed something larger when Jalen was taken from us.

It exposed how unchecked authority can ripple through entire communities.

When enforcement operates without identification, people are left questioning whether you're

being protected or targeted. That uncertainty is not abstract. It affects how families move,

gather and exist in their own neighborhoods, and how those left behind to raise the next generation

are forced to speak about these systems to our children.

This ordinance addresses a critical principle, and that is transparency.

Whether the badge says police or ICE, enforcement actions must be accountable to the public.

Authorities should never function behind concealment.

We are choosing to expand our movement because we recognize intersectional harm.

Communities impacted by police violence and communities impacted by immigration enforcement share common need.

We need a system where safety is grounded in care, not fear.

Supporting this ordinance is about building outcomes where families do not have to wonder who holds power over our lives.

Transparency strengthens trust and trust strengthens communities.

This is not about division.

It is about insisting that accountability is the foundation of public safety.

Thank you.

Once again, Keelani, I share my personal sadness for your loss, and thank you for using your voice.

Producer, is Samantha Carrente available to be promoted?

We'll move forward to Temtas.

Is there a Temtas?

There is not Alejandro Fuentes.

Is there Alejandro Fuentes?

Is there a Sori Shiad?

Dr. Aset Ali?

Today we are being asked a question that is bigger than a bill, a vote, or politics.

We're being asked who we are and whether we have the courage to stand in alignment with

our convictions when it is uncomfortable, inconvenient, or unpopular.

Supporting this bill is not about division, it's about agency.

It's about restoring the principle that individuals, families, and communities must have a meaningful

voice in decisions that affect daily lives. Courage in this moment of time does not look

like silence. Courage looks like thoughtful resistance when policy drifts away from the

people it's meant to serve. When your grandchildren ask you what you did in this moment, what will

you say? We are all facing a reality where federal influence is increasingly used as

leverage. If administrations are willing to threaten the upholding of funds to shape

local decisions, then we must be equally willing to assert our autonomy. Withholding our city's

federal money is not an act of rebellion. It is an act of balance. It is a declaration that

partnership must be mutual, not coercive. Respect must move in both directions. The threats have

proven empty, so fear to stand for humanity should be mute. But this moment also demands

something deeper than legislation. It calls for us to purge oppressive habits and practices that

have quietly shaped our thinking for years. Healing starts with an uncomfortable way that

often exposes gaps that we don't want to admit that we have and face. Sometimes we want to blame

external factors and why we cannot do the deep diving work of just how oppressive we actually

are. Whether it's a mask or a hood with a point at the top, the cowardice of avoiding accountability

and transparency is revealing and it shows yourself literally and figuratively. Why are

we terrified of unveiling? Why? What are our true belief systems in the honest regard of human life?

This bill reveals the mask that you may wear in your public seats that we are supposed to trust

you with and we will remember. We will remember. If you're willing to be oppressive because of

your comfort, we will remember.

Dr. Alley, your time is up.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Scott Esserman, we have four additional individuals that are listed.

We'll go through that list.

But Scott, two minutes.

Come on, counsel.

It's nice to see you.

Scott Esserman, former DPS board member.

In one of my last school visits as a DPS board member, I listened as the principal of one

of our high schools described masked ICE agents recording license plate numbers from across the

street from the school, going on to describe how those same masked ICE agents were menacing

students at nearby street corners and strip malls as they went to get lunch, looking to intimidate

our students. Repeated more than any other commandment in the Bible, 36 times in the Hebrew

scripture, also known as the Old Testament, the Torah, the five books of Moses, is the commandment

that when strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them. The strangers who reside

with you shall be to you as your own citizens. You shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were

strangers in the lands of Egypt. 36 times it's repeated, more than any other commandment.

Every day, we're living in, I don't have to tell you, unusual times.

Every day, our current federal government, Department of Homeland Security and ICE,

violate this principle regarding our strangers living in our midst in principle and in practice.

They violate the Constitution.

They seek to intimidate, to silence, to terrorize.

We have a moral obligation to challenge this behavior.

People wear masks only to hide their identity, primarily stemming from a desire for anonymity and the ability to act without accountability.

What will we tell our children we did in this moment?

We can always find rationale as public officials to not act.

This presents an opportunity for you to move from simply words to action, to act proactively

rather than reactively, and to take steps that you can to protect our communities, our

children, and our babies.

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments.

Alex, you're not really.

I'm not sure if you're online or if you're in person.

Nate Stone.

Two minutes.

Hi, my name is Nate Stone. I live in Mayfair and councilperson Sawyer's district with my wife and children.

I'm also a volunteer with CORN, the Colorado Rapid Response Network, which documents ICE activity across our state.

I do this because I believe it's all of our responsibility to defend our constitutional rights.

And because I believe our friends and family and neighbors who are targeted by ICE deserve a life free of fear.

ICE is already here, routinely breaking the law through constitutional rights violations.

And we know it's only a matter of time until they attempt to surge here on the scale of

Minnesota.

What is in front of you today is the smallest of asks, accountability.

In Minnesota and across the country, ICE is using facial recognition on community members,

driving to the houses of community watch volunteers to let them know that ICE knows where they

live.

That kind of intimidation wouldn't be acceptable from a private citizen, and it certainly shouldn't

be acceptable from a government agent with a gun.

And I say this all as a white citizen.

I need you to imagine the terror stoked in the community by masked anonymous agents breaking

car windows and dragging people into unmarked vans to be disappeared into private detention

centers.

The day Renee Good, Nicole Good, was killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis, I had to have

talk with my kids about how the work she was doing was the same thing that I do, and how

taking risks is necessary to protect our friends and neighbors. When Alex Preddy was murdered,

we had that conversation again and then wait weeks to find out who the agents were who

shot him repeatedly in the back because they were masked and without ID. All I'm asking

the council to do is to take the steps necessary that if I'm shot in the process of trying to

defend my community that my family deserves to know who pulled the trigger. Thank you.

Katie Song. Hi, I'm Katie Song. I'm a constituent of District 8 and I'm a nurse.

