And welcome to this public hearing.

Hartford City Council.

I'm Councilman Josh Mickdom.

I am joined by Councilwoman Rossetti and it's a little hard for me because I'm on my phone to see who else, but I she's the one I noticed.

If any of my other council colleagues are here, forgive me, I just can't find you because we have a lot of people here tonight.

I am going to read the rules of this proceeding, and then I will quickly review what are the matters you may comment on.

Uh, and I then I'll go through the list, and I'll just ask everyone when they comment to state their name, of course, if they're speaking for themselves or if they're affiliated with some group and their home address or business address if they're speaking for the group, and then the issue they're speaking on and whether they're for it or against it.

So I'll just start by saying this.

This public hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures.

Each person wishing to address the council thereof shall, upon recognition by the presiding officer, which is me, give their name, address, and that they represent a group, and limit their remarks to five minutes.

All remarks will be addressed to the council as a body and not to any individual member.

Any person making personal impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the council shall be forthwith barred by the presiding officer from further audience at said meeting, unless permission to remain is granted by two thirds voted the council members present in voting.

During public hearing, there shall be no debate by the council, although questions may be asked by council of persons making such presentations.

For members of the community, please be advised that this meeting is being broadcast and recorded by Hartford Public Access Television and can be viewed via the HPA TV Facebook page, Comtcast, Xfinity Channel 96, HPATV.org, channel 6032 for frontier customers, Spanish interpretations provided through a partnership with the city of Hartford and the Hartford Public Library.

Additional accommodations can be made available with enough notice to Office of Council President.

And now I am going to briefly read what are the issues that are up for comment today.

I am not going to delve into them, but I would urge anyone who wants to know more to go to Hartford.civicweb.net and go under meetings.

You will see the public comment, and then on the agenda, there is a link to every matter that is up for discussion.

So the issues are item 2.1, Mayor R.

Lumpalum with accompanying resolution approving the transfer of 28 Gillette Street to the Hartford Land Bank.

Councilwoman Rosado, Councilman Gale, Council President Clark, Councilman Mickdom, Councilman Thomas, Councilwoman Rosetti, and Councilwoman Surgeon with accompanying ordinance, amending Article 5, Division 5, Section 2-196 of the municipal code of Hartford to make revisions to the Civilian Police Review Board.

With accompanying ordinance, Chapter 6, Section 6-15, limitation on the number of dogs.

Item 2.6, Mayor Arlumpalum with accompanying resolution approving the sale of 905 West Boulevard to FQ Real Estate Ventures for redevelopment through the Lost of Homes Initiative.

Item 2.7, Mayor Aralumpalum with a company resolution approving the sale of 2243 Main Street to ER Wilson Real Estate LLC for redevelopment through the Lost of Homes Initiative.

Item 2.8, our Mayor Aralumpalum with accompanying resolution approving the sale of 684 and 686 Garden Street to Pariser Enterprises for redevelopment through the Lassa Homes Initiative.

Item 2.9 Council President Clark, Councilwoman Rosetti, Councilwoman Rosado, Councilwoman Surgeon, Councilwoman Billadu, and Councilman Gale with accompanying ordinance amending chapter 28, Article 6, subsection 28-152, that is the tree ordinance.

Item 2.10, Council President Clark, Councilwoman Rossetti, Councilwoman Rosado, Councilwoman Surgeon, Councilwoman Billadu, and Councilman Gale with accompanying ordinance, amending chapter 28, Article 6, subsection 28 164 of the municipal code of Hartford as amended also the tree ordinance.

Those are all the things, and if you want to refer to them by their item number or by what they are, like tree ordinance or CPRB, that's also fine.

We will know what you're talking about.

And now I am going to go to my list.

Yep.

Thank you much.

So when you hear Councilwoman Rosetti say wrap it up, please do that so she doesn't have to get rough with you.

And public uh hearing is uh five minutes.

Correct.

So I am going to call first on James Rukowski, who is the president of the Hartford Police Union.

Uh Mr.

Rukowski, are you here with us?

Sir I am.

Thank you.

All right.

You have the floor for five minutes.

Uh I'm going to be speaking on item 2.3, uh, the new CPRV ordinance 2-196.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Hartford Police Union.

Inspector General Joseph Lopez wrote this change in the ordinance for himself.

Not for accountability, not for transparency, not for the taxpayers, the city of Parkford.

Last week, when he spoke at the public safety meeting, openly admitted that he wrote this ordinance the way he did to protect his job and to secure money for himself in his department outside of the mayor's regular budget to do this.

One, he reclassifies his staff.

Only he can hire them, only he can fire them.

Not the mayor, not any city administrator.

Solely him.

He wrote the ordinance, so the mayor was no longer his boss, and no city administrator is his boss.

The people that he works with on the CPRB will be his boss, making it literally almost impossible to terminate him.

Third, he hijacked the budget out of the mayor's hands in violation of city charter to go through city council, no longer through the proper budgetary process.

He doesn't answer to the mayor, doesn't traders.

Does he intend to spend in the future?

Simple question.

Was there a cost analysis done of these new proposals on the impact it would have on the city of Park for taxpayers?

Did anybody review the ordinance in good fashion to see if there are legal ramifications to this that are going to cost money in the legal arena?

I believe the union did, and we found eight city charter violations.

So where does that leave us?

And we have no true idea of the financial impact that these ordinance changes could have.

Thank you, Mr.

Rukowski.

And I'll say to everyone, I'm sorry that I don't have my camera on, but I uh caught between the duties of my day job and this year and child here.

So I driving home, so I'm looking at the road.

But I do actually have a question uh for you, Mr.

Lutowski before you pass the mic.

Um if an independent, well, let me ask you're complaining that these changes would make it difficult for the mayor to fire uh the inspector general.

How can we have an independent watchdog who oversees a part of the executive branch, which is the police, if the executive branch can fire the watch?

How would you propose we do that?

Well, who's going to watch Inspector Lopez?

There are checks and balances to everything.

And to say that there are not going to be any checks and balances, I believe is irresponsible to the city of Parfum and to the taxpayers.

And your feeling is that to have him be higherable or fireable by the civilian police review board, which is appointed by the mayor by the town that's inadequate.

The way the ordinance is written in the panel selection process and the termination process of that commission is actually a violation of the city charter.

You haven't answered my question.

You broke up.

Say that again.

You didn't answer my question, which is it's not adequate as a check in a balance that he can be hired and fired by an appointed board.

No, that is not a proper check and balance of the executive power.

You're moving it outside of the executive power of the mayor in violation of the city charter.

It exists for a reason.

The power flows from the state to the city.

Another question.

You talked about some concern about the fiscal impact of um the budget of the inspector general.

What does the city pay out if you know annually in settlements for release this bond bill?

So I do not know.

No, I would not agree because I could say hundreds of millions, and we don't have any factual information on that.

What I can tell you about the budget in the Office of Equity and Opportunity was at 1.6 million dollars in 2024.

It's currently at 2.1 million dollars, which is about a 33% increase over a two-year period, while the average revenue increase in all the other departments for the budgetary assets has been 1.5%, which means that office specifically right now is about 25 times higher than any other division.

2.1 million dollars.

The budget was 1.6, it's at 2.1.

That's that's just really concerning to you.

I'm sorry, sorry, I didn't hear you.

I'll move on.

I I have no further questions.

Uh Councilmember, do you have any questions about council?

Nope.

No question.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

No, councilman.

Thank you much.

We will move on to hold on, I'm consulting my list.

Thanks, Speaker.

It is Inspector General Lopez.

Are you with us, Mr.

Lopez?

I am.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh timekeeper, you ready?

Mr.

Lopez, you have the floor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody.

And uh my name is Cho Lopez.

I'm honored to serve as the Inspector General for the City of Hartford's Civilian Police Review Board.

My business address is here in City Hall 500 Main Street in Hartford, and I am here in support of the amendments.

I spoke the other day at a special meeting at a uh committee about the changes in the ordinance, and I spoke line item by line item about the necessities.

What I'd like to do tonight is speak to the people of the city of Hartford as I know they are interested, tuning in and want to know.

Um, what is the civilian police review board?

So it is an independent group that is separate from the police department.

It is made up of community members who volunteer their time to review complaints about police officers.

Most board members are Hartford residents.

They spend many hours reviewing complaints.

Some have served on this board for many years and bring valuable experience to the review process.

When a citizen files a complaint against a police officer, it is reviewed in two ways.

The police department's internal affairs division, which is made up of police officers, investigates the complaint from within the department.

At the same time, the Civilian Police Review Board, through its Inspector General, conduct its own independent review.

That means that every complaint is reviewed by both the police department and the civilian police review board.

And the role of the CPRB is to provide independent civilian oversight of the complaint process to help ensure that investigations are conducted fairly, thoroughly, and transparently.

So what is an inspector general?

An inspector general is basically an independent watchdog, someone whose job it is to make sure things are done fairly and with accountability.

In my role, that means I investigate complaints of police misconduct and report my findings to the civilian police review board.

I report directly to the civilian police review board, and it's my job to follow the facts wherever they lead and handle every investigation fairly and without bias.

I'm here to call balls and strikes to say whether the evidence shows misconduct was proven or not proven, no matter who is involved.

Now, I'm an attorney.

I'm working on my 30th year of experience, my 30th year have experience in the criminal justice field for the last 30 years, including in uh extensive trial and investigative experience involving police officers.

I've also taught at the Yukon Law School.

I'm currently an adjunct at the University of New Haven's Henry C.

College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Science.

In other words, I'm teaching young future law enforcement professionals.

My deputy inspector general Jacqueline Manning has nearly 20 years of experience as a private investigator, including doing police, uh investigating police misconduct for the City of Hartford.

Now, I share our backgrounds to assure the people of Hartford that we have the knowledge and experience to conduct these investigations fairly, objectively, and based on the evidence.

I want to take a moment to explain to the people of Hartford how the civilian police review board ordinance works.

This is the people's ordinance, your ordinance.

It was created by City Council to give residents an independent voice in police oversight and to help ensure accountability.

City Council established this in 1992, despite opposition then and continuing from the police unit.

For decades, however, it operated simply as an advisory board, meaning the chief of police could ignore any finding and misconduct by CPRB.

That change in 2020 when City Council strengthened the ordinance that gave the board meaningful authority.

The reforms came amid national demands for greater police accountability and stronger civilian oversight following the killing of George Floyd and other high-profile incidents.

The amendments in 2020, that's what created the full-time inspector general position to conduct these investigations for the board.

It gave the board subpoena powers to be able to obtain documents and interview witnesses.

And finally it provided an arbitration process.

So but briefly, I think I'm at four minutes, and I believe that my colleague who's going to speak, the deputy, is going to refer two minutes to me if that's possible.

Attorney Lopez, you're at four minutes 35.

Yes, can uh I think she's going to uh provide me two minutes if I can or two and a half minutes.

That's fine.

You take two and then she only gets three.

That's fine.

Okay.

So here's how it works.

