.

.

Good evening, Everybody.

Good evening.

Welcome to our Monday, August

the second meeting of the Sacramento Community

Police Review Commission.

This meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Members, if you could please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Sample.

President.

Commissioner John Johnson.

It's currently absent.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

President.

Commissioner Carter Martinez is absent.

Vice Chair Buenrestro.

President.

Commissioner Griggs.

President.

Commissioner Carter.

President.

Commissioner Smith.

President.

Commissioner Landeros.

It's currently absent.

Commissioner Castillo Krings.

Here.

Commissioner Salazar.

President.

And Chair Bliss.

Here.

Thank you, we have quorum.

Thank you, clerk.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers today

that if you would like to speak on an agenda item,

please turn on the speaker slip when the item begins.

You should be able to find it up at the front desk

or in the rear of the room.

And to provide greater community participation

our commissions work, we will also allow more time

for speakers of the public to give comments

and we'll ask the clerk to accept speaker slips

until the final speaker has concluded their comments.

For matters not on the agenda,

you will have five minutes to speak once you are called upon.

And for matters listed on the agenda,

you will also have five minutes to speak

once you are called upon.

We will also be adjusting the order of our agenda.

First, we're going to hear brief updates

and announcements from the Chair.

Second, we'll hear public comment matters not on the agenda

followed by the consent calendar

and then the discussion calendar before closing

with staff and commissioner comments, ideas and questions.

Additionally, for those of you who wish to share documentation,

you may submit it to the city clerk up front for review.

But by city council rules or procedure,

we're not typically allowed to give comments

on these matters and it is generally,

life will not be published,

but it should be mentioned in the meeting minutes

based on our conversation from last meeting.

With that, we will now proceed with today's agenda.

Will you please rise for the open acknowledgments

in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands?

The original people of this land,

the Nissan on people, the Southern Maidu,

Valley and Plains Mewalk, Pat Winton peoples,

and the people of the Wilton Rancheria,

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people

who came before us and still walk beside us today

on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today

in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation

for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history,

contributions and lives.

Thank you.

With that, I'll turn it over to the Vice Chair

to the ladies and the pleasure of the leaders.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one nation under God,

indivisible with liberty and justice for our own.

Thank you.

So just to begin with a few chair updates and announcements,

these are not meant to be a discussion item.

This is just information for members of the commission

and the public, but as some of you may have received,

but the general public may not know.

Sacramento Community Police Review Commissioners

are appointed to serve up to two four-year terms,

which coincide with our appointing council members terms.

That means six commissioners are approaching the end terms,

or the end of their terms on January 1st, 2025.

As many of us on this commission were appointed only a few months ago,

if you wish to serve another term,

please submit an application on the city

of Sacramento Boards and Commissions website.

The deadline to submit an application is September 30th, 2024.

And due to changes made to city code,

chapter 2.40, back in August 2022,

some of us may have reached our two term limit

and we'll have to step off at the end of December.

So that means we will have at least two vacancies

given the current cycle.

And if you are a member of the public

who wishes to serve on this commission,

the qualifications to apply are as follows per city code.

Commission members must be residents of the city of Sacramento.

Members cannot have been passed or present police officers

and they cannot be current employees of the city of Sacramento.

And members must be recommended for appointment

by your district council member.

If you have any questions, please not hesitate to reach out

to the city clerk's office at commissions at cityofsacramento.org.

And with that said, for those of you who have reached your term limits,

I'd like to give my humblest thanks and deep appreciation

for your time, your dedication,

and your ongoing service on this commission

and within the Sacramento community at large.

I've learned a lot from you and the course of just my first term.

And I hope we may continue to engage with another

as community members in the years to come.

So with that, we will move on to our first business today,

which is public comments matters not on the agenda.

Just a reminder for the public,

you will have five minutes to speak on this item.

Clerk, are there any members of the public

who wish to speak on comment matters not on the agenda?

Thank you, Chair.

I have four speakers for matters not on the agenda.

