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.

My name is Darrell Watson.

I'm honored to serve as the chair of the Health and Safety Committee and also as the City Councilmember representing all of the fine district nine.

Today is June 10th.

We have one briefing from Denver Police and one item on consent.

Before we roll into the presentation, why don't we have introductions by council members?

And I'll start with our council members that are virtual.

I believe we have Councilmember Flynn and Sawyer.

We'll turn it to you.

Good morning, everyone, Councilman Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2.

Good morning, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

Thank you both for here.

And then we'll start on our right with Councilman.

Good morning, everyone.

Sadana Gonzalez Coquetes.

I'm one of your council members at large.

Good morning, Paul Cashman, South Denver District 6.

Thank you everyone for being here.

We'll turn over to Denver Police.

Chief Thomas, who I'll have you introduce yourself and all of our colleagues from Denver Police and turn the floor over to you.

Uh well, thank you.

Uh Councilman Watson, um, Democrats Chief Ron Thomas.

Um, happy to once again present on education-based uh development, and so I'll start with the agenda if you want to go to that slide.

And so uh we'll be presenting on the what, why, and how of education-based development.

Uh, we'll also talk about eligibility, example scenarios, survey results, and our community engagement, along with program changes based on feedback and guardrails that we've established.

Now, a lot has been offered.

Next slide, please.

Um, no, no, sorry, one back.

Sorry.

Um, a lot has been offered about what education development is and isn't.

Uh, and so for the record from our perspective, education-based development is an alternative to traditional discipline for lower level violations.

It's focused on behavior changes through training and coaching, it addresses root causes of mistakes, it uses targeted training and counseling, and it's designed to improve long-term performance.

And more importantly, uh, what education development is not is it is not a replacement for discipline.

It is not a change to the discipline matrix, and is not a bypass of internal affairs or the Office of the Independent Monitor Review.

Uh, so the core idea ultimately of education-based development is to create a faster and more meaningful uh accountability without reducing oversight.

I want to emphasize that point without uh reducing oversight, which we understand is very important.

So, why is education-based development needed?

First, there are a number of challenges with our current system, and we've discussed this before.

There's a large number of low lower-level cases.

Minor cases often require months to resolve, longer timelines impact the ability to correct mistakes efficiently, and education development would uh would create more current development uh and training uh timelines, and so all of those challenges I think um have negative impacts on officer morale and productivity.

Um, more broadly, there's a growing movement which recognizes that in the current system officer development has become far less important than punitive outcomes for minor mistakes, and those penalties don't address the why.

Also, programmatically procedural and restorative justice has become widely accepted, uh, widely separated practice in favor of uh retributive justice.

And so, just to put a finer point on the current challenges, as you can see, the bulk of our cases, which are those that um where an oral or written reprimand is um the most likely outcome if the charge would be to be sustained.

It's taking six to eight months to resolve those cases.

All right.

Good morning, everyone.

To introduce myself, my name is Wendy Shea, I am special counsel of the department of safety.

But I'm here today because in late July, I also assume the role of being the acting deputy director over oversight of Denver Police Discipline and Denver Fire Discipline as we look to replace the role that had been vacated.

In that role, I worked very closely with our executive director, executive director Al Gardner, to hear the ideas as well as the concerns about education-based development as well as the draft policy.

And I worked alongside him after we listened to those concerns and ideas to make what we believe are meaningful changes to the draft policy that addressed several key areas that we believe needed to be implemented to fully take this vision to where we wanted it to go.

So I think pretty much everyone's familiar with our disciplinary matrix, but just to provide a little context here.

For violation, there's conduct categories that then determine the penalties that will be assessed.

There's five actual conduct categories for the Denver police that range from A to F.

They all have a specific definition.

One thing that Director Gardner wanted to make very clear and did in the revisions to the policy is that currently what's going to happen with this policy is that there's only certain types of rules and regulation violations that are eligible, and it's only for conduct categories A and B.

Conduct category A is conduct that has a minimal negative impact on the operations or professional image of the department.

Conduct category B is conduct that has more than a minimal negative impact on the operations or professional image of the department, or that negatively impacts relationships with other officers, agencies, or the public.

There is also specific appendix that's attached that sets forth this only the specific rules and regulations that are eligible.

So that was something that there was concerns expressed, and they were fair concerns that it wasn't exactly clear what might be eligible and what's not.

I also want to take this opportunity, we're gonna discuss it as we continue to go.

But should there be a question as to what conduct might fit into these categories between the Denver Police Department and the Office of the Independent Monitor, the process still allows for the independent monitor or the Denver Police Department to escalate the issue to be resolved by the executive director.

And that's something that's made clear in this policy every step of the way that the monitor has a role, recommendations are made up to the executive director just as they are in our disciplinary process, and then he will make the final call if it's needed.

Some examples just really quickly on the A through B were discourtesy, generals, duties and responsibilities, again, these very minor type of violations.

So that's what we did.

Just go ahead, sorry, Esther, thank you very much.

For what's not eligible, and what is clear here is anything that C through F, F is termination, terminal type conduct.

But all of this, use of force, deceptive acts, bias-related incidents, any of this, repeated misconduct, which we'll talk about in a minute, is not gonna be eligible.

Again, should the independent monitor agree with the Denver police department and believe that a violation falls within a C category.

Denver police believes it falls within A or B and may be eligible.

That can get escalated to our executive director to make that final determination after he listens to both sides.

Next slide.

Thank you.

All right.

So the chief talked about this a little bit about some of the benefits of education-based development.

I think one of the keys here is it it promotes timely and meaningful accountability.

Officers are asked to accept responsibility and in fact will have to enter into agreement if it's determined that they're eligible to participate in this program.

So that also demonstrates that willingness to improve.

The other key here is it we believe this gives us the opportunity to strengthen community trust through positive interactions with police officers.

And the reason why is again this key of being able to mentor, provide our officers the tools that they may need to hopefully correct the conduct moving forward, and not be in a situation where they're in discipline for months or even a year, and not being able to take that opportunity for things like discourtesy.