In my profession, I'm required to wear a visible badge with my name, my photograph,

and my credentials on at all times. My name is written on the whiteboard of your room. It's also

written on the outside of the room. Anyone can search my name in the Colorado Board of Nursing

and you can find my nursing license and any disciplinary action taken against it.

You wouldn't want someone caring for you or your loved one in a hospital bed by someone who refused

to verify who they were. And even when I'm wearing a mask to prevent the spread of infection,

my badge is always visible with my photo and my name. Growing up in a white small town America,

I was told by police officers about the danger of fake police officers.

I was told to always pull over somewhere well-lit in public and to always ask to see a badge.

We were taught that the real officers would always throw a badge and that asking for identification wasn't just our right, but our responsibility for our own safety.

So it's pretty ironic here that we're debating whether officers should be required to clearly identify themselves.

Any public servant coming to help and protect the public should be easily identifiable, especially when they're doing vulnerable activities like conducting searches or detaining individuals.

Similar to the patient-nurse relationship with law enforcement, there's a party in power and a party that's more vulnerable.

Adding anonymity to the person in power escalates this gap further, and then both parties can, the situation can escalate and both parties can be in danger.

We've already seen the rotten fruits of this very situation again and again across our country.

In short, public servants work for the public.

They are paid for by the public, and their identities and credentials should also be public.

Law enforcement should be no exception.

And I just wanted to say thank you so much for your hard work on this issue, and I urge everyone to support this.

And Dana Mailer.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Dana Miller, and I'm the co-lead of Denver's Immigrant Partnership Team.

We have 30 teams across Colorado working to support our immigrant neighbors.

I would just like to acknowledge the fact that this is really, really difficult stuff.

And there are a ton of people in the community right now under a lot of different auspices that are doing community defense work

and organizing communities to be able to show up for each other and to show up, if ICE shows up, in the numbers that we're anticipating.

Passing this ordinance would support that community defense work and would be, well, I just want to say thank you.

Thank you for even considering this and much love and appreciation to this city who is attempting in the best way we possibly can to show up for our immigrant neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We have a room for one additional speaker.

Anyone?

Ma'am?

Please announce yourself and then two minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Helen Shreves.

I live in Council District 5.

And I want 20 seconds to read something from Pastor Niemöller.

When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

when they came for the trade unions, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me,

and he was taken in to a concentration camp and killed.

Thank you very much for passing this ordinance.

Thank you so much, ma'am, for your comments.

I want to thank each of the members of the community for being here and sharing their comments.

I want to also share that this is one short opportunity to share today.

There will be many opportunities throughout the process as this bill makes its way through City Council,

up to possibly on the floor for a courtesy of public comments as well.

So thank you all for your comments.

We're turning it back to Denver City Council for questions concerning the ordinance.

We have a full queue of council members.

I want to start first with the sponsors, Council Member Lewis and Council Member Alvedrez,

and then we'll go to Council Member Sawyer.

Great.

Well, we shared our part.

I do also want to thank the community.

I want to thank specifically having the BV audience on a special day like today.

it brings a little bit of levity into a very difficult topic.

So thank you all for making time to be here and share your voice.

It means a lot.

Thank you, committee chair.

Did you want to share anything?

And I just would like to recognize the folks who did sign up for public comment

and maybe didn't have the opportunity to speak, if you all could just stand up.

And I just wanted to thank you all for you all signing up and having the opportunity to speak.

So thank you for showing up on this day.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawyer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you guys so much.

I really appreciate the changes that you have made over the last week since you briefed me.

I think I just am so grateful for the work that you guys have done.

There's still something I don't understand, so I really appreciate you answering the question on like a hijab or a burqa.

and glad to hear that that is exempted.

Under the definition of what a law enforcement officer is,

it's also civil infractions, right,

which I still don't understand.

I think it's very right that this applies to everyone,

but then there's, like, enforcement officers,

civil enforcement officers within the city

that I don't, like, necessarily understand

how this dovetails with.

So the ones I can think of would be

our DOTI right-of-way enforcement officers,

our CPD, ZNIS inspectors, our DDPHE animal protection inspectors, our parks and rec rangers.

Those were the four that I could like, how does this impact them? So one of the other questions

I asked in my briefing was what happens if we have a parks and rec ranger up at Winter Park

and it's four degrees outside or negative four degrees outside and they have to have a face

covering for their safety, right? Is that exempted under here or like how is that going to work? And

I don't know if it's a question for you guys or for the lawyers, but I just sort of need to

understand that civil enforcement side because we have civil enforcement that have nothing to do

with our sheriffs or our police officers in Denver. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we did ask

and those enforcement officers like park rangers are classified differently than DPD as we are part

They are part of Denver Parks and Rec and the Department of Natural Resources specifically.

They do not enforce rules and regulations per the DRMC, Chapter 39, and they issue administrative, not criminal enforcement.

And then I don't know if John can speak to that a little bit.

Yeah, John, if you can speak, because the definition of a law enforcement officer on page two of the law,

law enforcement personnel means any person employed by any local state or federal agency

that assists an investigation of enforcement or of criminal or civil matters.

Because the Winter Park example specifically is exempted under the Occupational Health and Safety.

But, John, you can apply.

Yeah.

And they also shouldn't be wearing masks, though.

But, yeah.

So I'll speak a little bit to the second question.

So right, the way the Jonathan Griffin, Deputy Legislative Counsel.

So the way that it's currently written is there is an exemption for laws governing occupational health and safety.

So if the intent of that is to cover things like if there was to be an OSHA violation or something where someone would need to wear a mask due to particularly cold temperatures or any other situation that could put their health and safety at risk if they were not wearing a mask.

to your question about the civil officers.

I am not aware of a full list,

so we would need to get more information on that part.

You did flag the park ranger, and the council members have,

but if you had a list of more in mind,

or we could work to get you a complete list,

and I'm not sure if there's anyone else in the room

that can speak to that point.

Okay, that would be great.