When these investigations come in, when these complaints come in, a person files a complaint.

One the complaint goes to both the uh internal affairs and the Office of Inspector General.

And we do our investigations separately and independently.

We investigate and I prepare a report and I issue that report and share it with the board and present the case.

The board then has a meeting, reviews that evidence, reviews my report, asks me questions, and then votes to either sustain or not sustain, meaning they vote that they did find misconduct or did not.

In events where it finds misconduct, uh I send that report to the chief of police who is required to wait, to wait for CPRB's report and consider it alongside of Internal Affairs Report.

And that if the chief disagrees with CPRB, in other words, CPRB found misconduct, but the chief says, no, I don't find misconduct, that the ordinance permits this to go to binding arbitration.

A retired judge that reviews this, reviews this and then decides whether there is misconduct or not.

That's a built-in checks and balance.

Now, I want to briefly explain to you what we've been dealing with.

For years, the union has been challenging the CPRB is very existing, advocating for the CPRB to go back to an advisory board, meaning it wouldn't have any enforcement, challenging the arbitration process in court, challenging the selection of arbitration, publicly calling for the termination of the last inspector general, calling for me to rein it in, or else he will bring legal remedies against me.

Challenging the commissioners during a meeting hostily channelingly challenging them, uh asking how they voted, why they voted, and also blocking my ability to interview officers.

These are examples of a clear pattern.

The union has consistently challenged civilian oversight, and the public should ask why.

What are they hiding?

We're not anti-police.

Let me say that again.

The civilian police review board is not anti-police.

It supports good policing through transparency and accountability, and the overwhelming majority of these officers that serve this job do so in a professional and noble way.

And we should all support the blue.

But what does that mean?

That means the men and women who put on the uniform every day to serve this community and do their jobs with distinction.

But the term support the blue doesn't mean that we ignore or overlook misconduct or protect those who violate the public trust.

That's what police accountability is all about.

And police accountability and supporting the blue should go hand in hand.

Contrary to the union that's trying to demolish the CPRB, I call on the residents of the city of Hartford to make your voice known and to say no, union, we're not going back prior to the George Floyd killing.

We're here to cover police accountability.

My time is up.

I thank you very much.

If you have any questions, otherwise, thank you.

No, and councilman, I see that uh councilman Gale and uh Council President Clark are on the call.

I appreciate that.

I will turn then to then my colleagues, Councilman Clark and Councilman Gale.

Any questions for Inspector General Lopez?

None for me, but I know that Councilman Thomas has also been on and councilwoman Rosado.

Oh, look, it's practically a full house.

Forgive me, because I can't see them on my phone.

Any of my council colleagues, speak up now before I start asking questions.

I have no questions.

I just want to thank the inspector general for uh his comments.

What do we do, Councilman?

Thank you, uh Councilman, I don't have any questions either.

Um thank you.

All right.

I do have a question to um Inspector General Lopez, what is the budget that you're working with right now?

I don't know.

Uh, because I believe that every year city council allots maybe $60,000 earmarked for the CPRB, but I'm not in control of that money, and my understanding is that that money is allocated for other things in the executive branch.

I don't fully understand how that works, but I'll tell you that I can't buy software that I need.

I don't even have a shade uh in my office.

Uh, and I simply want money to be able to continue um training for the CPRB and to continue our professional education.

Um, I don't think we have any money.

What's um what's your spending?

My salary's uh uh I started at 130, I believe I'm at 135, and I just want to be clear that I took a 100,000 pay cut annually to come here because this is impactful work and I want to do it.

I'm not here for the salary, I'm here to do a good job for the CPRB.

They are hard working individual, and this is a noble cause.

And if I'm not doing a good job and they call me out on it, I'm happy to go along the way and let someone else come in.

And let me ask you another question, just about some of the budgetary changes that uh Mr.

Rukowski from the union was referring to.

What is the change in budgeting that is proposed by these amendments, if you could just sum it up?

Yes, my request is that if city council earmarks money for CPRB, that that money is exclusively used for CPRB, that that doesn't go into the general fund and get you know kind of moved around.

Um, the great majority of our $60,000 that we've been receiving over the years, my understanding is that is used for other things.

Um my request is whatever council permits for our budget for training of legitimate purposes, I would like to be able to spend that money with the authority of CPRB and with all the safeguards and guardrails that are put in place for anybody in the city that has authority to spend money.

But to have to constantly ask the executive branch for things like a $1,000 software and have to wait a year with still no purchase.

That's just not workable.

And so if money is allotted for the CPRB, my ask is that that money it be insured, written into the into the ordinance that that money is for CPRB use.

That's what it's going to be used for.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um, I have no further questions.

I think my council colleagues have all said they have no further questions.

So I will call on Reverend Tracy Johnson Russell.

Reverend Johnson Russell, are you with us?

Yes, I am.

All right.

Then I will give you your five minutes.

You have the floor.

Thank you very much.

Uh my name is the Reverend Tracy Johnson Russell, and I serve as the rector of St.

Monica's Episcopal Church here in Hartford.

And I'm also a member of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance.

And I was one of the founding members of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance following the murder of George Floyd.

And we are organized with partners to win a full-time inspector general, and we have one subpoena power.

I'm here tonight because I'm very concerned that the civilian police review board has been prevented from doing what it is charged to do.

And I'm here to support the proposed amendments because I think that these changes will give us a clear and honest way to examine police uh misconduct.

Uh it's the only way that people in our community can trust that their complaints are taken seriously.

And the review board, um, when it's allowed to function in the way that it's supposed to, it helps both residents and officers by bringing clarity, fairness, and transparency.

For years, the review board has not worked as it should.

Um, its members and the inspector general often have had not had the information they needed, or it is the information is received uh in part of the process, but received too late to be in any way meaningful.

Um, or it's incomplete.

The Hartford Police Department has at times made it a very difficult for the board to do its work.

And I believe that these amendments are simple common sense changes that will allow the board to function uh more at more with more power, not just a symbol symbol.

Um, and so there are five key improvements uh that we believed we would see.

And that the first is that there would be uh full on-time evidence uh that the uh board would receive all the information needed to uh truly and independently evaluate what has happened in each case.

And second, the police chief uh must review the board's findings before making a final decision.

Because if the board is to have any real authority, its work cannot be an afterthought.

It must be part of the actual decision making process.

And third, uh there are clear rules about arbitration.

A re retired judge uh should decide only whether misconduct occurred, not what the punishment should be.

These this respects the union contract, often presented as a barrier to arbitration while still allowing the city to set meaningful accountability measures.

And fourth, subpoena power and fair interview interview rules.

The board needs the authority to require officers and others to provide information and answer questions, especially now that the police have withdrawn their agreement that allowed the inspector general to be present during officer interviews.

And then finally, I believe we need a independent uh inspector general with direct access to the budget already approved by this council.

Again, I say that these uh are simple, reasonable changes, and I believe that will help the civilian police review board do its work um and do it well.

So I urge you to adopt these amendments.

And I thank you for your time and for your service to our city.

And I forgot to say that my um my business address is 3575 Main Street in Hartford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Reverend Dr.

Russell.

Uh, colleagues, any questions for the good Reverend?

No questions, Councilman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe then our next speaker is Andrea Hartman.

Andrea, are you with us?

I am.

Thank you.

Um were you gonna give some of your time to the inspector general or was that somebody else?

Uh I believe that was Jaclyn Manning, who's the assistant inspector general.

Okay, that's fine.

Then you have a full five minutes.

Go for Brooke.

Thank you so much.

Uh good evening, Council members.

Uh, my name is Andrea Hartman, and I reside at one Linden Place in Hartford.

I'm here tonight in my capacity as the acting chair of Hartford Civilian Police Review Board, and I'm asking for your support of the proposed amendments to the CPRB ordinance.

By way of personal background, I first joined CPRB in 2019.

At that time, the board struggled on numerous fronts, difficulty maintaining a full and committed board, ensuring quorum for meetings, an oppressive backlog of cases, and serious structural deficiencies that hampered our ability to rise above what was merely an advisory function.

Following the outcry both in Connecticut and nationally after the George Floyd killing, the Hartford City Council, including members here tonight, passed a much more robust CPRB ordinance, granting CPRB real powers to thoroughly and independently investigate civilian complaints.

These new powers were threefold.

One, funding a full-time inspector general to bring enhanced legal credibility and organizational structure to complaint investigations.

Two, granting subpoena powers to CPRB to enforce uh the Hartford Police Department to present necessary materials and evidence needed for independent investigations of civilian complaints, and three, granting CPRB the right to take cases to independent arbitration in situations where the findings of CPRB and the police chief relative to civilian complaints materially differ.

Since 2020, I'm proud to say uh CPRB has made great strides in effectiveness and professionalism.

We've completely eliminated the case backlog.

We have a fully staffed and committed board that better reflects the diversity of our city.

Uh, we've insured quorum for every public meeting for the last 18 months, and we've enhanced the transparency regarding our operations and our voting and decision rubrics.

However, today we find ourselves at a significant crossroad.

As we have tried over the last year to fully assert and realize the powers granted to us in 2020, we have faced opposition and legal action from both the police union and from the police department, which is the city of Hartford itself, in nearly every step, including multiple legal actions to quash subpoenas and to rule arbitration as being in conflict with the union's collective bargaining agreement.

These draft ordinance amendments are designed to mitigate the real world challenges we have faced in recent months.

When it comes to the IG's office, we feel that it is important to clarify the chain of command to ensure independence and freedom from political interference, not to mention access to the budgetary appropriations necessary to meet our obligations to our fellow residents in terms of timely investigation and adjudication of civilian complaints.

With respect to evidence and discovery, we need to further enshrine our ability to request documents and evidence, as well as to participate in officer interviews where needed to elucidate particular points of contention.

Also, we need a firm commitment from the chief that in circumstances when discovery material materials are not provided in a timely manner, he will not make a final determination until CPRB's findings can also be considered.

Lastly, with respect to arbitration, the ordinance must confirm what we already assert.

There is no conflict whatsoever between the independent arbitration clause in the 2020 ordinance and the union's existing collective bargaining agreement.

In short, tonight, council members, we need your support to make the spirit of the 2020 CPRB ordinance fully reinforced with these proposed amendments.

Simply so that we as CPRB can do what we are legally obligated to do, ensure transparent, fair, and independent oversight of policing here in our city.

We as CPRB are here tonight.

We believe in our mission, and we're ready to make a real difference in policing in our city.

But to overcome the current roadblocks, we need real action today here from our allies within city council itself, but also across the city.

Thank you in advance for your demonstrated support of our important mission.

Thank you, counselors.

Thank you, Ms.

Hartman.

Um turn to my council colleagues.

Any questions for this uh witness.

I don't think councilman should call her a witness.

Well, she testified, we could call her a witness.

Whoever she is, do you want to ask her questions?

Thank you.

All right, thanks, y'all.

I also have no questions.

Thank you again for speaking to us today.

Um next, we have Tim Fisher.

Mr.

Fisher, are you with us?