Alright, so the current disciplinary process, I think everybody knows this, I'm not really gonna go through it right, but we get a complaint that's received, it gets investigated by our Internal Affairs Bureau, the OIM looks at it, either certifies it as thorough and complete to move through the process or returns it to ask for more investigation.

Once the monitor's office is certified it, right, it goes to our conduct review, they make a recommendation, the monitor's office gets to make a recommendation, the chief determines what we're gonna proceed on, goes all the way up for the final order to be issued by the executive director's office.

So the disciplinary process with education-based development.

So let me discuss this in a little bit more detail.

Um so one of the keys here is that's still gonna have an internal investigation.

There's two real reasons for this, right?

We need to make sure that the conduct actually is eligible.

The second reason is it may not be eligible and may still need to go through the process, and we don't want to delay that piece, but it also the officer may decide not to accept education-based discipline because this is voluntary on the part of the officers.

So if in fact they're determined to be eligible, they have the ability to say, yes, I'll participate.

I agree to participate or I don't.

If they don't, we continue with the process.

Should they agree and then not complete what they were supposed to complete during the time they were required to do it, we're right back in the process.

Okay, so if the officer doesn't accept the agreement, that's just what I said.

Back to the same process, it's like that circumstance never existed.

Or again, if they fail to comply with what they were required to comply, immediately right back in that process, and it's like it didn't exist in the first place.

Again, just emphasizing the fact here of eligibility is ultimately determined if Denver police and the monitor's office agree, or if there's a disagreement, it gets elevated to the executive director who makes the final decision on that issue.

So I can have the chief talk a little bit more on some of these example scenarios.

One thing that I just really want to point out is it's really important to note that a lot of this training or mentoring, coaching, what's ever going to be part of EBD is going to be individualized to the situation.

In other words, there can't be a one-size-fits-all because then it defeats this purpose.

So a lot of the training's gonna be developed based upon the circumstances that we're seeing that's gonna be specifically targeted towards the officer.

With that said in the policy, before the training plan goes out, before the offer of EBD goes out, the monitor's office has the opportunity to review, will have the opportunity to review all of the training and provide recommendations and input before it goes.

If there's a dispute between DPD and the monitor, gets elevated to our executive director to make the final decision as to what that plan and uh the agreement should include.

But there will be potentially some generalized training that may be helpful.

And the chief will talk on this.

I'll turn it over to him in just a second.

And that generalized training is what is being worked on right now.

I believe we're even partnering with the DA's office to do that.

That again will be shared before it's finalized with the monitor's office again to get those recommendations as to her thoughts when she sees that as well.

But chief, let me turn it over to you to talk a little bit more.

Yeah, just uh just to talk a little bit more clearly.

So all of you are aware of the fact that our academy is 26 weeks long, our um operations manual.

Um, I think everybody in the room is old enough to remember that the yellow pages as thick as that.

Um, so quite a few policies and procedures to go through on top of that, there are you know, there are constant um policy changes, rule changes, um, legislative changes that that occur every year, and so there's you know, there's a need to put out training bulletins and make sure that everybody is is clear on all of those um updated policies and procedures.

And I think it's it's easy to understand how someone could forget or just not understand how to handle a particular issue, and so um, and so in that particular instance, you know, the under the current system, they may go through a six or eight-month investigation, um, and then ultimately wind up with a written reprimand, and at the end of it still not really understand two things.

One, not understand what the actual correct action that they should have taken is.

The second thing that they uh may not have a clear understanding of is what the impact was on the individual that was involved in that particular incident.

And so we think that in each of these situations, whether it's a report writing issue or um a matter of uh discourteous conduct or an equipment handling situation, we think that through the um through the education-based development we can make sure that at the end of it they clearly understand what the correct action uh we expect them to take is going forward and make sure that they understand what the community expectation is because I think that's actually equally as important as the correct action, understanding the impacts that their that their missteps and their mistakes have on the community.

That's a little bit and then I can jump in.

Okay.

So uh just to talk a little bit about the community engagement um and the survey that we did.

So um initially, when uh during some of some of our initial drafts of this particular um policy, um we had uh meetings at every single district where um our internal affairs commander uh presented on the the policy and the procedure.

Um at the end of that there was a QR code that was presented to individuals so that they could um so that they could scan the QR code and provide some feedback relative to that presentation.

Um we also uh engaged with um the civil service commission, uh several community groups, um, uh some academic partners and ultimately had meetings with uh the Citizen Oversight Board and the Office of Independent Monitor.

Um, one of the recommendations is that we go even further in terms of uh seeking community feedback, and so we posted um the most recent iteration of the policy on our website and asked for um for feedback and for people to weigh in on whether they supported or did not support uh the policy.

And so you can see that um that there that there was uh a number of responses over over the course of about a year, and uh the majority of those responses were supportive of moving forward in the direction that we are okay.

And one thing just to add as we're proceeding through that, we even had a hearing officer, someone that um presides over the discipline for DPD reach out and wanted to talk to us and provide her recommendations, and we did that, and we had that, and that actually provides some valuable feedback.

And by we, I mean that meeting occurred with the hearing officer, the executive director, Chief Thomas, independent monitor Castle, and me.

So we could really get that feedback because it's important too, right, to have the people that are sitting and making decisions raise issues that they had seen, and thoughts that they had had regarding the policy.

So we're gonna talk about some of the feedback and how it was addressed.

So the program name, everybody knows this, it got renamed to education-based development because it's really not discipline.

Hopefully, it's not intended to be discipline, but the policy does provide.

Let's say the officer is eligible for and has education-based discipline and successfully completes it.

And then we see that officer come back on that substantially similar type of situation, discourtesy, we'll use as an example.

That can be used as what's called an aggravating factor in the disciplinary process.

Two things happen there.

They would no longer be entitled to go back to education-based discipline, but the second thing is key.

We look at the fact that they actually were provided this mentoring and guidance.

Apparently, something happened, it may not have stuck.

That means when we get to figuring out what the penalty is, that penalty may be aggravated depending upon the circumstances.

That's specifically in the policy, and it's an important piece because it's not like this is getting it, it doesn't have any impact.

Let me say it that way, if they don't learn anything when they go through the process.

It does, and they're they're made aware of that as well.

Eligibility, again, it was a much broader window when this draft was initially put out there.