Our first speaker is Kai Own, followed by Matt King.

Good evening, Chair and all commissioner.

My name is Kai Own.

I'm here again for the fake investigation report

of my father's death.

OPEC still hasn't contacted me about my complaint

and the Ethics Commission keep rejecting my complaint.

On July 29th, I submit citizen complaint form

to Sacramento DA office, but the law enforcement office

over there refused to take my phone.

So I make the phone call to the DA office

very real investigation, but the staff hung up the phone.

So I talk to the DA law enforcement officer,

I told her I'm not going to leave the DA office

and I asked her to arrest me,

so I can go directly to the court

to present the document to the judge.

Then the law officer, the DA office law enforcement officer

asked the sheriff officer to take the form,

but not the DA office.

After that, I went to SPD internal affair division

at FIPOC to submit complaint letter.

The officer interviewed me and used an audio recorded

to take my statement.

However, the whole process, we were standing outside

the parking lot of the internal division

but not in their office.

Last week, I submitted a letter to the Sacramento Superior

called Pissading Judge and the Juve Commissioner

to adjust the issue and asked them help me to arrange me

to make public comment at the California Judicial Council

meeting about some political power

in the field in the investigation of my father's death.

Ms. Viana, if you please record this to document

I'm going to put on the budget.

All the budgets are now working.

I'm going to put on the budget.

I'm going to put on the budget.

Okay.

I said I wanted to so the...

Sorry, per council rules procedure.

Chapter 5D3, members of the public may not display content

on the overhead screens.

So I paused your time so I'll now resume it.

Okay, I submit the document to the chair.

Staff down here, we can get it to the chair.

The document is the first page of the fake report

from SPD that's signed by Captain Kenybayan,

Captain Kenybayan.

He emailed me the report.

I just present the first page.

Chair Mr. Bruce, I wonder if the commission,

the police review commission can invite Captain Mr. Kenybayan

to the next meeting to explain the fake report

in front of the camera.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Matt King, followed by Christina Rogers.

Thank you.

Good evening commission.

First of all, I want to thank everyone on the dius

for giving their free time to collaborate with law enforcement

for a safer Sacramento.

I understand some may think law enforcement

isn't receptive to the recommendations

and I'd like to address that.

When you come to the situation with a personal agenda

in any case,

it's difficult to build bridges.

No one wants to walk into a situation

where they're treated like they should apologize

for everything others did wrong in the past.

And we can only review the past to plan to do better

in the future.

An approach that accuses browbeats and dictates

never leads to successful problem solving.

And some people may feel justified in their anger

and I won't question that.

But their life experience is not the same

as everyone else's in Sacramento.

Maybe they're not a woman who was beaten by her partner

and police came to arrest the abuser

and helped get her and her kids to a safe place.

Or they weren't a kid who came from a broken home

and an officer showed them kindness.

Maybe helped them get a new bike or a toy

to brighten their day.

Officers are not saints and I know that.

They are human beings and they make mistakes.

But I truly believe the officers I've come across

want to do better.

And as citizens, we have the responsibility

to meet them halfway with an open mind

and willingness to understand as well as be understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Matt King, followed by Karen Corbs.

Thank you, Mr. King.

Our next speaker is Karen Corbs.

Thank you.

I first want to thank the police commission

for their community meeting that took place last month.

I was pleased for the opportunity to engage

with some of the commissioners and learn a little

about them and their backgrounds.

It's my understanding that the police commission

is supposed to be fair and unbiased

and to provide input and or feedback to the police department.

On a number of items which include

use of military equipment, police use of force,

as well as racial and identity profiling,

just to name a few.

The reason I am here and what concerns me is that

this is supposed to be a fair and unbiased commission.

Why is it okay for a member of the commission

to have a F the police sticker on his computer

for all to see during the last meeting?

How is this being fair and unbiased?

This literally undermines the credibility of this commission

and everyone here.

This type of rhetoric is problematic for several reasons,

especially for someone that sits on a city commission

where they are to uphold a code of conduct.