I am.

All right, then you have the floor.

Thank you.

I am Timothy Fisher.

I'm a member of the Hartford's Philian Police Review Board, obviously, and uh member uh citizen of Hartford.

Others are gonna speak more to uh the elements of this ordinance and its importance.

I'd like to speak more to the issue of why the board itself is so important to the city.

And they're really just two points I want to make.

The first is that what the council members may not be aware is that the great majority of the citizen complaints that we pass on and that we vote on, we do not sustain, which is a sign to you that in many ways our the police of our city are working well with our citizens, and in fact, there are some cases where we are so impressed with the professionalism and even the kindness of the officers involved that we would like to find a way to convey that information to the officers involved.

There is no reason why the city would want to lose the only systematized neutral source of information about the interaction between its officers and its citizens that that we provide, and no reason why the city should want to have that our ability to do so impaired by the many ways in which the transparency that the ordinance calls for, obviously, has been fought by both the police department leadership and the union.

The second point I want to make uh is to consider the case of New Haven just down the road and what they are facing right now.

Due to uh misconduct in the New Haven police department in the past, uh the city has reached recently entered into a nine million dollar settlement with a man who was wrongfully convicted, uh, has just been hit with a jury verdict for another 38 million and has five more cases of equal strength awaiting trial right now.

The total exposure to the taxpayers of New Haven is in the range of 200 million dollars.

The most recent jury verdict alone is equal to the entire annual budget of the fire department of New Haven.

We are the most convenient and most inexpensive insurance policy that City of Hartford has against that kind of problem.

We can do it if there's adequate transparency and accountability for our officers along the lines of what your original ordinance intended and what these amendments will assure that we have going forward.

I'll just close by saying it's understandable that the union and the police department leadership are uncomfortable with transparency.

That is extremely common in organizations, especially in organizations that work with a serious power imbalance between them and their external constituencies.

But that doesn't mean it's healthy.

And above all, it's not their decision, it's yours.

If you want to have the kind of assurance of the conduct of the officers of the city that their code of conduct calls for and that you're looking for from the police department, we are the best way that you can get that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fisher.

Uh, again, council colleagues, any questions?

Hearing none.

Thank you one more time.

And next we have from A6O.

BLMA6O, but are you here, Mr.

Oratani?

Uh we can come back to you.

And so I will go next to Emily.

Are you here?

Oh, sorry about that.

I'm here.

Um, this is Richard Sorry.

Sorry.

Richard, I make your pardon.

Take it away.

You have five minutes.

Did I get called or Ebola?

I just got called.

Okay, okay.

My bad, my bad.

Go ahead, Bo.

Bola S you.

Take it away.

Five minutes.

All right.

Give me one second.

I was having to get in the car.

Um, as we left out the store.

Um give me one second.

Uh even.

I'm here tonight because accountability is not anti-police.

It is pro-community.

Pro-justice and ultimately strengthen public trust.

Boom.

The death of Everett Walker continues to weigh heavily on many upper residents, regardless of where anyone stands on the facts of any individual case.

Sorry about that.

Every family deserves a process that is transparent.

So and worthy of the public's confidence.

When serious incidents involving law enforcement occur, people need to know what the investigation is.

Independent, fair, and free from the appearance of bias.

That is why Harford needs a strong independence, civilian review board with real authority.

Not a board that simply receives reports or one that can review evidence, conduct meaningful oversight, and make public recommendations.

And ensure accountability when the public's trust has been broken.

Accountability should never be viewed as an attack or law enforcement.

It protects good officers, identifies misconduct, and helps rebuild the confidence that every effective police department depends on.

Public trust is earned through transparency, not secrecy.

I ask this council to stand with the people of Hartford by creating meaningful civilian oversight and demonstrating that no one is above accountability.

Justice delayed is trust denied.

Thank you.

Rest in peace, Everett Walker.

Thank you, Mr.

Oratane, and I thank my colleague uh Councilman Gale for reminding me.

So I remind you.

Please tell us your address in Hartford.

And if you are just speaking for yourself or if you're speaking for an organization.

No, 123 Park Street, Hartford, Connecticut, 06112.

And I'm speaking on behalf of Black Lives Matter 860.

I'm the president.

Thank you.

And Council Colleagues, any questions for Mr.

Oratani?

Hearing none.

No questions.

Thank you.

And I will then call on I really care.

And I really also remember to tell us where you live at and if you're representing any organization.

Okay.

Um 15 Putnam Street, Hartford, Connecticut, speaking on behalf of Black Lives Matter 860.

I will be sharing my screen before I read my um speech.

Um I'd like to share a word from Red Um from Red Man Wu Ting affiliate.

Start broadcast.

Ray Adman is I got a hello, Ray Adman is in the building.

I got a public service announcement for the Hartford City Council from the Hartford residents.

Harper residents are demanding police to use their own personal vehicles if they're gonna protest in the support of an officer that killed Stephen Jones.

Residents also don't want them intimidating people at the courthouse for the second time.

Police should use public entryways, and the ex-cock killer should not be using the hallways that's used by the juries.

Police shouldn't be protesting on the clock at a court.

Also, can city council conduct an inquiry?

I could never get that word right.

Inquiry into whether or not a soft strike was conducted, and the police showed up on the clock.

Can the city stop them from using city-owned vehicles?

Mark vehicles, that is, to protest in the support of an ex-employee charged with killing a black man.

This is Red Man, and I approve this message.

Okay, and now I will read my speech, um, which includes the civilian review board.

Okay.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

While those words were written in a different historical context, they still remind us to carefully balance public safety with the protection of fundamental liberties.

I urge this council to ban the use of flock surveillance cameras in Hartford.

We cannot surveil our way to safer neighborhoods.

Lasting public safety comes from investing in our communities, our youth affordable housing, mental health services, education, employment, and violence prevention, not from expanding government service or surveillance.

I also ask you to strengthen and support a strong independent civilian review board with subpoena power.

Oversight should not only exist on paper, a review board without the power to compel testimony or obtain documents cannot fully investigate serious allegations or provide meaningful accountability.

The board should have authority to review evidence, subpoena witnesses and records by law, investigate complaints, issue public findings, and make recommendations that promote transparency and accountability.

Accountability is not anti-police, it is essential to public trust.

I'd also like to share my concern about taxpayer funds, just like Union President Rakowski has his officers keep killing people, and its residents paying settlements for non-resident officers who he feels are not subject to checks and balances.

Hartford residents also deserve confidence that taxpayer resources are used appropriately.

Public vehicles and publicly funded equipment should be dedicated to serving the community, not participating in political dis demonstrations.

When taxpayer funded vehicles are used during demonstrations following the arrest of an officer charged into connection in connection with the death of Stevie Jones, it raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of public resources and the appearance of impartiality.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to influence public opinion or send a political message.

Finally, I ask that we remember Everard Walker.

His death continues to leave many Hartford residents seeking answers.

Families deserve a process they can trust.

Justice requires independent oversight, transparency, and the courage to examine difficult cause or difficult cases fairly.

Hartford has the opportunity to lead by choosing community investment over surveillance, transparency over secrecy, and accountability over complacency.

These principles are not anti-police.

They are pro-democracy, pro-community and pro-justice.

Strength the civilian review board with subpoena power and real independence and ensure that taxpayer resources are used to serve the people and not politics.

Thank you very much.

Rest in peace, Stevie Jones, and rest in peace, Everard Walker.

Thank you, I Elise, Council Colleagues.

Any questions for Ms.

Correa?

No, thank you.

Okay, thank you again.

And now I will call on Jack Hale.

Mr.

Hale, are you in the virtual building?

Yes, yes, I am.

All right.

Don't forget to tell us where you live, who you speak for, and what you're speaking on.

You have the floor.

I'll do my best.

Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

Uh I live at 25 Carmel Street in the Southwest neighborhood.

Uh and I am chair of the uh City of Hartford Tree Advisory Commission.

Uh, my purpose for being with you tonight is to uh speak on item 2.9 and 2.10, the two amendments to the tree ordinance.

The uh a little background.

Uh the city has had some forestry capability as long as I've been connected with it.

Uh we had city foresters, John Broder, and John Keel and uh others since then, and that's a good thing.

Uh but what we found back in the early 2000s was that we didn't really have good information about what we're dealing with.

And uh in 2007, we conducted a uh an assessment of the urban forest.

And it gave us uh a kind of a starting point.

And we found at that point we had a 25% canopy cover.

We found that a lot of that depended on big old trees, which is it's nice that they are there to do that, but they don't last forever.

We learned a lot of things about neighborhoods that did not have good tree cover, uh where the where work needed to be done and so forth.

The the tree ordinance, which the council adopted in 2011, was an effort to uh get put together a solid structure for taking care of our city forest.

Those of us who put that together were amateurs, and unfortunately uh the uh the tree ordinance as it was adopted at that point, uh showed that we were not professionals in the ordinance writing venue, although we did have some assistance from corp council.

Anyway, and then so then uh after we had tried out that ordinance for a while in 2018, we needed to uh update the ordinance, and some changes were made at that point.

The main thing was for it to be uh properly connected to the completely rewritten uh zoning code or zoning regulations, however, we refer to that.

Anyway, uh there were good changes made at that time, but they we still have some to deal with, and I want to uh uh indicate how the these two amendments uh accomplish a couple of those purposes.

Prior to getting into that, though, I want to uh recognize a few people uh in particular Ryan O'Halloran, who was a staff person at Knox when I was the executive director there.

He passed away this week.

It's a tremendous loss to the people of Hartford and the region.

Uh and he had been a strong supporter of all of our efforts in the city forestry effort.

And I also want to recognize councilwoman Rosetti, who has become a uh uh solid advocate for our urban forest.

Uh and it that's that's great.

So the the two pieces of the uh uh or the two amendments that are being offered, uh do a couple of things that we need to have done.

The uh section 28164 is a very minor, or it appears to be a very minor change in the wording of the of the uh ordinance, but what it does is take care of some of our amateur as a one where writing it in the first place.

Uh we we left it up to the mayor to request funding, and it was a comp uh uh an amorphous process to get funding from the parks trust fund.

This amendment says that the uh conveyance of money into the tree account will happen.

Mr.

Haley, you're at five minutes.

Yeah, can I have uh just a second to mention the other one?

It's up to the chair.

Let's pretend that you finished your time, and my first question to you was could you please explain to me the other amendment?

And you can answer that one.

Thank you very much for that.

I appreciate it.

The other amendment specifies that the trees of the city, the urban forest amount to essential municipal green infrastructure, and that's critical for the for the council and for the citizens of the and the mayor uh to recognize that it is uh a part a kind of in infrastructure in the city and should not be viewed as uh an amenity.

Um the other thing is the other aspect of that amendment is that it specifies that the city will actively pursue and support grant opportunities, and that also is valuable because we don't have within the forestry division anybody whose whose skill set goes to grant writing.

So uh that so the commission approved approved recommended passage of both of those amendments at its meeting last week.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, sir.