In listening to all of the concerns about that, and also having executive director just think about it.

He really landed on let's pilot this and go with A through B and those specifics that I told you that's an appendix of what that is.

That's very important.

So everybody comes to the table and understands what's potentially eligible and not.

And then again, we have that whole process when there's disagreement if there is between DPD and the monitor for our executive director to resolve it.

Officer admission.

What this is is this is an acknowledgement for them to be eligible for education-based development.

They enter into an agreement, and part of that agreement is they accept responsibility.

They admit, right, that what they did needs to be done better, and they will do better in the future, and that's hopefully why they're going through this process because they also want to develop, learn, do better.

Training, so it's a 90-day completion window.

Again, as I said, that training will be individualized.

There may be some more general training that we think benefits the officer, not training they've been through before, and I want to highlight that too.

And all of that training and the agreement goes to the independent monitor first for comments, recommendations before it's finalized.

Any dispute can be elevated to the executive director for a final determination on that.

So I've talked about this a lot, but I am review is at every stage of the process, just as it is in the disciplinary process, and it is specifically written in the policy.

And that was something that executive director Gardner wanted, thought it was very important.

I do too, and it is specifically written in here.

That whole process, time frames, all of that.

So we're all working from the same page, and we all understand what the expectations are before this gets started.

Transparency, if somebody is eligible and agrees to education-based discipline, there's a whole part of the policy that talks about IA Pro.

IAPRO is our database where we keep all of the disciplinary matters, everything, including the agreement, all the training, whether or not it was successfully completed, all of that is included in IAPRO.

The monitor has access to all that information.

So her and her team can also see how it's proceeding.

Did the officer successfully complete it?

If not, are we right back in the process?

But another really important part is feedback.

And what that didn't address, that I just want to point out in the policy, the executive director actually added a couple things that are really really important.

One is external complaints, if in fact what they've complained about is something that an officer's eligible for education-based discipline, they're gonna be notified about that.

They're gonna be notified about what the training program is, they're gonna be notified about the results, and then they're gonna be asked for feedback, and they're asked for feedback through a form that's been developed in conjunction with the review and recommendation of the monitor's office.

Should they not complete that form?

We have in the policy that IA needs to follow up with them and see if we can get some feedback.

Because that's what's really important to see if this is going to be successful or not.

Hearing that feedback from the community member that it may impact or not.

So that was something that was really important.

Another thing, and a very key point that the executive director included in this policy is regular meetings with not just him but the independent monitor, where chief and his team will present about what cases went, how successful it was, what they're seeing, so those discussions will be had, that can be an opportunity for what's working, what's not, but again, that's something that's specifically built into this policy, even in more information about what's going to be included in a written report.

And there are bullets of what DPD is going to be asked to provide in a written report before they meet with the monitor and the executive director to make sure the information is there and it can be appropriately covered and questions can be asked by anybody.

There will also be an annual meeting that's also in here to provide and discuss, right, as more data is gathered.

So I think those are important points.

And then just to sum up, IA, the Internal Affairs Bureau for DPD is still going to investigate the level of review that Office of the Independent Monitor has remains absolutely unchanged.

Officer again, as I said, may decline to participate because it's completely voluntary disciplinary process, then we'll proceed.

If they fail to complete training, it's going to return to our disciplinary process.

Anytime we see these repeated patterns of misconduct, it is excluded from the EBD process.

The policy also specifically is out when an officer is eligible and when they're not.

So if they have been offered and successfully completed, like I said, within 18 months and they end up back in the system, no matter what that is, they're not eligible for EBD anymore.

So that the all of this is now explained in the policy.

So I won't go through much of that anymore, but there will also be a public reporting dashboard just like we have now with the disciplinary process and all of that.

They'll be reporting on how many officers have been offered EBD, how many officers accepted EBD, how many were successful, how many weren't, so that the community and anybody that wants to see that is able to see it and ask questions should they have them.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you both.

Uh Chief Thomas and City Attorney uh Wendy Shea.

Thank you also to Esther Lee Leach, our legislative liaison for the Department of Safety.

I appreciate your engagement and coordination of all of these meetings.

Um we do have a queue for city council members, and so we'll start first with questions from Councilmember Flynn and then Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Chief and Wendy for the presentation.

Uh, you know, in so many areas of society, we are looking for uh positive ways to handle uh instances that require correction.

And especially for low-level uh matters, uh, that you've outlined here the A and the B.

And I think that uh this is also an opportunity to sort of unclog the jam that occurs when officers wait for up to a year uh for a level A or B resolution through the disciplinary process and hopefully with a more positive outcome.

Uh, as I said, we look for that in so many areas of of society today.

Uh but what would help me uh understand a little better visually, uh, would be a chief if you could uh give us specific example of a discourtesy or or some of those other AB uh level uh violations that so that I can understand what is a what is a discourtesy and what is uh what fits into some of those other A and B, some specific examples.

So yeah, better.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Um, so you know, I mean obviously you know, this courtesy is someone who um engages with someone in a discourteous manner is is short, is uh unprofessional in their in their uh dealings with an individual, but I think maybe a scenario, and I've offered this scenario before, which I think is something that will be eligible for education-based development.

This is something that I think frequently happens when we talk about um reporting requirements and and and policy requirements.

So let's say uh again there is a car accident that happens on the border between Denver and Sheridan or Denver and Aurora, and um uh the officer responds to this to this accident, he um strongly believes that the accident occurred in a different jurisdiction, and so he's not responsible for taking that accident report, and so he tells he tells uh you know the the person who's already distraught because they've been involved in this accident that he can't take the report, they're gonna have to call this other jurisdiction.

Um, they do that, and then the other jurisdiction actually clarifies or somehow it gets clarified that it is in Denver, or even if it's not in Denver, our policy actually states that when there are those jurisdictional disputes that the officer will complete the report, and so I can certainly understand how um an officer might be led to believe or lead themselves to believe that um that if it didn't happen in Denver, then I'm not responsible for uh for making that report.