I just 100% want this to pass,

100% want this to withstand legal challenge and also it has to be operational within our city for

and so like I don't know if anyone Chico Brown is in the audience Councilmember Sawyer did you

want to ask for any additional comments from from her and then she could or please there's lots of

lawyers in the room remember that's person please we're on the clock so if you don't mind coming to

to the mic and introducing yourself.

Council Member Sawyer will

re-ask the question and

please introduce yourself.

Thank you. Thanks, Wendy. Also, I just want to acknowledge the purple

shoes. Those are amazing.

Good morning, Wendy

Shea, special counsel to the Department of

Public Safety.

If I'm understanding the question correctly,

we're talking about agencies such

as DOTI, DDPHE, etc.,

that are given certain enforcement authority

and I just want to flag or remind

that that enforcement authority is coming from a delegation from our executive director of safety

under the charter. It is authority that is given to enforce, not arrest, but to cite some of these

police ordinances so the ordinance would apply to those in DOTI, Parks and Recreation, et cetera,

that receive the delegation from the executive director to enforce the ordinance. So the ordinance

they're enforcing. In other words, they're out there enforcing certain laws that the executive

director has allowed them to enforce. So under that, they would fall within the definition.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. So then have you guys talked to DOTI, Parks and Rec,

DDPHE, et cetera, to stakeholder them on how they can operationalize this?

No, because that's the first time that we're hearing of a concern around those specific

stakeholders and it's it was my understanding that they're not law enforcement and so maybe we could

get some clarity from the attorneys if they are I understand the delegation but is that resolved in

the Department of Safety policy or is that need to be an exemption that is written within this bill

okay um I feel like that's probably an attorney client that was question so nobody can answer

that please. I'm happy. No, I actually do want an answer to it. And if the city attorneys are

stating that that is something that should be private, can someone please just state that for

the record? Yeah. And then we can we can continue on with questions. But any city attorney and we

are on the clock folks. If anyone is able to answer that question. If I'm not seeing anyone

you need to go to the mic. Miko, if you don't mind and please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon.

I'm Miko Brown, the city attorney of Denver.

I would agree that is privileged information and advice,

and so I would prefer to give that advice elsewhere after the session.

Noted.

Thank you, Miko.

Any additional questions, Council Member Sawyer?

I will hold for now.

Thank you.

Council Member Cashman and then Council Member Torrance.

Thank you.

No real questions. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. I'm not a voting member of this committee, but I very much hope that it's passed forward to the full body. Growing up, bad guys wear masks.

Law enforcement is a difficult, dangerous profession, but I've never until the past few weeks seen law enforcement wear masks, hiding their identity.

I can't imagine how allowing the default to be that it's an acceptable, that it is acceptable for law enforcement to be masked.

So if somebody comes up to my car in a parking lot with a mask on and a coat that says ice and says get out of the car, I should get out of the car.

Or somebody who's not identified comes to my house with a mask and a coat that says whatever and says come outside, I should go outside.

It doesn't work.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern about that there might be some operational issues on how enforcement is carried out.

And I hope through this process that those reasonable matters will get solved.

But this is a duh to me.

We just can't allow masks.

It doesn't work.

You know, I.

I've been in demonstrations in Central Park in New York with hundreds of thousands of people,

and law enforcement was not masked.

I've been on the streets in D.C. with millions of people.

Law enforcement was armed, but they were also identifiable.

So thank you.

That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Cashman.

Council Member Torres and Council Member Flynn.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And my thanks to the sponsors as well.

You've done a ton of work on a really important issue.

I don't have any questions about the sections having to do with masking.

I do have questions about the identification piece.

So that's the last section of the bill.

One of the things that I'm wondering, and our city attorney,

if you would let me know a little bit more of where you were coming from on whether or not

the language was necessary. I'm looking at some of your notes on the language. Let's see. Do we

really need, it feels duplicative, not sure what it's adding. So just wondering kind of where

you're coming from on the identification piece. Okay. And thank you for going to the mic,

Introduce yourself and respond to your question.

Thanks, Miko.

So Miko Brown, city attorney.

I'm going to give just a quick remark to give some context to my answer to Councilman Torres' question.

So I want to say thank you to all of the community members who have shown up today.

To give you a little bit of context, my father's side of the family are Egyptian Jews.

They had to escape Egypt to flee religious persecution.

Ended up in Italy, had to come to the United States because they were being persecuted by the Nazis.

My mother's side of the family is Japanese-American.

My great-uncle had the audacity to challenge the Japanese curfew laws during World War II

and was put in solitary confinement for nine months,

while his case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court and he lost.

So I am saying this to make very clear that I fully support the intent behind this ordinance.

And my goal here, we talked about how are we going to show up in this moment?

What are we going to tell our children?

What am I going to tell my great uncle when I see him?

it would be that I stood up here and I did my best to help pass an ordinance that is enforceable

and that will withstand federal scrutiny and that our law enforcement officers can actually apply

and enforce. That is what I want to be able to tell my children and that's what I want to be

able to tell my family. And so to answer your question, Councilwoman Torres, the identity

section, and I very much appreciate Councilwoman Lewis and Alvidrez for incorporating my

suggested changes to the mask section. I think that's a very strong section. My suggestions were

not incorporated into the identification section. And I fully agree and support in principle what

that section is trying to accomplish. I do have concerns from a legal perspective and an operational

perspective on whether or not it would, one, withstand federal scrutiny if challenged, and two,

if we could operationalize it. So that's really what my remarks go to. Can you talk to me about

operationalizing it and what issues are there? Yeah, I'll give one example. So one of the

requirements is that the identification be visible from 25 feet away. Let me give an example of why

that would be very, very hard, if not impossible, to operationalize. We would essentially have to

arm our law enforcement personnel with tape measures and ask the ICE agent or the masked

agent to please stand still, hold this tape measure while I walk back 25 feet to see whether

or not you comply with the ordinance.

Is there other legal standards that we can use, like visible or provided upon request

or something like that that's different from a numbered measurement?

Absolutely.