As a city commissioner myself,

I know I had to agree to a code of conduct

to be part of the city commission I sit on.

This rhetoric promotes hostility and divisiveness,

which can exacerbate tensions between communities

and law enforcement.

Using disrespectful language fosters an environment

of anger rather than constructive dialogue.

More importantly, this type of speech may be perceived

as advocating for violence or lawlessness.

I want it to be known that my friends and my neighbors

that live in Sacramento want a well-funded, well-trained

and well-equipped police department.

And if that means they need military equipment,

so be it.

These men and women will show up to help everyone

and anyone that calls 911.

We should show respect for these police officers

and put their lives on the line every day for you

and for me.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our last speaker from Matters Not on the agenda

is William Cho.

Does this adjust for height and a short person?

Good evening, commissioners.

Mr. Lara, captain.

Nice to be here with you.

I am William Cho, your counterpart at the Sacramento County

Sheriff Community Review Commission.

I was content to just observe tonight.

Mr. Sample, hello.

But a colleague encouraged me to make an introduction.

So I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

Our commission is currently developing comprehensive outreach

and engagement plan to increase our effectiveness

and to foster trust with our community.

Part of that is designating liaisons to our counterparts

and our other commissions.

Because not for advocacy, but for conversations

that we all share that don't stop at our geopolitical boundaries,

homelessness, public safety, mental health issues,

things like that.

So I believe this is a positive step forward.

Both of our commissions could benefit from having that conversation.

I know we already have an informal relationship,

but making it more effective, I think,

would be good for the people of our city and our county.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

That concludes public comments, matters on the agenda.

Thank you very much.

I have a few members of the public who gave comments today.

Our next business today is the approval of the consent calendar,

which includes approval of Sacramento Community Police Review Commission meeting for June.

As a clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair. I have no speaker slips for the consent calendar.

Thank you. Are there any members of the commission who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Is there a motion in a second for the consent calendar?

I'll move the consent.

I hear a motion by Commissioner Sample and a second by Commissioner Smith.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

If you please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Sample.

Hi.

Commissioner John Johnson is absent.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

Commissioner Carter Martinez is absent.

Vice Chair Brian Roestrow.

Commissioner Griggs.

Upstate.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Smith.

Aye.

Commissioner Landeros is absent.

Commissioner Castillo-Cringes.

Aye.

Commissioner Salazar.

Aye.

And Chair Bliss.

Yes.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, everyone.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar, where item two is the discussion on our 2024 community outreach and engagement plan.

So just for a quick overview of what we're discussing today, just a reminder that on February 13th,

the commission adopted our annual work plan for 2024, which included the goals of collaborating with SPD to formalize the community outreach process and provide recommendations to city council for future changes in the M.E.U.

General order 410.06.

And as part of this process, our first community meeting on the M.E.U. was held on July 22nd last month.

And while this meeting was required under AB481, the based on the conversations that we had from last year's community forum around the M.E.U.

We learned from the public that there was a strong desire in discussing other topics related to public safety and policing.

And together we had discussed and approved up to five topics that besides the military equipment use policy, which included SPD community engagement programs and

relationship building initiatives, community policing techniques and non emergency response, traffic safety enforcement, community violence prevention and intervention, civilian oversight of law and civilian oversight of law enforcement.

Is due to this interest that our work plan includes a goal to hold up to three meetings in different geographic regions of the city in the north, south, and central parts of the city.

Given that we just held our first meeting in the central part of the city in O. Park, the purpose of this item is for us to review our community outreach engagement plan and provide feedback on and decide ultimately the topics, dates and other considerations for the additional two community outreach meetings.

So the recommendations, the recommendation is as follows.

First, we discuss and provide feedback to both the chair and vice chair regarding community outreach and engagement efforts for the remainder of 2024.

And then to pass a motion, approving the dates, times and formats for holding two additional community engagement meetings, given that our council approved meeting calendar did not schedule a meeting during that month.