And so what the what the education would look like is helping them understand um some of those uh more specific uh policy points as it relates to jurisdictional disputes, um, and then um there may be um additional components on critical thinking, um, and then I think the probably the more important piece of that training module will also include helping them understand the impact that it had on that community member because um you know because in this in this significant delay between determining who's ultimately responsible for this um for this accident report, this um you know community members had to make several calls, they've had to sit there in an intersection for a lengthy period of time and gone through the frustration when all they needed is somebody to take the report so that they can move on with their day.

So I think that through um an education-based discipline module, um, they could walk away with the clear understanding of what our expectation is as a police department, and also what the community expectation is in those types of scenarios.

Well, that looks like now is um in similar situations uh as that it may take a number of weeks, months, um, sometimes you know up to a year because of the the clog in the system, for um that case to be heard, a determination be made that it's a sustained violation, and then they get this, they get served with this you know written reprimand that says you violated this particular policy, and and when they read that, there is no clear understanding of okay.

Well, obviously I was wrong, but when are you gonna tell me what I should have done instead?

And so I think that uh through this process we could do a better job of making sure people understand um what the correct steps to take were, what our expectation is as a department, and again, uh what the community's uh expectation is.

How much more efficient this can make the process while retaining all of the public disclosure and involvement?

Well, you know, remains to be seen just how much more efficient it will be.

I suspect that it will be significantly more efficient in terms of reducing the timeline on these cases, but again, um I think the more important outcome, aside from the timeliness, is the opportunity uh for there to be true accountability for there to uh uh to be a true opportunity to coach and train and make sure that an officer moves forward with um uh a level of understanding that they didn't have before.

Thank you, appreciate that information.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Flynn.

Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres and Councilmember Cash.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you, everyone for being here and providing this update.

Um, sorry, I was writing down a few questions as you're presenting, um, so um a couple of questions.

I guess has there been so of the community questionnaires, right?

That were that you kind of cited and provided some basic data on.

It looks like they were yes, no, unsure types of questions.

Yes.

Well, so the the the initial the initial um questionnaire had I don't know, six questions, and it you know, and essentially it was whether or not um they thought it would be effective, whether or not they thought it would have an impact on on community safety, you know, those kinds of things, and so that's where um people answered, you know, yes, I believe, no, I don't, or I'm I'm unsure.

Um the second um opportunity that we sought to to gather feedback was um was just putting the putting the the policy online and allowing people to make whatever comments they chose to make, and so uh reading every one of those comments uh it was easy to determine whether or not it was a comment in support of or a comment um against both of those comments offered suggestions sometimes.

There were a handful of times as I think it shows um that were reading it was really difficult to tell whether or not they were actually in support or not of support.

Um did you who put together the survey or the questionnaire?

How was that created?

Uh so the uh internal affairs commander, the um conduct review commander at the time and myself who put that questionnaire together.

Was anybody who has like experience in creating like questionnaires and surveys because it sounds like a lot of the questions were more in the affirmative rather than trying to get at you know, really that understanding of like if it was only asking if they supported essentially rather than asking if people have like concerns, sure, um, and then there wasn't any open-ended questions in the questionnaire, it sounds like and so there wasn't anybody that has like a background in kind of research and analytics and in helping to develop that questionnaire.

No, I don't believe so.

Okay, okay.

Um was the independent monitor, did they receive a copy of the raw data from the questionnaires?

Ultimately, yes.

Okay, so they have that information, like they have all the comments that were made, they have um the responses that were received and all of that.

Okay, um, was there any demographic information collected on the of the questionnaire?

Like where people live?

No, um, the only information that we have relative to that is those first six meetings that we had were all in our police districts, and so the demographics generally were the demographics of those uh six police districts.

So we don't know if the people that that replied to the questionnaire online actually live in Denver.

That's correct.

Okay, okay.

I'll just say on that front, like with the questionnaire and development and all of those things.

Like I know when we worked on our RNO policy, like we tapped into people who have um that expertise in developing surveys and questionnaires and how to best do that, how to make sure it's in available in different languages for language access, um, and then also having a mixture of different types of questions in order to get to um to gather the information you're seeking to gather, right?

Which is like that that actual feedback.

Um, and I am a little bit concerned because we also don't know if the responses came from people in Denver, and so that makes it very difficult.

And as one of the at large members who like represents the entire city of Denver, I would have a lot of concerns not knowing of whether or not those folks are actually living in our city and have the experience with with DPD.

Um I'm curious, and maybe I don't know if Wendy or Chief, if this is something you would answer on how long the independent monitor would have to review in the review process.

So you talk about how the monitor has an opportunity to review.

Is there a time frame on that review?

The time limit, I should say.

So with this one, and the chief would have to let me know that so the draft went through several iterations.

I don't know uh that the monitor along the way at least responded to that.

I will say with respect to when um we made the changes from the executive director's office.

We didn't necessarily put a time limit on that for the monitor.

This has been something that has, gosh, I don't know if it's a year now that we're almost at, or wherever we are.

So over a year.

So this process is a very um slow, almost deliberate.

And like I said, when we got to what uh the executive director and I were looking at, we wanted to make sure we had the opportunity to go back and watch things to the extent that they were available, listen, do all of that, and then give the monitor the extra opportunity, even when he made changes to provide that feedback.

Because she'd been involved in far more of those discussions and things like that.

I'm talking about the feedback that's I mean, I'm sorry, I'm talking about the process that you are proposing.

So in the process of a disciplinary or a complaint coming through in that review process and what you've outlined on the slides, how long will the monitor have to review those cases individually?

So it's it's in here.

So there's a difference between the IA part where there's not necessarily like a restriction or any when they're looking at it to decide if it's thorough or if they want more questions.

It is in the policy of how long they have if DPD determines that they think it's eligible to look through, and that process is in there, and that was a process that the OIM had the opportunity to come back and make suggestions or recommendations to.

What is that time frame?

I was just um so there's different time frames, so I can send that to you, but I don't want to speak off the top of my head.

I feel like it's five business days mainly between when if DPD thinks it's eligible to give the monitor the opportunity to look at it, determine, and then it still proceeds through the process because it would go to the conduct review commander, those two, meaning the monitor and conduct.

You can discuss still not in agreement, then elevated to Al, but that is in there.

So if those days expire, whatever the different time frames are, does it just continue to go through the process regardless if the monitor has been able to respond?

