Do we have a second?

Any other questions or discuss?

Okay.

About this and timeline.

So we adopted these in September and now we're making amendments to what we adopt it.

I'm just wondering when this is going to go to council.

And if this change is going to delay anything, just so that we know it already went to council, so we're just amending just those two items right there.

So I guess what I mean with like a presentation and an adopt an action by the council and mayor.

Yeah, so I you know, when we speak through these through these meetings, um we've been giving uh a signal, an informal signal that are able to implement at the same time.

Um the um it was suggested that it was suggested that we possibly have a um workshop with city council where we dissect some of these issues in including um the account some of the issues from from the accountability committee that Kieran and others can talk to.

And so there is going to be an opportunity to talk about some of the um issues that may not have a uh the chief that he I hadn't seen that language before, and there's some things going through my mind that we'd have to discuss.

I don't want well it doesn't matter, the commission can start uh opposing it until we've seen how it's written.

Sure.

No no, we did not.

The meeting we had with Chief Hahn, um, he expresses concern with the language as written, and so this is a response to that.

And this is a you know, at that meeting, you know, there was a storm solutions.

If we agree with um that there's value in a recommendation, but how to get there is is an issue, then we can do that.

And so at the time of the meeting, it was very short, we didn't get to cover everything at an hourly rate, right?

So we'd have to um consider that.

And then I also think it may be a union issue and perhaps a civil service issue that are gonna have to be vetted by the city attorney before the department can make a educated response to the language change.

I mean, I think studies course are covered in the academy, and then for folks that are transferring, then it would be they would have a class that they would have to take many of the subjects are addressed within the academy right now, but we can try to maybe formalize it and have a uh maybe more in-depth curriculum that addresses what you're trying to get to.

I don't I know I'm not privy to and I don't know all of the um training that's received, but um I would just say that my guess is it's not the same.

You know, an ethnic studies course is not the same as as having a certain number of hours of of training where folks come in.

Um, for a class, there's papers, there's exercises, there's conversations and um number, you know, certain number of hours, it's not the same.

One else.

All right, so it'll be one motion because it um we could I mean either or we could do either way.

So on the use of force policy, um I would definitely say we're not in agreement yet.

Um however, I think we're continuing to have conversation about uh what this could potentially look like.

Um so I would suggest leaving that as is while we continue to talk about it.

Um on the statistics part though, um, Deputy Chief Lester made I thought a very reasonable suggestion.

Um right now we have required or recommended um monthly reporting of certain data regarding use of force, and her suggestion was to make it quarterly reporting, uh mostly because the um a lot of the information doesn't necessarily get processed as quickly as monthly, so if they were to put up monthly statistics, they might be incorrect, they might go back and revise them later, and so it would just be difficult for people to get accurate information on a monthly basis.

Um and I I personally would support making the change to quarterly.

Right.

I was gonna try to be quick, but uh you know, as we hear feedback uh from Ken, I want to be respectful and I understand you know labor issues, um, and certainly we could bifurcate um the one recommendation on ethnic studies, for example, in a way that um takes that into consideration.

So for recruits, um, you know, we can make the phased in requirement again, you know, so that um there's enough time to work with them in the pipeline, and then for current officers, you know, because I want to address issues and I know a little bit about labor, and I would want labor to be on board.

So I would change that language in in that way.

Thank you.

So I just want to clarify for the recommendations that we have brought forth the two ad hoc committees so far.

It sounds and forgive me for being late, I do apologize.

Just coming in from Palo Alto.

Um long drive here.

Um just want to clarify.

So are we essentially saying that we want to change the wording of these recommendations to just these three areas and ethnic studies, uh the body war and cameras and the statistics and all other um suggestions that we have or recommendations beyond that would be tabled to a different time?

Is that that's what I'm trying to understand?

No, I'm just gonna amend those just those three recommendations.

And the other recommendations that we've taken forth will still be there as well.

Okay, that that makes a little more sense to me.

Thank you for that.

Um, with that change, um, do we have a motion to approve these three amendments?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

All right, the ayes have it.

All right, um, the next agenda item is an opportunity to hear.

Um, just this is will be extremely brief.

We've had some initial meetings and we don't have any recommendations.

We have a number of follow-ups that we'll do in the new year, but um, not much more than that.

All right, uh now public comments.

Uh clerk, do we have any speaker slips?

We do not.