So current dates are during this month, current dates and times are being considered for the month of October.

So just to give everybody like what that would mean, that would mean if we agree to use the currently empty meeting slot in October for the second Monday, that means our first our second meeting, our for community engagement would be held on Monday, October 14th.

And the chair and vice chair among the subgroup of the commissioners from the M. E. U. conversation had talked about doing it at 6 p.m. as a special meeting, given that that was what was offered by the city for the M. E. U. conversation.

And then meeting to would be held at a separate date, more likely two weeks later in the third to fourth week of October.

So it was at 6 p.m. maybe on a different day, and it would likely be a community meeting for a match just like we did in July.

So with that, I want to open it up for questions and comments from the commission in terms of what you would like to talk out of the five topics that we had identified.

And if there is any preference for particular dates in October for the first and second meetings.

Public. Oh, I'm sorry. First, we actually we have to invite members of the public to give comment first. So as a reminder of the public, you will have five minutes to speak on discussion calendar items, including this one.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair. I have no speaker slips on item two.

Clerk, are there any commissioners who wish to speak? Commissioner Castillo-Krinks.

Thank you. So I just want to make sure that I am understanding kind of the next steps. So the idea would be to vote for an October meeting potentially and then a subsequent one.

So in addition to our currently what we have scheduled right now.

Yes.

So for the October meeting with that, then would that mean that by the September meeting we would have an outline of what we would discuss with the community in October.

Part of the reason just as in the past what we have done is provided the opportunity for the community to basically have input by us providing something in advance so that when we are setting up the meeting, we announce whatever we're going to have like a month before then the community can come and actually have a dialogue with us.

So I'm trying to understand from a work reload process is the intent to have a fleshed out agenda for the September meeting that we all can approve that then can be informed for the October meeting.

That's correct. The goal is to approve this as soon as possible, identify our topics and then between this meeting and September we can meet to discuss or we can discuss offline.

What we want to incorporate in that conversation, how we formatted in terms of prompts and based off of the topic at hand because there are a number of people who identified at the beginning of this year when we were talking about our work plan.

What topics most interested them.

So I would imagine that it would be those based on the topics, it would be the commissioners who express interest in doing that and helping to flesh out the nature of the conversation what might be included within that.

Okay, and so then if we're doing September October is the idea then to have the working group in October prepare the agenda for November.

I'm sorry and the reason I'm asking is is because we're having to we're hoping to have two public meetings right outside of our regular calendar meetings right.

So in order for us to think about a topic that we can take back to the community, I'm thinking we would have a draft of agenda for the October meeting.

So I would have to make a draft of the agenda and then make that available so that then the public comment in November.

Because then the idea would be to wrap up both the October and November meetings in December for the annual plan.

Correct, so that that makes I think if I heard you correctly you're talking about once we approve the topics here.

So we're meeting to approve the agendas for those two meetings for discussion at those community engagement meetings in order for us to you know have it formatted the way we want it and then the idea is to have the our draft like outcomes with that the synthesis that we provide available for review in November.

Right and the only reason is our we have a responsibility to ensure that every at the end of every year we actually submit our annual recommendations or report to the city council.

So I'm just trying to kind of work backwards if we're having these meetings the work product that has to happen between now and December and just make sure that we are giving ourselves enough time and just making sure all of us are on the same page about the calendar.

That is correct so that is the goal to have our the synthesis from those conversations available for us to review and further discuss in November in order to prepare them for final approval in December with the and those will like based on what comes out of the respective priority topics that the commissioners select.

They'll we will incorporate that directly into our annual report for twenty twenty four.

So just an interest of time to make sure that we have enough time to do it because it's a very short period of time plus also writing the report.

I would suggest that we actually as a body choose two items or three tops just because again how.

If we're going to if we're going to try to have research and an agenda in order to go back to the community just to give us enough time.

So I would propose to do three so that we can actually really do the deep dive and I know that we have to be careful because we can't do at hawks from the dius.