So, in my experience, the monitoring, all of us would respond, but it wouldn't just be well the monitor didn't respond.

There will be some extra steps taken because that would be the question that that Al would have, right?

Because the DPD cannot under this make a unilateral determination that it's going to be eligible.

So I hope that answers your question.

And we understand there's going to be circumstances where something may happen, they can't respond during that time, happens all the time.

Just right, we just need to continue and hopefully have that cooperative collaborative environment there of you can't respond in this period of time.

When do you think you can get us something?

And that's where we are.

It won't just be sorry, Mr.

Deadline, we're done.

Yeah.

And um, my last question for you, and then I know that the monitor is here, so I hate talking about somebody when they're like right there.

Um, I have a few questions for you, uh, monitor castle.

Um, how many times can an officer get EBD?

So that is in here.

So it depends on um, so there's certain things with eligibility, like for example, they have not had EBD offered or successfully completed an EBD agreement within the prior 12 months for any eligible A category.

That's one.

Another circumstance is they have not been offered or successfully completed an EBD agreement within the prior 18 months if it's a category B violation.

So that's in here, and then they can't be currently under any other active investigation, whether it's administrative or criminal, they're not eligible.

So that's set forth in there.

So then they they are eligible under certain circumstances.

Correct.

And that all depends, like I said, depending upon because you could have a discourtesy that doesn't fall within one of those A or Bs.

It may be significant enough that it's a C D, right?

So it's all dependent on a lot of what the conduct is, who, where it really falls in those conduct categories, that's the first step of determining if it's even eligible at all.

Okay, I think it would be helpful to get a red line version of the policy updates.

Because when I was looking at the policy that's posted online, it's the old one because it includes the C categories online, and so it sounds like those that has been updated since the feedback that it is only A B categories.

So there's a substantial difference.

I don't think that policy has been published yet.

That's correct.

And so it was actually a request by the monitor.

Obviously, we're not changing it online, and so we left it there.

Yeah, that's and that makes total sense because then it can get too confusing.

I know that all too well about something else.

But if um, but if it's possible for council members to receive a redlined copy of so that we can see the changes that have been made since the one that's posted online currently, is that possible?

I think we could share the the changes in red line that uh director Gardner made because that's essentially again, it went back to the monitor.

I want to make sure that her privilege is also protected.

But the way the policy looks, what's the final version and the changes that were made in that final version?

We can absolutely have to see who made what changes.

I just want to see where it looks like.

We see what it looks like now in a red line showing what has been changed, the next the final version version, I should say right now.

Um, real quick, if it's okay, Mr.

Chair, can I ask a few questions?

That's fine.

I'll also put a red line piece as well.

Individual council members can have individual briefings with you all you all as well.

So I I think demonstrating or presenting that redlined in additional briefings.

I mean, we see confidential information all the time, so I don't see that as a problem.

Yes, please.

Okay, um, thank you, monitor.

Um good morning, Castle.

I have a couple questions for you.

Um I just I guess could you speak to whether or not one I want to make sure there are any discrepancies when it comes to having the that you have everything that you need, and have you received all of the documentation?

And as far as the review process from your perspective, do you feel like you've had ample opportunity to provide the feedback?

I that's two questions in one.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Uh Councilwoman Guterres.

Um, first of all, I think that there is a disagreement in terms of what information we have received.

Oh, and did you introduce yourself?

I'm so sorry.

Yes, I'm Elizabeth Bettis Castle, I'm the independent monitor.

Um, with regards to the questionnaires that were put out to the community, we did not have um a uh we did not partake in that, that was done by the department.

And the questionnaires that were filled out, we were sent summaries by the department of comments, but we were not actually sent the questionnaires.

We have repeatedly asked that we be provided with the actual questionnaires and have made that demand pursuant to the ordinance.

I believe it's two-three ninety, that states that we are entitled to any data, uh, programs, information, everything, anything that we need as the independent monitor to make a determination about a policy or or training or discipline.

So I believe that the um they have refused to turn that over to the OIM.

I believe that's a violation of the ordinance, and I continue to demand that they provide us with those questionnaires.

I've also requested all of the training curriculum information that they have for training that they already have in place.

Um my concern is is that this is gonna get rolled out, and we're gonna be working on the back foot, and we're being asked to make a recommendation about whether the OIM agrees to education-based discipline.

I don't know what it is.

I haven't seen the training, I don't know how it addresses the issue.

I don't know how it addresses the complaint.

So I'm asking to be made a just uh to make a decision in the bind.

So I'm asking that also pursuant to two uh dash 390, that that be provided to us ahead of time.

Um whatever they have, give it to us now, not later.

Um, with regards to um EBD, again, it's difficult for to have this conversation because you don't have the final draft in front of you.

Um, due to deliberative privilege process, I can't comment on what recommendations we have made, but um I think that it is from what I'm hearing the chief um and um Wendy say that EBD is not a one-time thing.

EBD can be offered multiple times for a class A violation within 12 months if they complete the program for a class B violation within 18 months, with no limit.

So um that is concerning to me because that opens the door to having EBD.

Um EBD is discretionary.

I'm not aware of what the rules are to identify which officers will um will qualify for EBD and which ones will not.

I look forward to seeing something like that.

Um, but I interpret this to show that EBD can be had multiple times throughout their career.

Now, whether or not the department will do that, I certainly would hope not, but unless it's in writing, there's nothing to prevent future uh police chiefs, future discipline commanders from um reading interpreting it in that way.

With regards to aggravation, uh my concern about that is um, so under the current uh discipline system, under the current matrix, the importance of a finding of sustained, is it goes um it is counted if you have repeated offenses.

EPT is not discipline, so it cannot be counted pursuant to the matrix and pursuant to the discipline handbook.

Now I understand, I believe what they're saying is is they will take it into consideration in terms of aggravating or making a decision if someone should have education-based discipline again, but it is simply not uh a legal method of aggravating because the handbook says in order to aggravate, you have to have a sustained finding.

EBD is not a sustained finding, it is not discipline.

So we'll stop there.

Thank you so much.

Um I'll stop there.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

Um next in the queue, we have Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you.