And it was referenced earlier today about the California ordinance that was just largely

upheld by a federal court judge.

They have an identification section that basically gives the roadmap for how this will be enforceable,

that language would look like.

If we were to, for instance, mirror the California language, I think that's a very good roadmap

for what we can do that's actually enforceable and also operational.

So for instance, it would be requiring that the law enforcement officer provide their

name or provide a badge number.

We don't need the 25 feet to accomplish the spirit of the goal.

Okay.

Just to clear, because I think it's important that you have some context.

So the suggestions that we accepted is because Miko put them actually in the document.

And so there was no suggestions that Miko had given to Councilwoman Alvedres in order to be able to accept

or even to be able to think about in terms of the potential inclusion of those.

And so if there was a suggested language to say, can you replace the 25 feet with this instead,

that would have been something that we could have thought about and then incorporated it.

But it wasn't in there.

And just for some background, the 25 feet came because one of the suggestions during the Budget and Policy Committee was for us to reach out to state electeds because they were running a similar bill.

And so we did the best that we could to be able to parallel what they had written into their bill to what we were doing at the municipal level so that we could have that parity.

So that's some of the background that I think is important.

I appreciate you doing that.

It was one of the things.

I knew somebody was running it.

I didn't know who.

Theirs may change.

It's probably not passed and signed at this point.

I don't even think it's introduced.

Yeah, so they may still modify theirs to similar.

But hearing that, is that something that you're willing to modify before it comes to the floor?

Yeah, I mean, and we've had these conversations pretty extensively.

If you give us a suggestion, then we're willing to be able to talk about what that suggestion looks like in terms of operation as well as inclusion.

But we didn't get a suggestion.

We simply received a comment.

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

That was just our frustration is that you can't say, I don't like this.

and not say what you're suggesting or why.

Even the example of the 25 feet with a measuring tape is a little extreme,

but wasn't specifically noted in the remarks.

I'd say it feels extreme, but I think we'd be called out on that.

If I could just finish.

I think the frustration there is just having an actual implementable suggestion

instead of just saying that's not a good idea,

and it wasn't even in so much of those words.

So I just want to share that.

Either way, due diligence on a bill.

I think if there's other language to consider, let's consider it.

There was no language to consider.

State, you were looking at the state bill, though, right, in California?

Do they have different language than this?

I think they did.

John, I think that's what we based it off of, right, the 25 feet?

Or that came from the Visible Act at the federal level.

It came from the state.

It came from the Visible Act at the federal level.

We don't need to, like, do this, but I'm just saying,

is this something that you're willing to consider before it comes to the floor?

Yeah, and I just can't say this explicitly enough because we've gotten a lot of we're concerned about this, but here's what we would like to offer instead.

And so the ask of Councilwoman Alvidra and I, and I think the crux of our frustration is that it's just we're concerned about this, but they're not actually giving us language.

And so, yes, 100 percent, give us the language, we're down.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and I've experienced that, too, as you know, when you dropped bills and you just you go through, I think, all of the routes, right?

The only other thing I know that impersonating an officer was mentioned as like a backstop for some of the things that we might see on the ground.

Does that cover federal officials?

Do you know offhand that section of the code?

So if I'm understanding your question correctly, Councilman Torres, it's does that remedy section apply to all officers?

The answer to that is yes.

I can let one of my colleagues talk about why that is also an unenforceable provision.

And apologies if there was miscommunication on the revisions.

We did ask that that section be pulled back and that the city attorney's office be given an hour or two,

because we understand the urgency where we think we can clean some of this up.

That's untrue.

We weren't asked for an hour or two.

That makes us seem like we're being unreasonable.

We could certainly address an hour or two, but it wasn't an hour or two.

You have to remember that we've been working on this since August,

and so we received the communication from MECO on Tuesday.

Today is Wednesday.

And they asked that we either pull it or that we split this into two separate pieces of legislation

with the masking piece of it and the identification.

If an ask was an hour or two, we would have absolutely been amendable to that.

But that was not the ask.

It was at 448 on a Friday to postpone an entire week, just to be clear.

Thank you so much for the comments.

Any additional questions for...

I do.

And it's specifically around...

the comment that only DPD would be requesting badge or identification. Is that how the language

is drafted that only DPD would be requesting that of an unidentified federal agent? Like DPD

within no sheriffs?

I think,

not the public.

I'm sorry.

Not the public.

Oh, no, yeah,

it's simply for law enforcement.

So that's like

just what we're seeing

on the ground

and I've shared this with you,

Councilwoman Lewis,

we've got organizations,

nonprofits, businesses

who we're preparing, right?

How do you react

when ICE comes to your door?

Two men identified themselves

as Department of Homeland Security

to a nonprofit here in Denver.

They were plainclosed.

They did not have a badge, anything identifying them as federal.

They would not, this would not apply to them as a citizen saying, I need to see ID, right?

That you're not just somebody off the street.

This would not apply to a resident requesting.

They would have to call DPD and say, I asked for.

We focus specifically on law enforcement.

Yeah.

Okay.

Intentionally.

All right.

Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Torres.

Damn it.

Sorry, guys.

We are a nimble council we can handle.

Council Member Flynn and Council President Sandoval.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for all the comments we've heard here.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when I see what I'm seeing.

I apologize, Council Member Flynn. Just one second.

I think there's a lot of muffling.

Please, Council Member Flynn.

Thank you.

Interrupted.

Sorry.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when I'm seeing what I see on the streets of America today.

I fully support doing anti-masking ordinance while the liquid is being cleaned up in front of me.

Sorry.

But I appreciate that, Councilwoman Torres, is a question.

last question because that hadn't occurred to me. I assumed that a citizen could make a complaint

or if an officer failed to identify themselves with her badge number for you or me or one of

the community members who are out there, that that would also be a violation. And did I hear

correctly that that would not? So they could absolutely under other laws and with the attorney

general who started a website just to take these types of complaints.

This is about law enforcement, enforcing the law.

And so a community member doesn't have law enforcement rights.