Maybe I can ask for some legal counsel.

If the commission decides that three topics are to be chosen can we individually select which topics we want to work on so that we are organized as a body from the dius as long as the chair doesn't a point but if we select self select that's we can do that.

And well.

Which button.

So.

So just for example let's say if if we decide that we're going to do the first two right the community community policing techniques and community engagement programs can we self divide as long as this lesson five people to make sure that we know who's working on what.

So I see what you're saying.

It's hard to answer that because the we needs to happen from the dius right if you're acting as a body that's that's how you move from the dius.

So what could happen is volunteers right and then the chair kind of takes collection of who's interested in those topics and then kind of communicate with those individuals.

And just for clarification we would have to self select.

So the issue that we are trying to work on so that the chair does not a point right whatever working group you want to join myself select is just volunteer.

Yeah.

Just making sure.

Yeah.

So we can organize ourselves.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioner Custillo crings.

I think that's totally doable.

I think the like the most likely one that I've heard in my mind if we do.

If we do select the October 14th date for a special meeting will have at least two and a half hours that's required under city council rules and we could potentially extend it if there's like further conversation or community members want to continue discussing it as well as the commission.

So like the rules would generally apply but based on what we learned from the me you process we could reformat the the meeting like the discussion format so that we could follow in the similar way that we did for the July 22nd meeting.

So that could I see that as a potential avenue to have like at least two if not more.

So the second one.

If we like I mean theoretically I think we could schedule it as a special meeting we just have to request it but if we do that it would be as a community meeting which would limit a quorum of us to attend that meeting.

So that's something important to consider to that we can have no more than five member five commissioners attend that meeting so that would be one that you would want to volunteer for based on the topic we select.

Commissioner or I'm sorry vice chair by rostro.

Yeah if I can if I can just summarize the type of feedback that I think we're looking for.

We want to know October 14th seems to be a date that works because there's no commission meeting so we can schedule it as a special meeting.

We talked about doing October 14th and potentially another meeting I think some dates that we're looking at were October 23rd or 24th that's a Monday and a Tuesday one question that I want to throw back to the commission is is does that make sense.

Thank you.

So I was just informed that October 14th is a holiday so maybe that's another piece where we want to get feedback from folks but I think there's a few things we want to get feedback on date.

Should we have one meeting or two minutes in October to get community feedback and what dates would work best for folks.

I mean I think it's fair to to save there's a topic that from the list that you think we should focus on it would be great to get your feedback on this with understanding that if you want to work on that issue or help organize that meeting you can reach out to to the chair and and me as a vice chair.

So we can we can make sure that you're included in the process as long as we don't go over five members.

But those are the areas where I think we want to just get general feedback.

And you know we just want to make sure that we get your thoughts.

Another piece that I just want to add is that as we organize these meetings I'll be hopefully working with city staff to see if we can get additional support for language.

Support in one of the meetings for folks that might speak a language other than English and want to participate.

And then other audio visual support as well.

So from my perspective I just want to summarize and look like we're looking at October 15th as a potential date and then we're looking at October 22nd, 23rd and 24th.

But maybe we want to think about that a little bit more.

Yeah, being that the 14th is a federal holiday and the citywide holiday.

And if I can just ask one more question.

I'm also curious as to what dates were work better for the community because right now we're only looking at Monday through Fridays.

But I'm curious to see if it's feasible to do a Saturday, for example, where people might not be working and might have more more free time.

So I want to ask those other questions too to just throw back at the commission.

Commissioner Casio-Cranx.

Thank you.

I think we've heard before that Saturday would work if we had like a Monday or during the weekend then a Saturday that would actually work well for community members.

My question is where can we find location?

Sorry, my reading glasses, my regular glasses.

Where we can find a large enough space to make sure that the community feels welcome and invited.

Regarding, I think the logistics is one thing but again I really want to make sure that we have going back to process.