Um a lot of my questions were just involving the monitors.

I appreciate those comments.

Um one thing, uh Chief Wendy, that uh kind of confused about the officer decides whether they want to participate in this.

Why?

Well, I think similar to um like mediation.

Yeah, we would offer an officer an opportunity to mediate a complaint, and they have the option to decide yes, I would like to mediate that, or no, I would not like to mediate that.

So I think that is is appropriate to uh offer an officer an opportunity to um either receive punitive discipline for um misconduct or to receive uh an opportunity for for training and a different way of correcting mistakes.

Yeah, I'm trying to think if there's a kind of a similar situation when uh mentioned.

Well, I'm used to I'm not seeing that.

Yeah, I mean, I I see a number of parallels, but I think you know there are parallels with respect to um restorative justice in schools.

Uh if you remember um there used to be a uh a uh program, curfew program uh when uh when individuals would get uh picked up for curfew, they have the opportunity whether or not to go through a diversion program um after being picked up for curfew or to not, and then just get that uh that citation for curfew.

And so I think that this is something that is consistent within um the education system as well as within the criminal justice system, where there are opportunities for deflection, there are opportunities for uh for diversion, um, and the opportunity I think rests with the individual who has uh committed the infraction.

Thank you.

Let's see what else.

I think that answers my question.

So I I would just say uh, Mr.

Chair, that um I'm concerned um in general with what appears to me to be um weakening uh of the monitor's role in the establishment of policy from uh DOS, and uh so I I hope we can move forward in a direction that reverses that uh the monitor is in fact uh restored to a more robust position in overseeing uh policies coming from the agencies.

Thank you.

That's all I've got.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Cashman.

And I wanted to welcome to the meeting, Councilmember Lewis, Council President Pro Tem Romero Campbell.

Um, producer, I'm wanting I'm curious.

Are any of the virtual participants um requesting to jump into the queue?

Maybe they are.

I think I see Councilmember Lewis, I believe your hand is up.

You would like to join the queue, please uh join in.

Thank you.

Um, and thanks for the presentation.

I really appreciate it.

Um I do have a few questions, um, just based on the questions that have are the presentation, the um discussion with the independent monitor as well as um DPD.

Um I'm curious, does the officer have to say to a community member that they were wrong, or is acceptance just about accepting the EBD, or actually saying, like in writing that they were wrong.

I'm just curious about what atonement looks like.

So uh I think what uh atonement looks like is um when offered the um the education-based development, um, uh atonement looks like um accepting responsibility for not having met the department and community expectation, and that and that is indicated in the the signing of the agreement uh to move forward with the education-based development.

Um then do they have interaction with the person that they harmed in terms of that adoptment?

Uh they do not.

The only uh interaction moving forward.

I mean, certainly that's an opportunity during um during mediation, but uh in the education-based development process, the only continued uh engagement or interaction with the uh community member that is harmed is the uh the um survey that they are sent, and then the follow-up that is conducted by the by uh the internal affairs uh division uh to get answers for how they um uh how they feel about how the process was handled.

Anecdotally, I will say having spent three different tours in uh internal affairs at various levels.

I can tell you that uh quite often when uh complainants call in to uh make a complaint about an officer's conduct, particularly for uh these low-level violations, uh, one of the things that they often say is, you know, I don't really want the officer to get in trouble.

I just want them to understand um what I expected or what I think they should have done and how this whole thing made me feel.

And so I think that that is one of the clear goals of uh of education-based development and the modules that will be presented to the officers.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And then I had one question um following the uh share out from the independent monitor.

It sounds like that they haven't received the data um that they were having to be they were looking to be able to receive, specifically the raw data as it pertains to the community surveys.

Um and the way at least I'm hearing it is that it hasn't been transparent, and I wanted to just better understand um why that information hasn't been shared, the raw data specifically, and what the resolve might be as you all are moving forward to make sure that the independent monitor has what they need, you have what they need, and the collaboration that you all presented at the beginning of this presentation is in actuality and in practicality and not in theory.

Yes.

So the the um sort of the the QR code um survey that we that we conducted during the six uh community meetings that we that we did, the the information that was uh that was made available to me, um, and I'm not a tech expert, but the information that was available to me was presented to the Office of the Independent Monitor, the the much more um in-depth and and much more thoroughly uh engaged survey that was done um or community feedback um loop that was created online uh all of that data, all of that raw data was presented to the uh Office of the Independent Monitor, um, except we did redact um uh names and addresses of those people because we thought that uh it was important uh to protect their privacy.

Okay, thank you so much.

I might want to hear from the independent monitor to just make sure that we're all on the same page that that redaction is how they um how she is also experiencing that because it's it sounded like it was a bit different.

And so if I might hear from the independent monitor.

Thank you.

Certainly, what we received was a kind of Excel spreadsheet with numbers and a summary of comment.

I don't know if that's all the comments.

I don't know if that's part of the comment.

I have no way to independently verify what is on that spreadsheet.

I'm asking for the actual questionnaire as received by the police department um for our review.

I'm happy to come copy them if I need to.

Um that is not raw data, that's a summary.

I'm asking for the raw data.

I have multiple reasons why we need this information, especially because the department is presenting that they have overall favorability for education-based development.

That may be the case, but I can't confirm that.

I can't verify that um without actually seeing the surveys.

I want to make sure also that we don't have repeated um one party repeatedly filing multiple recommendations or filling out the forum multiple times.

Um, we are not the general public.

The Office of the Independent Monitor is covered by deliberative process privilege.

We hold sacred extremely sensitive and confidential information.

We hear from community members every day, and we maintain their privacy, and as does the department, to indicate that the Office of the Independent Monitor cannot be trusted with the names of community members makes absolutely no sense to me.

We are not the general public, we are an independent agency, a city agency, and there's an ordinance that says you must share, you shall share this information with us.

So I do not accept that explanation.

Okay, thank you.

That's actually really helpful, and I really appreciate that.

Is there a way um Chief Thomas that you all might be able to find some resolve where the independent monitor has what they need as well as you all being able to um have what you all need?