Uh council colleagues, any more questions?

Um, councilman, if I may, I'd like to point out I wanted to thank um uh council president Clark for taking uh the lead on these um amendments.

Thank you noted hearing from no one else.

I will thank you, Mr.

Hale, and call on Jacqueline Manning.

Are you with us?

Yes, good evening.

I am.

I also deferred some of my time to the Assistant Inspector General.

I mean to the Inspector General.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, Council members and residents of Hartford.

My name's Jackie Manning.

I am the Assistant Inspector General for the City of Hartford, so I'm speaking about the CPRB ordinance um on behalf of the inspector general's office, and the address is 550 Main Street, uh Hartford Suite 300.

Um I'm honored to be the inspector general of the Assistant Inspector General for the City of Hartford.

Uh prior to my appointment in 2025, I served as the civilian police review board's independent investigator since 2009.

So I have 17 years of experience on the front line investigating citizen complaints against Hartford police officers.

Um I haven't, I just wanted to state that I haven't really encountered the level of resistance to evidence production from the police department, as I have uh serving this last year as the deputy.

Um so I wanted to speak about the evidence amendments uh to the ordinance that were proposed.

The police department has repeatedly cited the Freedom of Information Act laws to justify denying and or redacting evidence for our investigations.

The Office of the Inspector General is an internal city agency, and we're essentially being treated like we're members of that we're just like John Q citizens making requests for uh public records.

Uh I would like to share two examples of why this issue has reached a critical point requiring city council's intervention.

First, our office has currently three uh civilian complaints pending, which were made by victims of alleged domestic violence.

Two of these complainants submitted release forms to our office authorizing internal affairs to provide uh our office with the relevant evidence that we need to proceed with our investigation.

The police department still will not produce the evidence, even in the face of a signed notarized release from these complaints with the third complainant.

We're not even able to contact that person because the name and contact information has been redacted from the complaint form.

So I just wanted to say that these uh victims of alleged domestic violence are actually being denied their right to an independent investigation by our office under the guise that they have Freedom of Information Act protection, and they're still being denied, even when they choose to waive those claimed protections.

Uh the second example is that in June, the Internal Affairs Commander advised Joe and I that we need to begin making our requests for evidence through public-facing FOI portals.

This pro this process is absolutely unworkable.

It takes a significant amount of time to receive these documents and the information is often redacted.

Um this ordinance needs written clarification in these proposed amendments so that the police department cannot misuse the state's freedom of information uh laws to preemptively censor the evidence that it's going to provide to us for our investigations.

Uh, just in conclusion, I wanted to say that the proposed amendments are clarifications and improvements to the existing laws that will aid in ending ongoing arguments and disagreements related to evidence production and the other issues that the IG's office and the CPRB are currently facing.

These proposed changes address many of the police union's arguments.

They make it clear that the ordinance does not conflict with the CBA provisions, that they include protection language for Hartford Police officers, and they preserve the chief's exclusive right to final discipline.

Uh the changes also ensure that the inspector general's office remains free of political influence and pressure, and that the CPRB can arbitrate disparate findings between itself and the police department and ensures that people get uh truly thorough and fair impartial investigation into their complaints against Hartford Police officers.

And that's all.

Thank you so much for your all your time.

Thank you, Miss Manning.

Uh any questions from my colleagues.

Going once, going twice.

Thank you much.

Next up is Stan McCaulay standing in the building.

Stan McCauley.

Yes, I'm in the building.

All right.

On the other side of my desk.

Tell us who you are and where you live, and then you get your five minutes.

Um catch my breath.

Getting old.

Umfortunately, this isn't a debate because I'd love to debate Officer Rokowski.

Having said that, um the will of the people.

You all are our elected representatives.

He represents our employees.

They're not Sankra Saint.

They're not above the law.

They are like our sanitation department.

And I would contend that the sanitation department went on strike for three weeks.

Everybody in this city would be wanting to give them a raise twice what they earn because they are that important.

So are the police.

So I don't mind calling it what it is.

There are a couple of bad apples in our department.

Everybody knows it.

No one wants to talk about it.

And unfortunately, it seems that the police union has become a defense attorney for bad police officers.

We don't have any way to hold them accountable outside of the context of the civilian police review board.

It is as close as we're going to get as citizens to redress that portion of our government.

They work for us, not the other way around.

So if the ordinance passes, which I am sure it will, then it becomes codified as a part of our city constitution, aka charter.

And that is the law.

They have contractual immunity.

Though some might argue that point, all of this, all of the privileges, all of the protections they have are codified in a contract that is signed by our elected officials, our chief elected official, which is our mayor, and our legislative body, which is our city council.

So in essence, when that contract is signed, uh we waive any arguments that are codified in the contract.

But the contract does not supersede our city charter or the ordinances, which are amendments to the charter.

So they don't have a lifetime of existence and can be changed at the next administration.

It is very, very, very important that this be adopted, embraced, and enforced, and that the inspector general's office gets the resources it needs in order to execute the responsibility and the role which the citizens have sanctioned through our elected officials.

The police officers have tremendous responsibility and they have a tremendous um they've been given tremendous uh authority.

They have the authority to protect and serve up to and including taking the life of an individual in defense of the people of Hartford and themselves.

They absolutely need to be held accountable.

They absolutely have to have oversight, and they do not have the uh authority or the privilege to sidestep the will of the constituents that they have chosen to serve.

If they are worried about people not staying on the force or not coming to Hartford, then we'll have to use people who will come.

There are plenty of people who want to be officers in this city.

So I think in this little war between the old guard and the new guard, it's time for the new guard to stand strong and know that the citizens of Hartford have your back.

I thank you for my for your time.

J Stan McCauley, I live at 77 Wadsworth Street.

Um, I am uh speaking as a citizen, but also co-signing on to uh the American Justice Project's uh comments uh as the president of the Greater Harvard African American Alliance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cauley.

Any questions from my council colleagues?

No, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Right.

I will move on, consulting my list here.

Angela Harris, are you with us, Ms.

Harris?

Yes, good evening.

Can you already?

Yes, ma'am.

Remember to tell us name, address, who you represent.

Take it away.

My name is Angela Harris.

I serves as the chair of the Phillips Metropolitan CME Church Health Ministry.

We're located at 2500 Main Street.

I also serve as the resident liaison for the North Harford Promise Zone Health and Wellness Initiative.

And I'm an active member of the North Hartford Public Safety Coalition.

Why?

Because public safety stopped.

Is a public health issue.

Do I need to pause for you all to restart the recording?

Are you all good?

Hold on.

Let me if I could just make sure I hope I assume we're still just going live to HPA TV, but can I get a thumbs up or a tax on that just to make sure we're not accidentally violating the public meetings law?

Looking at my text messages to see if anyone's going to tell me.

We are still live.

Go on ahead.

I would assume that I have all my time back.

Whether you feel safe to walk, run, play in the streets of Hartford matters.

Wholeheartedly.

The police accountability review board.

One board has been operational and is doing quite well, taking care of their backlog, but one hasn't even fully been seated and has not been meeting.

These are the only two avenues for citizens to have any say in terms of holding the police department accountable.

If you recall, the 21st century policing federal bill was passed.

Was passed.

And this body, the civilian police review board, um, stemmed from those efforts.

It is independent oversight that citizens are seeking.

Police cannot effectively police themselves.

And we feel that um needs to be made by this body, elected representatives of the people.

Um that he gave on the June 24th meeting.

Um extensive list of backlog cases that have been awaiting discovery.

It is um interesting that we were talking earlier about costs.

Um we need efficiency in this area along with full transparency, where interviews and and like depositions can be attended by both the Internal Affairs Department and the Inspector General.

We have a problem with having enough offices on the street.

They should not have to sit for two separate interviews.

We have a problem with getting the information needed to do the investigation for these cases.

Citizens deserve a swift response to their complaints.

Having a case sit for a year is unacceptable.

So I would ask um that this body use its duly elected authority to act to update the ordinance to make it functional and then hold the police department and the CPRB accountable for acting it out as written and not arbitrarily um deciding to enforce some parts of the law and not others.

I thank you for your time and attention and would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you much, Ms.

Harris.

Council members, any questions?

Hearing none.

Thank you again.

And I will now see if Carrie K.

Allen is in the virtual building.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Don't forget to tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent.

Yes.

So my name is Carrie Kay Allen.

I reside on Mother Street in Hartford, and I serve as a member of the Hartford Civilian Police Review Board.

I am speaking tonight in support of item 2.3, the proposed amendments to the civilian police review board ordinance.

Over the course of my service on the board since 2024, I've seen firsthand both the importance of accountability and the importance of recognizing when officers have acted appropriately.

Now, those experiences have reinforced for me that independent oversight is about facts and not assumptions.

So I want to begin by emphasizing that these amendments are not about creating conflict between the Harford Police Department and the community.

They are about ensuring that the ordinance, this council adopted functions as it was intended.

The CPRB board was established to provide independent civilian oversight of police misconduct complaints.

And for that purpose to be fulfilled, the board and our inspector general must have the tools necessary to conduct thorough, fair, and timely investigations.

Now, independent oversight is not anti-police.

It's pro-accountability, it's pro-transparency, and ultimately pro-public trust.

Accountability and public safely are not competing values.

They strengthen one another.

So from my experience serving on the board, I've learned that our ability to reach fair objective decisions depends on having timely access to complete evidence.

And without it, I cannot fulfill my responsibility as a commissioner to review complaints based on all the facts.

So these amendments ensure that our work is meaningful, that our findings are considered before final decisions are made, and that there is a fair process for obtaining evidence when necessary, and that the inspector general remains independent enough to conduct objective investigations.

So these are not expansions of authority.

They are the practical tools needed for the board to do the job this council created it to do.

And I also want to emphasize that I recognize that questions have been raised regarding accountability and fiscal oversight of the inspector general's office, and those are fair questions.

Every public office entrusted with taxpayers' dollars should be accountable for how those resources are used.

However, financial accountability and operational independence are not mutually exclusive.

And the inspector general can and should be subjected to appropriate budgeting for those purposes.

We we do not approach complaints with predetermined conclusions.

We follow the evidence.

Independent oversight is just as important when it confirms that an officer acted appropriately as when it identifies misconduct.

And in both situations, the public benefits from knowing the conclusion was reached through an objective and credible process.

When the residents know there is an independent process that follows the evidence wherever it leads, confidence in the outcome grows.

And even when people may disagree with the results, um, I respect fully axed to support these ordinance amendments so that the CPRB board can continue serving the residents of Hartford and the dedicated offices of the Hartford Police Department with fairness and integrity, independence and transparency.

Thank you for your time and consideration tonight.

Thank you, Ms.

Allen.

Council members, any questions?

Hearing none, I will march along.

Next, we have Shamar Logan.

Shamar, are you in the building?

I I am.

I'm um you can hear me.

Yes, ma'am.

Just remember to tell us who you are, where you live, and whom you represent, if anyone.

Okay.

I am uh my name is Shamar.