So that's why we're focusing on the people that can enforce the policy, which would not

be your average citizen.

Although they could absolutely put in a complaint with the Office of the Independent Monitor

or their attorney general.

Okay.

I didn't see the language in here that makes it clear to me that this only law enforcement

can ask for the ID and then enforce on that.

So maybe that can be made clearer.

Okay.

And I sent the sponsors an email over the week,

and I didn't get a response yet.

I did get some from John Griffin.

Councilwoman Alvedres asked John to respond when she...

I didn't get John.

Well, I emailed him separately,

and I didn't get a full response on...

And I just want to take a moment to thank John

because he has been doing backflips in the past week

to help us not push this along any further.

So thank you John, taking time from his family

in the evenings to address all of these things.

But thank you for that last minute question.

Go ahead.

You need to raise, John.

I am still unsettled because I didn't get a response

on the identification section that has been brought up

by Councilman Torres also.

I think it may have some unnecessary vulnerabilities

that could expose us to maybe invalidating it,

not just what was mentioned by Councilwoman Torres,

but the last paragraph C, the penalty concerns me.

The answer that you provided to City Attorney Miko Brown,

I guess yesterday, was that the general penalty

covers a violation of the identification section,

But in here...

Of the masking section.

No, of the identification section.

Paragraph C.

Any person who does not provide the information request in this section

shall be presumed to be impersonating an officer

subject to the penalties in DRMC 3833,

which has reference also to state law,

which makes it a classified felony.

And that concerns me because classified felonies

are things like criminally negligent homicide.

And I don't know that for an officer to fail

to identify themselves should be in the same class as that.

What I would suggest is just remove that entirely

if your intent as you responded is to make it

just a general penalty under the city code.

Can you read that to you?

That response, the general,

the reason that that response was provided

was in reference to section 302, which was about masks.

So although you're seeing that comment at the end,

the question that I think Miko was getting at

in that last part about the penalty

is that there is a specific penalty for impersonating an officer.

There is not a specific penalty for not wearing a mask.

That's why the mask has the general penalty.

And the second part has the specific impersonation penalty.

Okay, maybe I'm misreading the response.

The response to that paragraph is it's subject to the general penalty.

If you can just give John a chance to.

I would love to see that removed because that's a roadblock for me.

because literally they are not impersonating an officer.

We charge people who are impersonating an officer when they are not.

Which they would go to court and they'd be able to prove that they're actual officers.

And they would still, which they'd still have to identify themselves.

And I also, I'm going to have Donald Pine, but I wanted to let you know where that came from

because it was us being responsive to DPD because they have undercover operations.

And so in order to not be able to impede their operations to be able to do their jobs,

We had to be able to have a section that provided them the exemption to be able to do so as well,

but we were also addressing people who are impersonating officers.

But, John, I'll go on.

John, before, I would suggest that this is an unnecessary vulnerability in here.

We don't need this in here in order to enforce the failure to provide ID.

We should just make it a general sessions penalty.

Councilman Flynn, we have, John, can you please respond if you understand the question

or if you need Councilman Flynn to restate the question so it's on the record.

No, yeah, no, I have a Councilman Flynn and I have talked about this.

So generally, and I apologize, John, do you mind introducing yourself?

Sure, Jonathan Griffin, Deputy Legislative Counsel.

So as we've all discussed, and even the impersonating of an officer section reverts back to the general penalty.

So if there is confusion, it would not be difficult to remove that because functionally it would work the same way.

I believe we can speak offline.

Marley is here and can probably provide better guidance.

But I can understand why that was confusingly written.

And I think functionally it would be possible to remove the penalty if the sponsors were okay with it.

And it would still lead to the same result and possibly reduce some confusion and possibly reduce some difficulty for prosecution.

That's exactly my point.

And I don't want to leave anything in here that gives us, makes us vulnerable to more challenging than we're already going to get.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Thank you, Council Member Flynn.

Council President Sandoval and Council President Pro Tem Romero Campbell.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the sponsors.

So just to clarify a couple things, I see that you both are open to taking suggestions before this comes to the floor.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

That's all I need to hear because I think that everything, like, the devil's in the

details and operationally we want this to be an ordinance that is passed that can be

implemented.

So just one, I think it's like 97% of the way there.

I think just a few tweaks and I just want to make sure that the sponsors are open to

doing that.

Yeah, and you know that well because we've involved you in this conversation.

We've been having these conversations since June.

We've involved the city attorneys.

Whoever wants to be a part of the conversation that has expressed an interest, a change,

a desire, a question, an idea, we have been absolutely open to that.

We can remain to be and continue to be open to figuring out how we get this to a place.

Again, the only ask that we have of folks, if they want to engage in this dialogue, is

that you come with ideas and suggestions and not simply concerns, because that is how we

continue to get to this 90% and not 100% that you all can be comfortable with.

And I would just admit, I would also say that, you know, we have a sense of urgency.

I am literally losing constituents.

Every week I hear about a constituent that has been taken.

And so the urgency that we have of not wanting to postpone and postpone because of a period

dot, cross the T, take out the sentence is why we are deeply, deeply, like, concerned

about what's happening in our communities.

And when people just make these random questions

and it feels like people are just pushing this off,

we're losing people.

We're losing accountability every day.

So I just want to...

It has two weeks to come to the floor, right?

Right, correct.

It has two weeks to come to the floor.

So in that time from now to two weeks,

we can work on changing because I don't want...

What I don't want is I don't want this

to be amended on the floor.

We don't either.

I'm just saying my aye statements.

I don't want it to be amended on the floor because I think it's a powerful bill and it's

really important that we implement right now.

So I'm just saying that as the two sponsors, I just want to get to a bill that when we

pass it, we introduce it and we vote unanimously on it because I don't want any of, I feel

like it weakens the strength of the bill if it's amended on the floor, but it can be amended

through the entire process.

So I heard a suggestion from Councilman Torres.

I heard a suggestion from Councilmember Flynn.

And what I hear clearly, just to redefine, we need language.