I I do stand in agreement with the independent monitor that that it seems like in order for them to be able to have an opinion about or to be able to collaborate um as it pertains to EBD, that they would need specific information that may not be available to the general public, but like that she isn't she's right, her office isn't the general public, and so what what it what is the approach in order to be able to resolve that?

Uh I appreciate that.

So what I would say is that we have turned over the raw data as it relates to um the responses that were that were presented online to the policy and it was upon a city attorney advice that we redact um the the names or contact information okay so the short answer is is that there may not be any resolve um here I'll just follow up with this last thing um going back to the um the admission so I just want to make sure I understand so without an admission if an officer fails the EBD do they start over and is there an opportunity to then claim that they did nothing wrong no so if an officer does not follow through with completing the education based development then it goes the investigation's already been completed and so now it goes through the unrest of the of the discipline process so it goes to the Office of the independent monitor for them to make recommendations we would you know we would make a recommendation as it relates to um where that infraction falls and what uh what uh level of discipline is consistent with that particular infraction um and again along the way uh the office of the independent monitor would have their opportunity to provide feedback and then ultimately we would have the the hearing at which that uh that final disciplinary decision would be would be made and I see we have the members in the queue and so this is just a rem just as for my memory you I think the last time that you all give gave this presentation you mentioned that the folks who would be developing the curriculum were going to be in house is that still the case or am I misremembering no we have a professional development unit and so um they have uh you know they are are developing curriculum uh as it relates to this and and one of the reasons why we aren't able to turn over you know exact curriculum is because we don't know exactly what the curriculum is to offer until we know what the you know what the violation is and so each module is going to be very specific to um the the the violation and the specifics of that violation so it would be you know we could certainly uh you know provide um an outline of our um of our emotional intelligence um uh module or our critical thinking module but as it relates to specific policy violations uh you know we would have to build that after we we have a clear understanding of what that violation is thank you so much thank you um chief thomas and thank you to the independent monitor um as well um that those are my questions chair uh thank you council member lois um uh council member um uh sawyer and um i know councilman can you tear us your back into queue i'll I'll ask a few questions first and I'll come to you then we'll we'll close out but councilmember Sawyer.

Thank you Mr.

Chair um thanks you guys so much for this I really appreciate the update and I I just want to acknowledge how far we have come from um some previous uh conversation about this and so thank you for all of the work that and collaboration that you guys have done um something that Chief Thomas said I found a little disturbing uh and I need some some more kind of color around it so Chief Thomas you said that you that the the department redacted the names out of the information for when sharing it with the independent monitor at the advice of the city attorney is that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

Um Wendy is that you or is that someone else in the city attorney's office?

So I think to hopefully it quell some of this issue is more the broader on deliberative process and the way it applies and all of that.

So I it we we need guidance from the actual city attorney here, and that is not who's waiting.

So just deliberative process itself.

We have reached out as has the uh the independent monitor.

So we have to have some guidance there, and then once we have that, we can figure out what what that is because what we want to make sure of is it uh privileges that being waived, so we don't have to also give it out to the public if that makes sense.

So I think there'll be some clarity there for us coming fairly soon, and then we'll be able to determine how to um proceed.

Yeah, I really appreciate that, Wendy.

Thank you for the clarification because that's kind of exactly what I was looking for.

I will say that the um city attorney's office, this is not the first independent agency that we have run across who has not been able to get information and conversation from the city attorney's office.

That's why I was asking whether it was on your end or whether it was in at the city attorney, um, because this is a really concerning trend that is happening in our city right now related to the city attorney's office, um, and the inconsistency with privilege and where it applies when it's convenient and where it doesn't apply when it works for the city attorney's office.

So I'm I really appreciate that, Wendy, and thank you for kind of giving me that clarity because this lags for me a a pretty big issue within the city attorney's office that I think is extremely concerning, and I just want to um make that really clear right now.

Uh it is not okay, then what I am seeing go down inside the city attorney's office right now.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilman.

So, Councilman Gonzalez Kataris, I'll have you asking questions and I'll just uh close out.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I I failed to ask about when you had talked about the restorative justice component um during the presentation.

I was curious if there is someone that is trained in the evidence-based practice of restorative justice.

It is an evidence-based practice, you know, it's not just, and I guess a further on that, and and this could require maybe follow-up, is understanding then what do you all see as restorative justice in these situations, and it kind of somewhat comes on the tails of what councilwoman Lewis was asking around with the part, you know, if there was an interaction with somebody, like what does that actually look like in these scenarios?

Well, I would answer that yes.

We we have consulted with a number of university partners, and so we do have an uh an answer for an understanding of how this is really a restorative justice practice.

This is a practice that is that is engaged in by a number of agencies, a number of large agencies, uh like the city of Philadelphia, um, just recently came up with a very similar policy.

Actually, it goes quite a bit further than ours that just recently um uh started, you know, after we started talking about ours, and so this is you know something that I think that uh the criminal justice or the I think law enforcement is is seeing as a better opportunity and better way of addressing lower level discipline.

So, will there be somebody brought into the department with um that type of expertise in restorative justice, or will there be changes?

Well, we we have uh a continued partnership with someone that is an expert in restorative justice, because it is evidence-based, and so usually with evidence-based, you want to practice it to this to fidelity in order for it to be effective.

Um, okay, I may have I'd had another time more questions about that.

Um, I do want to say I I agree with Councilman Cashman.

Um, with regard to the uh Office of Independent Monitor Oversight and the concern that it does still appear to be scaling that back.

What I want to say though, Chief, is that I do appreciate that you have leaned in and have attempted to gather community feedback, although I have concerns with how that feedback was gathered as far as with the questionnaires and the fact that we don't know if these people live in Denver that responded.

We don't we don't have information to back that up, we don't have demographics, which I think are important as we know, right?

With the history of uh our community and policing in our community, I think it's important to know those things.

Um, but it is more than I think what we have seen take place with um Director Gardner's directive um on the sheriff department uh when it comes to similar similar policy change for the sheriff deputies.

So I will say that I greatly appreciate that you know you took that feedback over a year ago and have been working um to to try to meet those needs.

Um lastly, I think before this goes any further at all, the mayor's office needs to fill the two, or now three.

I don't know if anybody's here from the citizen oversight board.