I think in the past it has been really beneficial to have once we have our topics and once we are trying to move forward recommendations for the City Council it has been beneficial to also run it by legal police department so they make sure that when it's complete as a recommendation we have feedback from both the city and from the police department that we can present then as a full recommendation to City Council.

I would benefit for them to understand here are the challenges that we are facing. It's either budgetary issues, it's either state charter has to change or whatnot.

So I just want to make sure we allow ourselves enough time to have that back and forth because that's how we have gotten ourselves in trouble in the past by having a backlog of recommendations because we are not we're not fleshing them out as we should.

So I want to make sure that we don't do the same mistakes we've done in the past.

Thanks Commissioner. That's brings to mind too that the work that leads up to these community meetings is going to be that much more important because you know getting that these are on different topics that technically aren't required like a before anyone.

I would expect people like the commissioners that are interested in whatever topic we select today will want to review the appropriate general orders that are related to those topics and start thinking about potential recommendations that they then might consider suggesting or bringing to community members for feedback and building it off of that.

So there's the reason that we identify like we're talking about this today is to give us plenty of lead time given that October is two months away and and also ensure that enough members of the public have enough lead time to put it in their calendars and set aside time to join us in these conversations.

Last month for the community engagement meeting we only put out the first the city only put out the first publication around it two weeks in advance about the July 22 meeting so the goal is based on the community engagement plan we had set out doing outreach much much sooner including promoting meetings you know through social media up to a month in advance emails to constituent.

Also a month in advance and then you know several other dates and times like you know in the lead up to give people plenty of reminders plenty of notice to show up and be able to participate so we can have as wide ranging in diverse and audience as we can.

Especially given with the geographic areas that will be holding these meetings in.

Vice Chair Ben Rossler do you have a you had your hand up so.

I'll just add something else we were looking at additional venues so we we did reach out to La Famila Counseling Center.

They're willing to host a meeting obviously it's dependent on whether there's nothing else happening with auditorium during the dates that we choose but that's an option but again be great to get additional feedback on what other venues might be possible that we want to reach out.

If that venue doesn't work out based on the date that we want to select.

It is located in.

I'm not good at geography it's in the it's in the Maple neighborhood center.

South Sacramento South Sacramento.

South of.

I was off Franklin Boulevard but I might be like on that.

Commissioner Carter.

I'm not good at that.

The proposal is to have two additional meetings.

In October are they going to be marketed as me you meetings or are they going to be marketed as these other subjects meetings and just invite.

If they choose on any you issues because I thought originally the whole conversation came about.

That a before 81 requires one meeting.

And then we had the whole issue last year about additional meetings.

And so then fast forward this year we talked about three meetings three meetings I thought initially.

And then the subject turned around and I'm hearing now you want these other two meetings and we're going to put in these other issues.

So I was just a little confused.

And then it's going to be to go with the first agenda which was in me you three meetings in the community.

Even though law enforcement is only obligated to put on one.

But what I thought I heard from past meetings are willing to do the other two.

So now the other two has transformed into other subjects.

So I'm trying to get some clarity on what are we marketing what are these other two meetings going to be and what's the primary subject.

So direct response to you commissioner Carter.

That was when we talked about the community engagement process in our work plan before.

And so one was the one required meeting that we had to have.

But the other two.

We are meetings that we absolutely can organize as a commission.

There's nothing like there's nothing in city code or state law that prevents us from having more community meetings around different topics.

And that so this wouldn't this wouldn't be required the police department to be there.

So if you remember the conversations from last when we talked about this.

It was initially suggested by a commissioner that maybe these would actually be community conversations that didn't involve the police.

But it was decided when we approved the community engagement plan that the police should still be invited to these conversations.

So the invitation would still be open to the police department to attend.

And we can still move forward or they can say yes.

And we can incorporate them into the meeting agenda.

But these are meetings that we are that we elected to have as a commission based on the feedback that we received from last year's M.E.U. community forums.

So it's involved process basically.

We've had the one meeting that's required under AP41.

These other two are like are built based on the feedback that we received last year.