We don't need, hey, we're worried about this.

You're worried about this.

Give us suggested language, and then let's tweak that language

to make sure that we have the outcomes that we need.

That's perfect.

So then I have a question for the PPA, the speaker from the PPA.

Please reintroduce yourself, sir.

In your comments, you made an, uh, made a, uh, I don't know what to, how to describe it right now.

But you said that if this bill were to pass, that there might be, could be, problems with, um, other enforcement like the ATF and other things.

So I'll give you my lived experience.

I was held at gunpoint in my driveway and it ended up with the ATF because he ended up going through all kinds of different counties and it was a gun that was stolen.

And I had to not deal with the Denver Police Department.

I had to deal with the ATF and deal with the whole entire case that was impacted my whole entire family.

I don't understand how this bill would impact the Denver Police Department being able to work with other federal jurisdictions.

Because all we're asking in this bill, the intent of the bill, is to not be masked because the officers who came to me and helped me and saved me in my car were not masked.

The officer who is the ATF officer, every time I had to go to court with him and every

time I had to go to the U.S. and sit and be identified and had to go to give my statement,

he wasn't masked.

And he wore plain clothes every time I had to meet him downtown.

He did.

Because he was undercover and I got it.

But he was not masked.

and she really helped me and helped me feed myself through this case.

That was really challenging for me and my family at a very hard time.

So I just don't understand how your comment,

can you just please say your comment again?

Because I'm just not understanding operationally

how if this has clear language of us saying

that we don't want masked people, officers, in our community,

how that would differ from operationally what you all do.

Ryan Salco, PPA.

First of all, sorry you had to go through that horrible experience.

The purpose of that comment was not to say that we would allow them to wear masks

when we were working with them operationally.

It's more we don't want an erosion of trust with our partners.

We want to maintain the good working relationship we have with the ATF, the DEA, FBI, so we

can prosecute crimes on behalf of our victims.

It's not to give them permission or validate wearing a mask.

Okay.

And I would just say as me, Amanda Sandoval, who gets paid by public tax dollars and the

ATF and everyone else who gets paid by public tax dollars that that relationship has already

been eroded. There isn't trust. Correct. And so what we're attempting to do here is build more

trust and I understand that they may not like this. I get it. There's a lot of things that

happen to me in my life that I don't like. There's a lot of things that happen to my community

that I don't like and there's things that are going on in the country that

absolutely go against every value I have as Amanda Sandville and I'm just

asking you as the president of the PPA or whatever your role is in the PPA to

please work with us on this bill to get it to a place that we the community can

build trust on because that's all we're doing all we're saying is you can't wear

a mask and you have to have an identification and I know I know for a fact that that's something that

is woven in through every single law enforcement including the fire department including our

sheriff's department everyone you have to wear a mask you have to have a badge and you have to

identify yourself and you can't be hidden and so I'm just saying that that's all we want in this

and we're not trying to erode any trust that we have.

The work that you do with the ATF

and all of the other federal outside of ICE

really is important and I'm a product of that.

My family can attest to I am a product of that.

I am alive today because of that help.

So I just want you to understand that I take this very seriously

and I take your job very seriously

and I hope that the PPA can come to the table

and help the sponsors operationally operate,

give this to a place and tell your partners

on the other side that we're doing this

to build trust in Denver community.

And that's the intent of that period.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sponsors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President,

Council President Tamora-Maria Campbell

and then Council Member Parity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the sponsors and my colleagues

that are around the table today.

I don't have, my questions have actually been answered

for where this goes.

And I just want to acknowledge that it's a challenging,

it's a hard conversation to have, I think,

and appreciate each one of you for your questions

and for moving through.

That's what committee's for.

That's what we are here to do to be able to have

these conversations, to work together,

to create something that is very strong that comes forward for our community,

something that is ironclad, something that we can all go back to our communities

and say, absolutely, we heard you.

And to Council President's point of it is for all of our community.

It is for all of us wherever we sit in this city.

So I just want to thank you for listening with open hearts and minds

and contributing to this conversation.

I am not a voting member on this committee,

but I do hope to be able to see this come to the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Council President Pro Tem.

Councilmember Perry and then Councilmember Gonzalez-Guterres.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you so much to everyone who came.

I love it when we have a packed room, and it's really beautiful,

and I appreciate you all.

So I have a lot to say about this bill.

I am so grateful for the work you've done on it.

It's incredibly well written.

It's legally sound.

I have responses to a bunch of the points that we've heard from the city attorney's office,

some of which we are hearing for the first time in committee, which is not appropriate.

It's just not.

And we need to move this bell through today because we could be facing this next week

at a much higher scale, and we are facing it every single day.

I don't think, and just to step back, the only reason we're putting this into our code

is because it's something that we've taken for granted.

Like, we have assumed that we don't do massed, secret law enforcement in Denver or in the

United States of America.

So it's absurd that we're putting it in our code, but we need to do it.

We need to do it yesterday.

These sponsors have revised and revised and revised this bill.

They are deeply responsive to issues like this 25-foot nitpick or whatever that is.

I know they will do what needs to be done before the floor, and we need to get this

through today.

The consequences of not doing so are foreseeable.

Our colleagues foresaw what the consequences would be, which is why they started working

on these things this summer.

And then we saw basically civil war in Minneapolis.

We saw federal agents with masks on who could not immediately be identified committing open

murder in the streets.

That's real.

It was hard to imagine when you guys started working on this bill that that would have

happened by the time we had it in committee.

And it has.

So thank you for your prescience.

but we're here now and we know Denver's on the list of cities that they want to

attack that they want to send these agents to. Here are some of the

consequences if we don't pass this bill. There have already been incidences of

sexual assaults around the country committed by men in masks who said that

they were federal law enforcement who are not federal law enforcement. That has

happened. We have already seen again open federal terrorism on the straits of a

city which is it's hard to even even wrap your head around the consequences of

that for the people in that city.

There have been children taken in broad daylight

and shipped off to Texas who had valid refugee applications

pending.

Courts have said this is completely illegal,

and they're still doing it.