I am on West Preston Street.

Um, I work with a bunch of different organizations, but I'm really just here as a resident of Harvard.

And I'm gonna go off the cuff a little bit here.

I have something written, but after listening to all this, y'all, this this is a mess, to be quite honest.

Um, at this point, it feels like spin the wheel on how we ask our elected officials and how we ask people to serve us to treat the community as human and truly protect and serve the community.

It it boggles my mind as to what as to the amount of discussions that have to happen and pleading that have to happen to truly protect to protect people and keep people first, our community first.

Um, and let me just tell you as a Harvard resident, I came here for one thing, and now I'm here on this.

I spent a while researching the civilian police review board and understanding those changes.

And first and foremost, if we're talking about transparency and accountability, we have to make this information easily accessible for people.

I have two degrees, and it took me asking all my time researching those two degrees.

And it took me forever to understand this.

So if it was difficult for me, I can imagine how difficult all of this is for the average Hartford resident who's working, raising a family, and just trying to stay informed about what's happening in their own city, right?

And if it was difficult for me to research it, imagine how how much less safe I feel if I have to research to figure out what's going on to protect me.

Now, as I'm listening to the to tonight's discussion, the concern that stands out to me is that we are not given enough easily accessible public information to be meaningfully bought into this conversation about these proposed changes to the review board.

So if the board exists to serve the people of Harford, and if we're discussing changes to civilian oversight, then the community should not have to piece together information from multiple places or struggle to understand what's being proposed.

And the community deserves a process that's clear, accessible, and transparent.

Um, and this board exists to give the community a voice.

And that matters because if we're gonna talk about checks and balances, which I've heard a lot of tonight, then let's get into history because for many black and brown communities, Harford being one of them, trust in law enforcement has been shaped by generations of unequal uh treatment, and more recently by these nationally publicized incident incidents involving police's use of force, um, including encounters of people who've had mental health crises.

Now, obviously, a lot of people disagree on how that case was handled, fine.

But whether we agree on that, it's not the point right now.

The point is that this trust gap right now is very, very real.

And we didn't lose that trust overnight, and we're not gonna build that trust overnight.

So that's why these boards and transparency matters.

If there's ever a time when this community is should have a voice, is when we're discussing the very board that exists to prov uh to provide the civilian oversight of law enforcement.

We can't build trust by asking the public to simply accept decisions.

And we build trust by making sure that these that our residents are informed, included, and heard.

And just to backtrack right quick, of course, what how we feel about the case matters, just discussing for tonight.

Now, something we all have to understand is transparency and accountability is not a burn, it's not a burden.

It's how these is how any government or any system earns legitimacy.

It strengthens the accountability, and this is how we begin to be uh to rebuild the trust between law enforcement and the community that it serves.

So I'm probably not taking a whole five minutes, but I think it's important to ask for the plea uh for the public to be kept informed, uh, meaningfully included.

And if this board does that, then by all means, I just understand why the discussion is going so long to give a board what it needs to truly protect the people and make sure people's voices are heard and given a real opportunity to understand our participate in conversations about civilian oversight.

Anything, just hear me now.

Anything that takes away the voice of people, especially in matters involving law enforcement and government surveillance, it's gonna ultimately harm the very people that these systems are supposed to serve.

So, as we are discussing everything, and as changes are being made and proposed, please keep in mind there are people in Harford, everyday people who are asking to be heard and served and protected.

And if this board helps give them a voice, when the average person can't come out here and get to here, then that's what this board is for.

I'm getting angry because I just don't understand how we are debating, giving people a voice.

That is a basic human rights.

Okay, I'm done.

Thank you, Shamar.

Council members, any questions?

Hearing none.

I will move on.

Corey Betts.

Corey.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm gonna be real short.

Tell us where you say and who you represent.

My name is Corey Betts, and I am honored to serve as president of the Greater Harford branch of the NAACP.

I am here to this today to support and support of this amendment to the CPRB ordinance.

And I want to first thank President TJ Clark and the members of the Hartford City Council who had the courage and foresight to support them.

Leadership is not measured by avoiding difficult conversations.

Leadership is measured by strengthening the institutions that protect democracy, constitutional rights, and public trust.

Tonight is not about being for or against the police.

It's about whether Harvard will continue to build a system that is transparent, accountable, and worthy of the confidence of the people it serves.

There are two important facts that should guide this discussion.

First, the state of Connecticut Office of the Inspector General and the Harford Office of the Inspector General serve different purposes.

The state inspector general investigate police use of deadly force and determines whether criminal laws have been violated.

Harford Inspector General and the Civilian Police Reboard exist to provide independent civilian oversight, promote transparency, and strengthen public confidence in our police department.

These systems do not compete with one another.

They complement one another.

Second, we cannot ignore Harford history.

For years, our city operated under a federal consent decree because independent oversight and constitutional reform were necessary.

When that consent degree ended, Harford accepted the responsibility of carrying those reforms forward through strong local oversight.

The city strengthened institutions like the Office of the Inspector General and the Civilian Police Review Board, because everyone understood that accountability disappeared when federal oversight ended.

The person is weakened the very institutions that were created to preserve accountability after the consent degree, we weaken the public confidence and government itself.

We have witnessed why these safeguards matter.

Let me repeat that criminal charges against the officer involved after concluding the evidence supported that action.

Whether people agree or disagree with that decision, the point is that the decision was made by the independent body based on evidence and the law.

Not by policy, public pressure or internal department review.

That exactly right independent oversight exists.

Independent oversight protects the constitutional rights of his residents.

Independent oversight protects honorable officers through fair, credible, and partial investigations.

And independent oversight strengthen the trust that every successful police department depends upon.

Again, I commend President TJ Clark and those council members who supported these amendments because they recognize a simple truth but powerful truth.

Government should never fear accountability.

Government should embrace it.

The strongest institutions are not those that resist independent review.

The stronger institutions are those that welcome transparency because they understand that public trust is earned, not demanded.

On behalf of the greater Harford Branch of the NACP, I urge this council to continue moving forward.

Let us honor the progress that has been made, protect the safeguards that our community deserves and leave future generations with stronger systems of accountability than the one we inherit.

History will remember whether we strengthen accountability when we had the opportunity.

And I urge you to vote yes on these amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Betts.

Council colleagues, any questions?

Hearing none.

Sanea Taylor, are you in the building?

Yes, I'm here.

Hello.

All right.

Remember to tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent, if anyone.

Yeah, hi.

My name is Tanea Taylor.

Address is 598 Farmington Avenue in Hartford.

And I am the founder of Nonprofit Accountability Group or NAG.

We're based in Hartford.

I want to start by supporting demanding a stronger civilian review board and making sure that the board has the funding that they need in order to conduct the work to for police accountability.

And also remove the flock cameras that are selling our data.

They don't belong in the city nationwide and globally, people are very much against surveillance culture, and it has become a bipartisan issue.

Whether and it doesn't matter who you voted for, people don't want to be surveilled.

Number three, um, demand, and I am demanding an inquiry into whether there was a soft strike that was conducted uh for the court appearance of Joseph McNano.

Um and demanding in an inquiry whether into whether police powers are used to escort someone accused of killing a Harford resident um into the courtroom while officers were on tax-funded time.

Um again, um, this is around um transparency and accountability.

Um, and lastly, um demanding justice for um Edward Walker, who was uh killed by Hartford police um in an investigation.

And that is all from me.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Tanea.

Any questions from my council colleagues?

Hearing none, we march onward.

Daniel Rodriguez, are you in the building?

Yes, I am.

Okay, remember to tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent.

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

My name is Dan Rodriguez.

I'm a resident of Hartford.

I live in 118 Henry Street.

I'm a property owner, I'm an investor.

I want to say that I was part of the right along program with the Hartford Police Department, Officer James Jenkins.

I believe the officer.

I got first hand view and into the hard time and the split decision they have to make every time you go on a call.

I appreciate dedicated officers like Jay Light, Mustabach, Cartagena, Jess, who serve the Capitol City.

But we, the residents are the capital city.

The proposed amendment is important because straight into the civilian review board to do its job.

More importantly, it ensures the resident who rely on us, confident that we will do a fair and informed, honest decision.

There has been time I feel refrained from voting on a case because in my judgment, not enough information was provided to reach a fair and informed conclusion.

I believe all information related to a complaint should be provided to the civilian review board.

It is the review review board responsibility to review evidence, determine what's relevant or not, and reach independent decision.

The determination should not rely solely in the police department.

During the conversation with the resident, several questions he asked me.

What happens if a complaint is not fully investigated?

If the decision is made without all the files, does the decision still stand?

Is an officer hold accountable?

Does the civilian review board have the authority to recommend disciplinary action?

If so, to what extent?

Is it an officer just reassigned to this duty, or is it on another consequences?

If a minor violations is overlooked, because those issues eventually escalate to serious misconduct, costly loss, or even a crime.

Ultimately, what's the value on public trust?

This gentleman was talking to me like this.

I told the resident I would share the concerns today because I believe that there are questions worth asking.

I also wanted to know that I wanted him to know that when I cast a vote, it's to the fullest possibility of my understanding of the facts, and that is how I come to a full, fully in my responsible clear conscience that what I did was right.

This amendment is not about taking power away from the police department, a police officer or creating unnecessary conflict.

They're about transparency, accountability, ensuring the civilian review board can carry out their responsibilities on behalf of the residents.

Regardless of this outcome, I'll continue to serve as a volunteer role as a member of the council to the best of my ability.

My plan was to I began to encourage people in my neighborhood to get involved with local government and agency to help the department and the people come together at Swan and have a better Hartford tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions from my council colleagues?

Hearing none.

I will move on.

Josh Serrano.

Are you in the building?

Josh Serrano.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Remember to tell us who you are, where you live, and whom you represent, if anyone.

Go ahead.

No problem.

Thank you.

My name is Joshua Serrano, also known as Mr.

No More Slum Lord.

I reside in the Clay Arsenal Renaissance Apartments here in Hartford, 86th East Street.

I'm also a member of the Center for Leadership and Justice.

I'm here tonight to ask you to support and pass the amendments being proposed to the civilian police review board.

I support these changes because we need a clear and honest way to look at police misconduct here in our city.

I live here my whole life and growing up was subject to many stopping frisk, unwarranted and unfounded.

These interactions cause me to fear simply walking around my community, not fearing the people, rather policing in our community itself.

These changes is how we can trust that complaints are taken seriously, investigated thoroughly and concluded accordingly in a timely manner.

The Hartford Police Department alongside union president continue to make it very hard for the review board to work.

Currently, there are a few gaps in the rules that allows the police department to block his work.

Not to mention that for years, the review board hasn't worked well because these hurdles have impeded the ability to get all the information needed accordingly.

These rule changes will help the board do its job.

They will help make the civilian police review board real and not just something that looks good on paper.

These are simple, fair, straightforward changes that are needed to ensure the civilian police review board works the way it was meant to, assuring civilians have a voice in all aspects and form of governance.