For more like to discuss policing and policing practices in general.

Thank you all just I was confused.

Commissioner Griggs.

We're going to move on to Ms. Carter's question.

If we're going to provide these community meetings and we show up as commissioners what authority do we have to talk to the public about any particular subject without having the police department there that can back us up or can discuss on their policies in a better way.

Whereas we're just an advisory, advisement committee.

So we can offer our opinion and we can offer our advice.

But how are we going to make the public feel more at ease by speaking with them without a person of authority there.

So the question is if we don't have the police department what authority do we have to really speak on any of these topics or hold this conversation without them.

That's correct.

So city code section 2.110 establishes the commission's powers and duties as a separate entity from the police department.

Meaning we do have an authority to talk about this.

In fact, our city code clearly tasks us with advising and making recommendations to city council regarding police policy procedures and best practices.

So our goal is to facilitate community conversations like this.

And I totally understand what you're saying in that respect.

However, we have no authority to tell the public exactly what is going to change.

We can only tell them that we're going to make an advice.

And that advice we the city may or may not accept.

So therefore, me as a citizen if I show up at one of these community events if I have this committee here and says what sort of advice we'd like to take.

We're just having a discussion.

We're not really changing anything.

We're just having a discussion.

Is that the premise for these meetings is just to discuss things.

Correct.

This is to discuss these topics around policing.

Facilitate that community participation and have that input, that feedback, inform the recommendations that we ultimately submit to city council for approval.

I mean, we've established, it's been made very clear by the city that we are an advisory body when it comes to policing issues.

The way we are tasked and the original spirit of the commission was to inform the best like the policies, procedures and best practices for the police department, including those related to community relations, hiring and training training best practices.

So yeah, the public can come in.

They can discuss with us.

And the city just as it's done with 169 other recommendations may just choose to ignore it.

But in the end, we're at least trying to reach out and discuss this with the public and have them be a part of the process that informs our recommendations.

And that's what was ultimately requested out of the MAU conversations that we had last year.

So it's an exercise and the public can choose to like choose to participate in it or they may not.

Vice Chair Rimm Rostro.

I mean, I just want to say it's a to me, it's a it's a collaboration.

So we're going to pull off these meetings. We have to work with the city staff.

And I think part of the conversation will also be with the police department and ask if we have a meeting, let's say we're having a meeting on traffic safety enforcement.

What is a role that the department wants to play and also getting feedback from this committee?

Like we want to hear your feedback. What is a role that you want the police department to play if they participate in the meetings?

Is it that they're going to provide information data? Is it that we just want them there to listen and taking the committee feedback?

That is a type of feedback that we want to get from this commission.

So if you have an opinion on that, this would be the time for us to get that feedback so that we can have some guidance in our next conversation with city staff as to how we want to shape those meetings.

So give us your feedback. Give us your guidance. How do you how do you want to run this meeting?

What do you want the role of the police department to be in this meeting? Because this is a time for us to be collecting that information so that we have that those next steps that we can go back to city staff with and start working on these meetings.

Commissioner Wayne Johnson.

Excuse me.

I've got a slightly different take on kind of what came out of the last M.E.U. meetings.

I agree with the topics that we've listed here on the sheet.

I did not and I attended all the sessions. You know, I didn't hear that the public wanted to have additional discussions away from the police department as what they were calling much more for was more transparency and more interchange between the public and the police on it.

I was just wondering if I took just one of these topics like community policing techniques on it.

We heard that from members of the public that they wanted to see like they saw quote unquote they said that's in the old days.

You know, when they used to have the beat cop, you know, I'll walk in the beat, you know, out there.

When they when they've seen things like the police athletic league, you know, kind of activity or other voluntary participation in street basketball, you know, hoops and that kind of thing on it.

And there are and so they want that. But they also want to understand in that venue, what does the police already doing now that they may not be aware of, you know, on it.

And there are some some things that I know, you know, that are happening out there.

And it's that point to point point three is that each of us has been appointed to represent our councilmatic district areas, you know, on it.