Those vacancies, the two, at least one of them has been open for over a year, I believe.

We've had two now, and I believe now there are going to be three.

If we're we need all of these infrastructures in place, if this were to go forward at all, those vacancies need to be filled.

And I'm sorry, I know you all are here before me, and I'm like sorry, maybe there's office uh back here, but I can express that more.

I'm so concerned that those have not been.

I've seen other mayoral appointments happen, and this has still sat there vacant, and I don't know why.

So I don't expect an answer on that right now, um, but that's what I would urge, if anything of this nature, now with the new sheriff um that that directive going forward, um, we need that in place to complete the picture.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Gizas Guterres.

I just have one quick question.

Actually, I think it may be a two-parter.

Would like for um Thomas or for the city attorney to clarify once again for folks who are approved for um uh education based um development um as far as when and how those um uh folks can adopt or choose in um how frequently can someone do that um talk through that again.

I always want to make sure that from my understanding that someone number one can't go through halfway go through this and then uh a year and a half later comes back again um or that someone um chooses or is not successful in going through this and but uses it to skip um the regular uh discipline process.

What what I I just want to make sure I'm clear and that it's clear um to the folks who are listening um that this is a development training um and um if someone is not successful and chooses not to do it, what's the responsibility as far as dish?

So I'll take the first shot and if uh if uh Wendy has uh things that she can add, uh she can certainly jump in.

So an officer um uh commits uh a category A infraction.

They agree to go through education-based development within 90 days, they complete that program.

Um they cannot do that again for 12 months.

So if another low-level violation comes in that's that's similar to the one that they just uh that they just uh violated, they will not be given education-based development a second time within that year.

Category B, same circumstances.

Now we're now we're extending that that period 18 months before they can be offered that opportunity again.

Now, if they um accept um the opportunity to go through education-based development for either a category A or a category B violation, and somehow they they um they fail to meet the expectation, they they skip the class, they you know they they don't cooperate with the process to get them uh through the agreement and to the uh and to the training, then um within that 90 day period that completed investigation is put right back in the pipeline on its way to conduct review so that it can complete the process so that ultimately there is uh a discipline for that infraction.

So over a five-year period, can some any one individual um police officer have several iterations of say like conduct A.

Um, they can go through um, well, so I would say this first.

One of the reasons why we are um uh engaging in this particular process in the first place is to reduce recidivism.

So I would certainly hope that there's never going to be an instance where someone has five uh infractions within a five year period of time.

So I I'll start there.

Um and the other the other thing that I would would say is um there is an analysis that takes place as to whether or not an infraction is worthy of going through education based development.

Certainly one of those, and one piece of that analysis is it does it fall in category A or category B.

Another part of that analysis is was this intentional misconduct or was this a mistake?

And those things are identified through the investigation.

Um the other is um does this person seem to see to be making the same mistake over and over and again, despite the fact that they're receiving training in that situation they would not be offered yet another opportunity.

And I liken this um again to um to mediation.

So there actually is no limit on the amount of times that someone can go through mediation, but I can tell you this that um, you know, the times that I spend in internal affairs, and I trust the staff that's there now.

If there's someone that has been offered mediation, let's say uh a couple of times already for being discourteous, they're not gonna be offered that opportunity again because it's clear that that's not that's not working, and so I think that you know that the the what we're hoping to see from this program is a reduction in recidivism, and we want the training to stick, we want it to work, and when it's clear that it is not, it's not gonna continue to be offered.

Right.

And just if I could add just really quickly, so a lot of this is based upon what's already in the discipline handbook, and that's what's key.

And two things I just want to back up.

So we talked about aggravation.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with uh independent monitor here because I'm looking at the specific language of the disciplinary handbook right now.

So as I explained, if an officer comes back and it's at substantially similar conduct, it can be looked at as an aggravating factor, meaning the penalty may end up being increased.

And one of the factors that's in here is whether the prior history, not discipline, but their prior history demonstrates a continuation of a pattern of that same or similar conduct.

The handbook right now, too, in the disciplinary part also talks about if there's an appreciable amount of time between one conduct and another, that it's not considered right as part of this aggravation.

That was part of the reason of looking at this within that 12-month window and the 18th month window to kind of reset some of this, right?

We don't want officers to be penalized in ways they shouldn't be penalized.

We also don't want somebody to be able to say, you know, this is substantially similar, but yet they can still participate in EBD.

So it really was looked at thoughtfully to make sure that we could do what we're saying in the policy, and that it comports with what's in our disciplinary handbook.

Very helpful.

Um, Councilmember Lois, I believe, is back into the queue.

Thank you.

And I just have one quick question that I totally forgot to ask.

My apologies.

Um, I know there was some discussion with uh Chief Thomas and Executive Director Gardner about the community review board on EBD, and I was just curious where you all had landed in terms of that community review board.

If you all were moving forward or if you're still in discussion.

I'm not sure.

I understand the question.

So, community review in terms of review of whether or not um whether or not specific violations can move forward uh in the in the education-based development process or a community review board to determine uh the viability of of the program itself.

The first part of that, okay, so um no, so you know, I think that um that the the independent monitor who is obviously the representative of the community, I think they are the ones that are uh working in collaboration with us to determine whether or not uh specific cases are eligible for or should uh be moved forward with education based development.

Okay, so that the um no conversation around a community review board, but having the um placement of the independent monitor instead of a in lieu of a community review board as a part of the process that you all have formalized.

Correct.

Because I think anything outside of that would be uh extremely cumbersome.

Okay, thank you.

That's my only question.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis.

I look around the room to see if there's any uh final questions or online as well.

Please raise your hand if you do.

Seeing none, I mean, this has been a year's worth of dialogue, and I also want to concur and say that this process um has moved forward um quite a bit in the last year.

I appreciate the steps taken um for um input advice, and I appreciate the direction of the director.

I appreciate the inclusion of the office of independent monitor.

Obviously, there are some steps on privilege um that are being discussed by the city attorney's office, and we look forward to the conclusion of that.

Um we look forward to the continued discussion within this committee and other committees on the outcome of this process.

And with that, um, we have one item on consent that has not been pulled off, and with no further questions, uh this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.