Without these changes, trust between the community, the police, and our city government will only keep getting worse.

No one should fear an interaction with the police.

I should not have to worry leaving leaving my workplace, heading up Albany Avenue towards my home in the Clay Arsenal neighborhood, be subjected to stopping frisk.

We call interry stops, which not complaining can cost me my life.

No longer should police misconduct, no matter how severe, go unchecked.

The residents have spoken.

The civilian police review board is what's needed, and hopefully our elective officials will stand tall for we the people.

Thank you for listening.

God bless you all.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions from my council colleagues?

Again, hearing none, we're gonna march on.

Next is Sherelle Banks.

Are you in the building?

I am in the building.

I am in the building.

Good evening.

Tell us your name and your address and whom you represent and take it away.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Um, Sherelle Banks here, Harford Resident, um, community organizer and one of the founding members of the North Hartford Public Safety Coalition with me, which meets on 47 Vine Street, Harper, Connecticut.

All right, tonight I respectfully ask you to support the proposed um council president and members of the Hartford City Council.

Tonight, I respectfully ask you to support the proposed amendments to the civilian police review board ordinance as someone who works closely with residents, youth, faith leaders, and community partners.

I know that public safety depends on trust.

People are more likely to report concerns, cooperate with law enforcement, and participate in strengthening our neighborhoods when they believe there is a fair, transparent process for accountability.

These proposed amendments will help the review board do the job it was created to do, providing timely access to evidence, strengthening investigative authority, clarifying procedures, and ensuring the inspector general can operate independently are practical improvements that will strengthen public competence.

This is not about being against the police, it's about building a system that supports both residents and officers through fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Strong oversight helps protect the integrity of good policing while ensuring ensuring community concerns are taken seriously.

Earlier today, many of us participated in Faith Walks 2026, where residents, clergy, youth, and community organizations came together to pray, walk, and demonstrate our commitment to safer neighborhoods.

That same commitment brings us here tonight.

Violence prevention and community trust go hand in hand.

I encourage the council to adopt these amendments and continue strengthening the relationship between the Hartford community.

This police department.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our city.

Peace.

Thank you.

I pause briefly, but I hear no one piping up to ask questions.

So I will move along.

Next, we have Bridget Prince.

Bridget, are you in the building?

Uh, yes.

Um council.

Remember to tell us your name, your address, whom you represent, if anyone.

Can I can you come back to me?

I literally probably need about five or ten minutes to come back one.

Yes, ma'am.

I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And then I will call on former councilwoman Cynthia Jennings.

Are you with us?

Let me just okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, ma'am.

Take it away.

All right.

My name is Cynthia Jennings.

I live at 86 Heartland Street, Hartford, Connecticut.

I am a um civil rights attorney, and I'm five, I'm a five-year member of the Hartford City Council.

I just wanted to say good evening.

That um number one, I strongly support the um, I absolutely support the uh amendments, the uh the recommendations of the um American Justice Project, and I fully support the rights of our citizens to peacefully redress their government.

I thank everyone who's present here today because it part of this is peacefully redressing your government.

I also want to say that um, in terms of the um CPRB, that I strongly agree that we need to earmark funds for this agency and make sure that they have the money that they need to move forward and do the job that has to be done.

I am here to support the proposed amendments of the CPRB, and I'm also here to fight for our citizens who have an absolute right to take complaints to um to uh of the police to a higher authority and to submit the concerns that they have to a public process.

Our citizens have a right to fill on to full on time evidence.

Evidence is the one item that can support the fact-finding responsibilities of the CPRB and the police department and the city council.

I think that it's very important that our citizens know that they deserve to be have an independent inspector general who can speak out on their behalf and who has the resources in order to implement what has to be implemented.

I believe that the um that the police should work closely with but not supervise or manage the activities of this or of the of the inspector general or the organization.

I would like to uh to say that we as elected officials and citizens of this city must work to improve the integrity between the residents and the police.

Our private citizens pay the bill for for everything that we do in this city.

We have to respect them for their position and make sure that they are supported and making and assuring that there is no interference and no quiet quiet passing of legislation or register or or anything else that has to do with the well-being of the families and the people who live here.

So thank you so much for the opportunity.

If you don't have any questions now, I'm sure you'll have some later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

I'm gonna go to Peter Little next, and then I will come back to Bridget Prince.

So, Peter Little, are you in the building?

I am.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Nickel, Council where you stay and whom you represent and take it away.

Indeed.

My name is Peter Little.

I'm co-founder of American Justice Project located at Kenmore Road in Bloomfield.

Tonight we have heard from residents, from advocates, from clergy, attorneys, activists, and people with all manner of lived experience.

We come from different backgrounds, but we all delivered essentially the same message.

The civilian police review board cannot hold anyone accountable if it is denied the tools to discover the truth.

That's why, of course, we urge you to approve these ordinance amendments.

But tonight I'd like to talk about something almost no one has mentioned, except perhaps based in McCauley.

The CPRB ordinance before you is only half the story of police accountability in Hartford.

The other half is the Hartford Police Union contract, the underlying collective bargaining agreement with the city of Hartford.

The current contract just expired on June 30.

And as we sit here tonight, it's likely being renegotiated behind closed doors.

In 2022, that contract was negotiated in secret.

And the council, this council, many of you showed zero interest in opening the process to public input.

Public didn't know what was in it until it was a done deal.

We feel Hartford deserves better.

Hartford deserves better.

American Justice has identified 14 provisions in the current contract that weaken transparency, that limit accountability, and that provide extraordinary protections unavailable to ordinary citizens to members of the uh born um born members of the of the department.

What it is is a double standard of dust of justice.

We've recently shared our analysis with Mayor Aur Lampalam with Jonathan Harding, the corporation counsel, and with every member of this council.

I want to illustrate three of these provisions with three examples.

First, the CBA provides that some disciplinary records can effectively disappear or lose their practical significance over time.

Imagine telling the victim of police misconduct.

Yes, that officer has been disciplined before, but we're not going to consider it.

Would any private employer operate that way?

Why should a police department?

Second example.

An officer under investigation can review prior reports and prepare additional reports before being interviewed.

Think about that.

When detectives investigate a crime, they don't gather all the witnesses together and let everyone compare notes before asking questions.

Investigators seek independent recollections because that's how truth is discovered.

So why should police misconduct investigations in internal affairs follow a lower standard than criminal investigations?

And third example, the contract discourage or limits anonymous complaints.

But many Hartford residents, especially those who've had repeated contact with the police, are understandably skeptical and afraid, afraid of retaliation, afraid of being identified, afraid of being making life harder for themselves or their families.

The complaint system people are afraid to use isn't a meaningful accountability system.

And these are just three of the 14 provisions.

They'd all deserve public debate and scrutiny.

Last council uh meeting last week, I made a request that I repeat tonight.

Please, council members, study those 14 provisions.

Think about them carefully.

Let's have a thoughtful and open discussion about the merits or the demerits of each one.

And then tell the people of Hartford where you stand, not behind closed doors, not after a contract is signed.

Now, before I conclude, I want to bump the virtual mic here to someone who's devoted her entire career to these very issues.

With us is Cassie Ipasso.

Josh, I believe Cassie is next up.

Am I right?

Peter, she she would be what I'm going to bounce back to Bridget and then Bridget Prince, and then come to Cassie just because Bridget needed a few minutes.

Okay.

Well, her Cassie's going to get her a whole long time.

So you don't need to be able to do that.

Her presentation kind of segues from mine, but whatever you decide.

Cassie is director of policy and campaigns at an organization called Campaign Zero.

Some of you know Campaign Zero.

It was founded by Duray McKesson in the wake of the Ferguson uprisings in 2014.

The unrest in Ferguson sparked a debate, a national debate about the relationship between law enforcement and black Americans, about the militarization of police, about use of forced laws nationwide.

And over the past decade, Campaign Zero has become one of America's most visible, respected, and effective organizations advancing evidence-based police accountability.

Encourage you all to visit their website.

Its research has shaped legislation, police policies, and reform efforts across the country.

And Cassie has worked with communities.

Very little as five minutes.

Okay.

I'm just about to turn over.

I want to only say uh uh that Cassie has just been admitted to law school at Yale.

So she's spending a great deal of time in New Haven.

And welcome to Connecticut, Cassie.

We hope to see you in Hartford from time to time.

We're really grateful Campaign Sarah is standing with Hartford.

And I hope when she speaks in a moment, you'll give her your full attention.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

And I am, I did say I was going to go back to Bridget Prince.

I know breaks up the flow a little bit, but such is life.

Um thank you, Peter.

We will get to Cassie in a moment.

Bridget, are you still in the building and ready to address us?

Yes, I am.

I am uh still in the building ready to address.

Uh thank you very much.

I am uh Bridget Prince, uh Harford Native uh activist.

Uh I'm here to speak.

Um for resident, and I'm here to speak um as someone supporting American Justice Project, uh, as someone who was part of the uh North Harford Public Safety, and also a member of the Greater Hartford African American Alliance.

But I'm here to speak uh on my own behalf.

Um I want I want to touch on something that has really been bothering me since the day it happened, and that is the union president uh Rakowski.

I know he was one of the first speakers that came on, and he has made it clear that the only one who should not have any checks and balances is him.

Um when he said what he had, what he said publicly about the mayor, about the CEO of the city, the elected uh official, and there was no, there was no uh public comments from from any anyone in the city, um, anyone on the council.

I know we uh as a body, um African American Alliance, uh President Macaulay, uh Attorney Jennings.

We held a press conference in front of the building because we wanted the people to know that this is not right.

You you you you can't just say the things that you say and not be held accountable, which is really what is going on right now, and to the leaders are held accountable.

This is going to continue to happen.

This is great.

This resolution is is is wonderful, and I support it wholeheartedly, but it can't just be a piece of paper.

During the last administration, uh Mayor Luke Bronan fought vigorously to Sunset Centron versus Vaughan.

Thus also a problem that's happening right now, because I believe Rakowski feels like uh he's invincible.

Uh you don't you don't have to respect the majority of the demographics in the in the uh Harvard community.

And because no one's going to check you.

You know, for him to come after uh uh attorney Lopez the way he's doing, it's it's shameful.

You know, I I've been there and and participated in the civilian police review board, and they're right.

There's a lot of cases that they don't find in favor of the uh complainant.

So they do their due diligence and they do it well.

And I just want to say, because I've been there.

Um but I'm I'm asking for this body to really represent the people to be able to stand there.

Um and just like you can stand there and you can you can you know do press conferences or or make statements when something goes wrong, or something that you perceive went wrong um with the school board or the board of education or the superintendent or the uh the recently retired treasurer.

I think you owe the community to be able to stand up and say, hey, listen, you're not gonna talk to the mayor like this.

You're not gonna treat our citizens like this.

Uh Rakowski, you're an employee like everybody else.

And me, I understand what protect the serve means uh just as well as any police officer because I protect and serve, not just my community, but my country.

And when things went wrong with one of the soldiers, they were court-martialed, they went to prison.