They're kidnapping kids with masks.

I mean, they actually are.

That is happening.

Not only that, they have, again,

we were unable to immediately identify Alex Peretti's

murderers because they had masks on.

This isn't a close question.

It's not a hard question.

I actually don't agree that it's an uncomfortable question.

It's a really easy one.

It's a really, really easy one.

Now, as far as the details, and again,

these federal agents are already here in Denver.

They're already wearing masks in Denver.

And I am sorry to the people in law enforcement

who have tried to have trusting relationships

with federal law enforcement in the past,

because those are gone.

We cannot trust them anymore.

This has been Donald Trump's FBI and Kash Patel's FBI

and ICE for 10 months now.

And our mayoral administration, in the meantime,

allowed Donald Trump's FBI to have access to all of our FLOC cameras with no oversight

for 10 months.

They kicked them out in October.

There's no reason those agents needed to be in our systems until October.

So I am sorry, but the mayor's administration is not getting it.

And there's more.

Today is another example of that.

This bill is legally sound.

The link that you're referring to, Councilmember Flynn, I agree with the edit that John proposed.

I suspect the sponsors do too for clarity.

But the principle that you should be presumed to be

impersonating an agent if you break this law and cover your

face when valid law enforcement officers are not

supposed to cover their faces, and then you have to show up

in court and prove that you are, in fact, a federal agent

because you failed to do that at the scene is fine.

I think that's a lovely way to link our legal principles.

It makes sense.

And it puts it within a body of case law that we already

have and work with and understand.

It creates penalties, which was a concern of the first draft

that it wasn't totally clear what the penalties would be.

So I do agree with the edit that you all just came up

with on the fly, but I think with that added,

it's an exceptionally good mechanism.

I also want to say that the 20-foot, just FYI,

to the city attorney's office, what the language actually

says is not that it says that they must wear badges that,

by their nature, are visible at 25 feet.

And companies that make badges and name tags actually

will tell you how far away their badges are visible at.

It's like an accessibility feature.

So in fact, we can purchase badges

that meet that requirement, or these federal agencies

have to purchase badges that meet that requirement.

It's a pretty good way of measuring it.

But if we need to change it to say something more subjective,

like visible in broad daylight or a font letter

of a certain size, I know the sponsors will do that.

This is a nitpick.

We don't need to slow this bill down.

Our process is not the bills have

to be complete in committee.

The ask from the administration to postpone this committee

hearing over that level of issue shocked me, shocked me,

because we do not have time.

So I'm asking my colleagues to vote this through.

I am deeply thanking the sponsors for sitting through these kinds of criticisms today,

because this is a great bill.

And if the worst criticism we can come up with is around the vague phrasing around the penalty

and the idea of whether a badge can be read at 25 feet, which again, is something that

these companies express about their products when they make them, then this is ready for

the floor.

And it is needed on the floor today.

I actually have no questions.

Thank you very much, ladies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

that's number of gazelle's Gutierrez Thank You mr. chair I want to thank both

of you I'm incredibly proud of the work that you have done on this and the fact

that you know when I came and I know when you when I had my briefing council

Melavidre's I asked a lot of the questions around the penalties and all

of those things and I feel like you all have addressed a lot of those questions

that I have they weren't really concerns they were just questions to make sure

that we are putting forth as strong a policy as possible, because I completely agree.

Like, this needed to happen months ago, and it's not for your lack of trying, because

I know that you started the work very early on, and I recall those conversations very

early on.

And so I really, really greatly appreciate it.

I think as far as when we talk about trust being eroded, and I think a lot of my colleagues

have said this, you know, throughout their remarks, is that we have been attempting to

rebuild, build, just plain build trust with law enforcement, period.

To have what is happening to people in our community right now by people who are secret

police or we don't know if they're actually law enforcement is terrifying.

I also grew up in a situation where I think a person that was here earlier that made public comment and said,

if law enforcement, if somebody's trying to pull you over, regardless if they have lights and sirens,

you should go to a public place to be pulled over because you don't know, and this is even as just a woman,

not just, not alone a woman of color, but a woman, that you should make sure you go somewhere public

so that you don't know, you can make sure that that is actually a law enforcement officer.

So people impersonating law enforcement officers is not a new thing.

It's something that has happened in history.

And at this level, it's a whole new level because it is being allowed by our government.

And that is not okay.

And so what I'm asking right now is I'm asking for our federal, I mean not federal, I wish I could ask them.

I'm asking for our administration, our mayoral administration, to work with the sponsors, to work with city council to make this happen.

Because I completely agree the sense of urgency is here.

It's been here.

And we have moved policy in a swift manner before when we know it's important.

and I appreciate Council President you mentioning the fact that we have time to make these changes

and continue this progressing forward and I am a voting member of the committee so I will of course

be supporting this to go forward to the full body and I will be here to help if anything is needed

I'm happy to assist with whatever is needed whether it's being in those meetings or anything

of that fact. I appreciate all the work and thought that has gone into this and again I'm going to

implore upon the administration, PPA, you know DPD, whoever needs to be part of those conversations,

come to the table and let's help get this thing through. So thank you so much for your work. Thank

you Mr. Chair. Thank you. And for this we can add five minutes. We did extend public comment for about 15 minutes so we want to make sure we have the opportunity for a vote.

Council Member, sorry, I believe I saw your hand.

Would you like to be back into the queue?

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair.

Again, truly appreciate you guys being so responsive to the questions that I had in my briefing last Thursday.

And I really appreciate the changes that you've made to the document up to this point.

I am very supportive of this.

Our community wants this.

Our community needs this.

And every single council member wants to vote yes.