Why this police force seems to be concluded and immune from any kind of discipline, and you as a body does not really enforce that.

That's a problem.

And it's not gonna change until the leaders stand up and make it change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bridget.

I see no hands and hear no questions from my colleagues, so I will march along.

And now, Miss Hippaso, I assume you're ready to go.

You've been glowingly introduced.

So tell us your name and where you're from and whom you represent.

Are you there?

Yes, I'm I'm here.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Pizza, for that introduction as well.

Um, good evening, everybody, council members.

I appreciate your time to hold this hearing and for everyone who has testified.

My name is Cassie Apaso.

I'm the managing director of campaigns and policy at Campaign Zero.

We are a national research and advocacy organization that is working to reimagine public safety and advance accountability in law enforcement.

While I'm speaking on behalf of Campaign Zero, which is a national organization, I reside in New Haven, Connecticut, as Peter graciously commended, uh mentioned.

Um I'm testifying today because Harvard stands at a critical moment.

And what you decide here matters for this community and far beyond.

In the past decade, Campaign Zero has studied police accountability systems nationwide.

We've collected and analyzed the largest repository of police union contracts in the country, and we've studied studied dozens of civilian oversight models.

Some work, but most do not.

So through the last 10 years of our work in police oversight, the patent is clear.

Civilian review boards that lack real investigative power, i.e., those that cannot access evidence, compel officer interviews, or enforce their findings, exists largely on paper.

They satisfy the appearance of accountability without delivering it.

Um now, Harford's CPRB amendments ensure that your oversight model will actually work.

A civilian review board must have two things.

Number one, unrestricted and unredacted direct access to all evidence necessary to administer investigations, and two, final disciplinary power, or at a minimum, an external neutral arbitration process where a department disagrees with when a department disagrees with the board's findings.

Right now, the CPRB investigates, but the police chief can unilaterally overrule those findings.

Officers can refuse interviews.

The result is that civilians wait months, months for answers, cases languish, facts and laws can point towards misconduct, and commanders can simply overrule them.

The three proposed amendments address this directly.

First, requiring internal events to provide full unredacted evidence.

The CPR V and vector in Inspector General.

You cannot investigate what you cannot see.

When body war on camera footage, police reports, and interview transcripts arrive redacted or delayed, investigation stole, and amendments ensure that the board has what it needs within legal time frames.

Second, requiring the police chief to consider CPRB findings before making final determinations.

This isn't about stripping the chief of authority.

It's about ensuring that the board's work, it's evidence, testimony, determination, etc.

has weight, because right now it doesn't.

And third, establishing independent arbitration when they disagree.

A retired judge decides based on evidence.

This is fair to everyone, including the officers who get due process and to civilians who get real hearings to the department, where decisions rest on facts and law, not politics.

I want to be direct.

These amendments ask the police union to accept to accept stronger oversight, that they are fair to offices.

Arbitration is a fair process.

Providing evidence is professionalism.

And considering the board's findings is respect for civilian input and how your department serves this community.

I truly believe that we all want the same things.

We want justice and appropriate outcome based on facts and laws.

We want both offices and civilians safe.

And we want due process, transparency, and fairness.

These amendments really deliver all of that.

With your police contract up for renegotiation this year, this is the moment to embed real oversight into Hartford's infrastructure.

Campaign Zero is here to support the council in any way that we can.

We've done this work in cities across the country and we know what works.

And so I really want to extend our offer to help you all in and in truly any way that we can.

And I urge you to pass this ordinance.

Your residents and offices deserve nothing less.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

I again see no questions from my council colleagues.

So I will move on to Judge and Senator Eric Coleman.

Are you in the building, sir?

I am in the building.

Oh, all right.

Tell us who you are and where you live and take it away.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh good evening, members of council.

Um, my name is Eric Coleman.

I reside in the city of Hartford at 53 Goodwin Circle.

And I wish to speak this evening uh in support of the amendments proposed through the civilian police review board.

I have had the privilege of uh serving as a member of the legal community and as a state legislator.

Uh during my time in the legislature, I had the privilege of serving as the chair of the judiciary committee.

And among the concerns that I've had in that capacity is police community relationships and the oversight and accountability of law enforcement agencies.

Also in that capacity, I was very proud to have authored and sponsored legislation having to do with the excessive force being used by police officers and the ways in which to address that in a 2015 bill that I sponsored, the Wall Street Journal spoke about that bill as one of the most comprehensive of its type.

And I think the amendments as they're proposed, and as I understand them, have to do with access, uh, input, arbitration, subpoena power, and independence of an inspector general.

And all of those, in my humble opinion, uh go a long ways toward uh exercising oversight of the Hartford Police Department.

And it's an oversight that's needed.

Um, people have spoken this evening regarding uh the police union, and the police union is gonna be an advocate of an officer, uh, regardless of the uh type of misconduct conduct or the egregiousness of the misconduct that a police officer is involved in.

Uh there's a healthy degree of skepticism that's directed toward the Internal Affairs Division and other internal mechanisms uh purporting to exercise oversight of uh the conduct of police officers.

There needs to be some balance struck, and I believe the amendments uh strengthening the civilian police uh review board uh is that kind of balance that uh we all should be interested in.

So, in summary, I just heard the city council uh to act favorably upon uh those amendments that are being proposed as they would improve uh the function and the effectiveness and oversight of the civilian police review board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Coleman.

Any questions from the council?

I hear none.

Next up is Christopher Dukes.

Chris, you in the building?

Yes, sir.

Am I muted?

Correct.

No, I hear you.

Yes, sir.

I know yes.

My name is Christopher Dukes.

I reside at 65 on Rose Street, Hartford.

Uh, I'm proud president of American Justice Project and also a co-founder.

Um, however, I'm not speaking in that capacity tonight because I'm representing this minority of us who are, I am fortunate enough or unfortunate enough to be one of the forgotten 75 complaints who filed citizen uh complaints, resulted in substantiations against multiple members of the Hartford Police Department, and yet those findings were never acted upon.

So I represent those individuals tonight in their families.

According to author Clay Kane, misinformation is a strong and old tool.

It distorts history and manipulates narratives.

I myself assert that misinformation can alter lives and divide communities.

It's an abuse of power that when unchecked can cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Mr.

Fisher earlier is absolutely correct about what he has stated about the payouts Connecticut taxpayers have paid.

And it's worth repeating.

More than 36 million dollars last year and more than 5 million this year with 38 million pending, thanks to misinformation being utilized to convict innocent citizens and robbing them and their family members decades of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For the past eight years, my children and I have suffered from the misinformation spread by and maintained by members of the Hartford Police Department as well as other city and state officials.

The CPRB was created to provide police and citizens a mechanism for addressing complaints concerning police misconduct, a contributing factor in approximately 75% of all known wrongful convictions across our country since 1989.

I support the proposed amendments under item 2.3 because there have been no checks and balances applied in my own case.

As a result of that, the state of Connecticut Supreme Court had to intervene by scrutinizing the same information that the city and state narrative of the city and state narrative that was put forth eight years ago and affirmed I engaged in no misconduct, proving there was no shortage of misinformation or assumptions from the HPD.

However, there was absolutely no evidence, zilch to support the planted evidence, police reports, and the test of line contained within the actual factual evidence overwhelmingly supported my claims of innocence.

The CPRB must be able to function in a manner that allows it to fully investigate the complaints of citizens.

My children and I are living proof that Hartford injustice can move, however slowly, towards liberation when we fight back against official oppression.

My goal is to ensure no citizen of Harford and beyond ever has to watch their children suffer trauma over eight years simply because a culture of corruption is contractually permitted to exist without any real oversight.

All law enforcement officials should have a contract that provides fair wages and health care, but not a right of passage to falsify reports, plant evidence, and the such with impunity.

These stories of injustice must continue to be told in order to truly break the cycle of harms of the harms that have occurred.

I don't have to speculate about them.

My children and I share the unfortunate lived experiences.

Transparency and accountability must be a guaranteed reality for the people, including police of Hartford.

Humanity must be an absolute certainty.

Thank you, counsel for listening to me.

Please vote to make the amendments associated with item 2.3 a reality for the people of Hartford, including the police.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Duke.

Hearing no clamor of questions, I will move down the list.

Are you in the building?

I am here.

All right.

Tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent, and the floor is yours.

My name is Ty Outlaw.

Um, I represent myself.

I'm a native of Hartford and also a victim of Harvard police brutality.

Um, I'm gonna be very brief, but um, I believe this board is a must.

I support it 100%.

When when I was uh brutally beaten by the Hartford police, it was it was nothing that anybody could do for the most part.

So the average citizen of Harvard has no chance to survive against the Hartford police because they won't have the money or the resources to fight back, which is unfair.

And that's why I believe this board and the uh just the the new laws have to change, and I think this board is a must, and I support it 100%.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Outlaw.

Hearing no questions from the council.

Next, I have LaShawn Robinson.

Well, Sean, are you in the building?

LaShawn Robinson.

All right, I will come back to you at the end with Sean or pop up in the chat and let us know if you're here.

And in the meantime, Craig Stallings, Mr.

Stallings, are you here?

Craig?

Yes, yes, sir.

All right, tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent.

Take it.

Okay.

I'm in the car.

Sorry about that.

Uh, on my way home.

My name is Craig Stones.

I'm the former chairman of Harvard Board of Education.

Served by eight years on the board, served as chairman for two.

Um, I'm a lifelong residency in Harvard uh activist.

Uh, I'm here to speak in support of the ordinances.

I'm here to speak in support of the ordinances.

However, I just want to add my couple uh two cents real quick.

Let me see if I can get more light.

Like I'm also a member of the African American Alliance, and like President Macaulay said, um, I agree.

This is not a discussion.

This is a matter of residents telling our elected representatives what we want and how we want it.

Um I don't think that this is about um creating adversarial uh creating an adversary relationship between the committee of the community, the police and the city government, the local government, although that already currently exists.

I think uh I've been advocating for oversight for the police for years now.

Um I think that this is uh right step in the direction, but I think that this is um there could be more teeth in this this this proposal.

Um my son scored number one on the police exam.

Number one, and because of the immaturity of Chief Cody, uh who didn't like my politics.

My son wasn't able to proceed to go to the academy, so forth and so on.

There's a lot of indictiveness in the department.

There's a lot of uh malthesis when it comes to money, so forth and so on.

So there is a dire need for oversight.

Um, the union president, I personally don't have a problem with him.

I I know him.

Uh I think he's a good guy.

He spent time with my dying father-in-law.

Um, he advocates for for people.

He's uh a graduate of Buckley.

He's a bulldog, which means he's a product of Harvard.

And so I understand how he is vigorous in his uh representation, his advocacy.

Um, but I believe again that this is our department, this is our city, those are our cars, those are our badges, those are our guns.

And so we have a right to implement what we want to implement.

I think that this proposal should be baked in the cake.

For example, the discovery.

Um, I think that the IA should be providing evidence to the civilian reward within 72 hours.