Right?

we all want this. The question I have is really around my question that wasn't answered before

committee today, and then we discovered that it is actually an issue. The other affected agency's

question. And so I'm a little bit torn because when we sign our rules of office, we have a

fiduciary responsibility to the city and county of Denver to make sure that what we are doing

is appropriate and legal and implementable and all the things. I also agree 100% with the

immediacy of this need. And so I'm a little bit torn. I am a voting member of this committee,

and I'm not sure what I want to do here because our threshold of comparison in committee is,

is this ready for the floor? And the language that is in front of us today, given that you guys have

discovered at least one issue that was never responded to by the city attorney's office,

I don't know if it's ready for the floor or not. And that is the threshold we have to consider here

today, right? So I'm a little bit torn on which way I'm going to go, not because I don't believe

in this ordinance because I do. I've already told you I'm a yes when we get there. But I'm

just not sure that we have hit that threshold. And so I appreciate Council President Sandoval's

comment or question to you all and your commitment to kind of check the rest of the boxes before the

two weeks is, you know, before it's filed in 10 days. Do you guys think that you can get to this

and like just commit to me that you will get this done in 10 days.

Yes, we will.

And I know having been on the receiving end of agencies

that have been very difficult to work with in some things,

I understand completely the situation that you guys have been put in.

And it's not a commitment today.

We've been perpetually committed to working with the departments as well.

And I will say for your DDPHE Parks and Rec

that it sounded like for Miko that she couldn't answer that question

in this moment that she wanted to have a private conversation about that.

Yeah, I appreciate that, but I asked that question in my briefing last Thursday.

Okay.

So it was not—

We asked about Parks and Rec, and we did get an answer from Parks and Rec that said

they were not law enforcement.

Now we got conflicting information, and so I think that goes back to the frustration

with getting answers from the administration and postponement, and then something else

comes up and postponement, so I'm grateful that you're willing to move this forward

if we commit to continuing to work with them and getting this, you know, ironed out that

issue.

this particular issue will be ironed out before we're at the full floor. Okay. I really appreciate

that. Thanks. And council members, we have two new members in the queue, encourage brevity,

and then we're going to go to a vote. Council member Parity and council member Torres.

Yeah. I just, on the park ranger issue, here's my thought about this. I mean, first of all,

I think we've heard that I don't think you guys care how they need to be addressed as long as we

get it correct. Also, they shouldn't be wearing masks and have an ID. So essentially, if they are

legally law enforcement, then they shouldn't wear masks and they won't be able to wear masks.

And if they're not legally law enforcement, then that doesn't impact them. So I don't really see

how it matters. I agree we need to get it right, but I think that's quite easy to do. So I don't

understand why we would postpone over that either, frankly. Council Member Torres. Thank you. On the

same issue, the language I heard is that the Director of Safety determines which ordinances

they are empowered to enforce.

So it sounds like you can choose not to include this

as one of the things that they are empowered to enforce.

They have discretion, at least the director of safety.

Thank you, Wendy.

Yep, absolutely.

Wendy Shea, Special Counsel Department of Public Safety.

I really think this probably comes down to just a definition.

So just with a little time, I think we can present it to the sponsors

and get to where we need to be.

Because what we're hearing is we want this to address law enforcement.

We know we have some law enforcement, ICE, et cetera, that enforces civils.

So we want to make sure they're included in this bill.

So I think that that is the case.

There are some delegations, right, that are coming from the executive director of safety.

The definition right now of law enforcement is very broad.

So it appears to encompass.

But what we're hearing is we're not necessarily intending to encompass that.

So I feel like given us an opportunity, we can get some language over rather quickly for the sponsors to consider.

Wonderful. We can have that by the end of the week. That would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Wendy.

Thank you. So I understand the committee's concern about it not being ready.

I think it's 97 percent there.

And we have a commitment from the two sponsors on the record saying that they will.

And I think if we file this on Thursday for mayor council, I bet even by mayor council next Tuesday, if you all are willing to, you've put in so much work.

You know I've been calling you all weekend.

You know I've been working on you, working with this.

That if you are willing to put in that much work to get us this far, I say we vote it through committee.

And by next Tuesday by the time if we see it at mayor council

It's gonna be you can use the opportunity at mayor council in the comment period in the in like when we do announcements

To make an announcement on the floor of mayor council to say what changes have been done

because you all you have our comment

Don't like getting bills at the last minute right?

We all say to the administration that we don't want to get bills at the last minute and have to read them over the weekend.

So I would just say in between now and next Tuesday, if you can have that bill, work on it.

Do it. Set up a meeting right now. Have your council aides clear the couples meeting you all have to do.

And I would just ask the administration that if you all of our schedules are so complicated,

mine being complicated and I made time over the weekend I think I almost called all of you over

the weekend except for the city except for Marley and Wendy I literally called everyone all weekend

long to get us so that we could get an action item because this is so important and I know you all

have the same values so if we're all on the same page make that announcement next Tuesday use that

opportunity to make an announcement say you have a perfect bill talk about the work you did talk

about the changes and let's vote this through unanimously that following

Tuesday and we move on to other really important issues that are facing our city

knowing that we did this and then we could check that box because there's

tons of other things coming at us that we all are split all of our energies on

and we could be unified in this so that would be my ask of this committee right

now thank you council president Sandoval seeing no other council members in a

I'll make a quick, brief comment.

Councilmember Alvarez, Councilmember Lewis,

we spoke a lot about the utility of the bill,

the specifics of execution, implementation,

but what we didn't highlight and elevate and speak to is,

of you, individual women of color,

leading a bill that most likely is providing personal impacts

to you and your families.

And so as the chair of this committee,

I just want to say thank you so much for bringing this forward.

I understand that this bill and the authoring this bill is not just simply for you.

It's for the communities that's being harmed.

And then also that your families are actually under deeper scrutiny because of your sponsorship.

Know that I am here in solidarity with you.

Should law enforcement folks be masked?

Hell no.

Does this bill or next bring us towards ending that practice?

Yes.

So I will be strongly supporting.

If we're not seeing any other questions, is there a motion to move this to the floor?

moved. It's been moved by council. I want to make sure you're on a committee.

Council president made a motion and council member parity seconded. Is there a need for

this to be done by acclamation or vote or can we do it by thumbs up? Thumbs up. This will be

moved to the floor. We have one item.

Thank you.

Thank you.