Um, the chief, this this chief uh reinforcement should be done in his contract, and the the requirement of the chief can to consider should not be there.

It should be the chief must include and or report back to the CPRB.

Um there should be no option in that and arbitration.

Again, I think you should take that up and collect the bargain agreement because again, that collective bargain agreement has not been done.

So this language should be sent over to the collective bargaining agreement so we can bake this in the cake.

Uh, and then there is no uh discussion because the the city charter will support it, the collective bargaining will support it, and the city council's uh resolutions and ordinances will support it, and then there's no there's there's there's no conversation.

There's no conversation about this.

Um so again, I think that if we just do our due diligence and help the city council in terms of preparing this um ordinance, we can do um more extensive work.

And I think um in general, I think that we should be um concentrating on reform.

There's so much more that needs to be done.

There's so much more that needs to be changed that the city council and the city should just be thinking on reforming all departments.

Uh the last thing I want to say is my constituency, I I represent children and families in the community.

And the civilian review board, as you know, there are a lot of students that come in contact with police, a lot of parents that come and contact police, and these these interactions are not always the best.

And when parents want to complain, just like the other gentleman, they didn't get any response for the civilian review board.

And so I know that young people in the city, parents in the city, they don't trust the civilian review, the civilian review board just as much as they don't trust the police.

And that's a shame.

And that's all I have to say.

I was gonna say some more stuff, but I'm gonna call city council myself and lobby uh independently.

So I I thank you for listening to me.

Thank you, City Council, for everything you've done.

Thank you, everyone else.

Bless you.

I love Harford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Craig.

Uh I move slowly up the spirit in case my colleagues want to ask a question, but I hear none.

So I will move on to Sydney Shulman.

Sydney, are you in the building?

Sydney Sholman.

Yes.

Take us away.

Tell us who you are and where you stay and whom you represent, and you have the good morning, everybody.

Um, my name is Attorney Sydney Shoreman.

My address is 10 grand streets for my office in Harvard, Connecticut.

I had the honor of 53 years ago of negotiating the settlement agreement, resulting in the consent decree, uh known as Sitron versus in uh Harvard.

I don't know why there's a echo.

But hopefully people can hear me and understand.

Um I think I was six years old at the time, but we negotiated that uh consent decree with the participation not only of the police union, but also the uh administration and the police department.

So that was a fully executed decree that was the law of the land, as they say, for 50 years until it's sunset, unfortunately, about three years ago.

Now I have to tell you that I've reviewed the uh proposals for I I guess you call it uh 2.3 regarding the police civilian review board.

Uh I'm a hundred percent in favor of them.

I would also notice that the union representative only addressed um the uh financial issue at the end and did not oppose or address the other issues.

I just make that as a note.

Now, the fact of the matter is what is proposed is not particularly uh imaginative, uh unusual, new or radical.

As a matter of fact, it is already inculcated, unless they changed something in the last three, four years, uh, within the Centron versus Vaughn decree, which was followed for 50 years and establishing the firearms discharge review board.

The farms discharge review board was composed of members of the community as well as police officers.

And it stood for coordination and cooperation, and was not supposed to be adversarial, but the community members of the board made sure that it was transparent and that there was accountability.

Now I took a look at the uh items that are mentioned, and it talks about uh that the uh discharge that the farms, I'm sorry, police civilian review board should have full non-redacted uh um uh uh access to the evidence, police reports, so forth, interviews, and everything.

And the firearms discharge board had that and has had that for 50 years.

There is no reason at all why the civilian police review board should not also have that authority.

Uh secondly, uh talks about the uh chief waiting to make his decision.

Oh, the one thing I would know, there's nothing here that takes the ultimate decision away from the chief of police.

It only asks that the board be given the opportunity to look into the matter and make a recommendation to the chief.

And by the way, that is exactly what the farms discharge board does.

And the chief waits, at least for the 50 years that I monitored it.

The chief of police waits until the farms discharge board goes through its process and has a recommendation to the chief.

So that's not unusual.

It's been the police policy for 50 years.

So those two things would regard access to unredacted police reports, officer interviews, transcripts, and everything is exactly what's been the law and the farm discharge board for 50 years.

The uh chief waiting until they have a decision and make a recommendation is exactly what's been the law for 50 years.

Now, with respect to the uh subpoena power, the farms discharge board had subpoena power, and therefore, and they could interview witnesses and bring witnesses before that.

There's no reason on this earth why the um civilian police review board should not have uh subpoena power, whether it's through the board or through uh to the independent um to the independent council.

Uh so I see nothing here that's particularly uh as I say, unusual or uh uh rare or wild or crazy or anything.

These are the normal process procedures that are necessary in order to make the civilian police review board effective.

And uh as far as the autonomy of the inspector general, that's a little different than what is in the uh uh farms discharge board.

But uh attorney Shulman is five minutes.

Okay, I am 100% in favor of that.

And the inspector general is under the uh civilian police review board.

So I urge passage of the entire uh number of recommendation recommended ordinance amendance amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Shulman.

Moving steadily on, we are in the home stretch, folks.

Uh, next up is Ken Green.

And are you in the building?

Ken Green.

All right.

I'm gonna put you back to the end of the list just in case you pop up.

Next is Dexter Burke.

Dexter Burke, are you here?

Going once, going twice.

Also to the bottom of the list.

George De Leone.

Hi, good afternoon.

Tell us who you are and where you stay, and take it away.

I'm George Leon.

I reside in uh 1212 Main Street, and I am a new tree commissioner for the city of Hartford.

I was just talking support for item uh 2.9 and 2.10.

I'm really excited to see this language be put forth um echoing what Jack Hale said earlier in the meeting.

Uh, that this is a big step for uh trees in the city and just for public health in general.

So I just wanted to make it brief and just put up my support for those items.

Thank you.

Thank you, George.

You were mercifully brief.

We all appreciate it at this hour.

Uh hearing no questions from my colleagues.

We move on to Cecilia Drayton.

Cecilia, are you here?

I am here.

Hello, everyone.

Okay.

Take us away.

Tell well, tell us who you are, where you stay, whom you represent, and then take us away.

Right.

Yes, I'm Cecilia Drayton.

I am the director of sustainability for the city of Hartford.

550 Main Street is where I work, slash uh live most of the time, but I also am a resident of 2020 Front Street.

So two places.

Um, I'm expressing my um support for items 2.9 and 2.10 as well.

I'll be very brief.

Uh now, in light of all the wildfires we just had, it's not a question if trees are necessary infrastructure.

Uh, the time is now to actually adjust understand what weight they really do carry.

They are the lungs for um the air we breathe, and the plumbing for all of the water we get shortly after it rains.

And I just want to thank all that who have championed this effort and all of my predecessors who came before me, um, Heather Dion, Judah Kamley, Grace G, and others who helped us get us here to where we are today.

And I look forward to uh breathing some cleaner air in Hartford and just doing enjoying the city that we all love.

And that's it.

Thank you much.

Um hearing no questions.

I'm just gonna go to the three folks who didn't answer when I first called.

Uh first is LaShawn Robinson.

LaShawn, are you here?

And then Ken Green.

One more shot.

And lastly, Dexter Burke.

And that's everyone on our list.

Thank you all.

Sorry, Jeff.

For turning out.

Oh Brother Lovejoy.

I don't know why I don't have you on my list.

Did I skip four minutes?

You know what?

Here you are.

Say who you are, whom you represent, and speak to us, please.

I definitely appreciate it.

Please uh pardon the uh uh lack of visual.

Uh I seem to be having a little technical difficulty.

Uh, and I definitely want to uh respect the time of everyone here this evening.

Uh my name is Brother Kelvin X Lovejoy, uh Harford, Connecticut, uh 2550 Main Street is my business address.

I say good evening to all of the uh city council members of the city of Hartford.

Again, my name is Brother Kelvin X Lovejoy.

I serve as student minister at Mohammed Moss number 14 here in Hartford.

I'm also a founding member of the North Harford Public Safety Coalition, and I'm currently serving as acting lead community organizer for the Center for Leadership and Justice in the uh absence of uh our hard working brother, Pastor AJ Johnson.

Johnson.

I stand here in this space before you this evening to respectfully and unequivocally urge you to support the proposed amendments to strengthen Hartford civilian civilian police review board.

You know, in the scripture, Isaiah 117, it says, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

That verse reminds us that justice is not passive.

Justice requires action.

It requires leadership and leaders who are willing to strengthen the institutions that protect both the rights and the dignity of every member of our community of Hartford, Connecticut.

Just a few hours ago, our coalition, together with clergy residents, community organizations, and concerned citizens completed Faith Walk 2026.

We walked through North Hartford, praying for peace, standing with families, listening to residents, and demonstrating that public safety is not simply the responsibility of law enforcement, it is the shared responsibility of the entire community.

But our prayers must also be accompanied with action.

In Micah 6.8, we read, He hath showed thee, O man, what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to live mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.

Justice and mercy are not competing values.

Family, these are partners.

We can support good policing while also supporting meaningful accountability.

In fact, one depends upon the other.

And likewise, Hartford residents deserve confidence that when concerns are raised, they will be reviewed independently, fairly, thoroughly, and without unnecessary delay.

Trust cannot be demanded.

Trust must be earned.

The proposed amendments before us representing an important step towards justice and towards trust must be reviewed closely.

By strengthening the authority of the civilian police review board and ensuring that the Inspector General has the tools necessary to conduct complete and independent investigations.

It is a real and tangible element in the city of Hartford.

These revisions are intended to help ensure investigations are timely, complete, transparent, and worthy of public confidence.

Someone who spends nearly every day working alongside young people, families, survivors of violence, faith leaders, and neighborhood residents, I can tell you that people are asking for two things at the same time.

They want safe streets and they want fair systems.

Those are not opposing goals.

They are the foundation of a healthy Hartford.

When communities lose confidence and accountability, cooperation with law enforcement suffers.

When accountability is strengthened, legitimacy grows.

Strong civilian oversight ultimately benefits residents, officers, and our entire city.

Tonight I ask you to think beyond the ordinance.

Think about the message that your support will send to every young person watching these proceedings.

Will they see a city willing to strengthen public trust?

Will they see leaders willing to improve institutions rather than simply defend them?

I will close with Proverbs 29-2.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.

But when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Tonight, you have the opportunity to strengthen public confidence, reinforce accountability, and help people build a safer and more just Hartford.

On behalf of Mohammed Moss No.

As we reached almost 100 participants, I respectfully ask for your support of these amendments.

Thank you for your leadership, your service, and commitment to the people of Hartford.

Good evening.

Thank you, Brother Lovejoy.

Um I think that is everyone.

I will just last chance if if you didn't get to speak and you wanted to, and you're here, speak now or hold your peace till the next one.

Thank you all for turning out, for waiting, for speaking on these serious issues.

This is what makes government work and what makes it worthwhile to participate in.

We all appreciate you.

And uh city council meeting.

It's always a good time.

Good night, you know.

Yes, indeed.

Thank you, Mm.