And so as that there's an expectation that that you're talking to somebody other than just yourself, you know, you know, on it.

And so you're bringing some of that community input in these of you, you know, what you're what you're saying, what you're proposing, what you're approving, you know, and the like.

And so I want to and and one of the the main reasons that this commission even got formed was the distrust between community policing and administration.

And so some of our efforts have been to get the police to the table to have full some conversation and I want to acknowledge again, you know, the captain is here returned here.

And we've started building a very good over the course of the last year, very good exchange of information from the between the commission and the police, you know, on it.

I don't want to do anything that's going to further a sense of separation, leave an area of doubt for trust, you know, on it.

But at the same time, I also want to be responsive to what we exactly heard from the public when we were out there doing those last three.

Some of the grants to as well as them over the next 30 days and some of us would concern about the need of things about us coming to the Ministry of that capacity.

What I really wanted to say is a step.

And so did the tangible intent of that right and that is just to break into that is we can...

department, we need to hear that, you know, on it. And to acknowledge those things that

are good while at the same time looking for those areas where we want enhancement.

Okay. You know, on it. And I think a lot of this comes down to a that that kind of collective

approach, be the kind of language that we use, you know, and often you hear me talk about

enhancements as opposed to problems or wrongs or areas, you know, you know, on it. Because

it is all about how you approach people, you know, it's an old expression that says people

will forget what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel. Okay. You

know, on it. And so we've got to be sensitive. The goal of the commission is to bring the community

input in and encourage the higher communication with the police department and point out those

areas where there is a perceived need and a perceived wrong, you know, by the public. And

please give me give me the data and information that either supports or denies that those things

are happening. And let's work together collectively on how we kind of go forward. We can't you

as my mom always always say, you know, you can't change the past. You can't learn from it.

You know, on it and either you're going to be a captive of the past or you're going to or you're

going to work towards creating the future that we want in the mars field. Thanks commissioner. Commissioner

Castillo-Krings. Thank you. And I too was a little confused at first because some of the topics that

we're talking about really kind of stem from the conversations that we heard some of the issues

that were brought up by the community last year. But it is different than the work plan that we

approved earlier this year a little bit. And the reason I bring that up is back to what Commissioner

Johnson was talking about. I feel like we're in a good place right now where we have a process

that we agree to follow. We have a work plan. How do we continue to kind of bait their baby steps?

I mean, it's the process that we have. We don't like it, but it's the process that we have. So the

question is how do we ensure that we are kind of keeping our end of the bargain? And by basically telling

the city, here's our work plan. We're going to basically the next step is going to be like the

SPD community engagement programs and relationship building initiatives to me dovetails exactly with

what we said we were going to do at the beginning of the year and follow up with what we told the

community, which is we need a better communication with you and we need to do it differently. And I

think one of our main issues are main, like the reason we exist is to try to be those mediators and

those liaisons between community and make sure we're elevating what the needs are to the council.

One of the things that unfortunately because of COVID, because of everything that has happened,

we don't have a great process. I think we can build off of the process we started last year with

MEU. We have a lot of lessons learned. But I think we, you know, I would like to see a process that

is set up by this commission that we can start replicating for additional conversations where we're

going to have additional just work that has to happen. So to me, the reality is we don't have

them as time between now and the end of the year. What I think we should focus on is fleshing out a

really good community engagement process where we have buy-in from the community. So I think that

we spend a lot of time in the next two months, get something robust, go back to the community and

say, hey, we're putting our best foot forward. Does this work for you? Making sure that, because I

got to say the feedback that we got from the community liaison last year from the city, just like

little simple things that I'm like, of course, that makes a lot of sense. Making sure that we're

going to set up times where community can actually engage. If we set something up at 2 p.m.,

no one's going to show up. The community works. Making sure we have, for example,

food, because if we're asking people to show up at 6, they're going to be hungry. Child care.

So if we can actually set up a process by, it can just be copied and replicated for

other community engagements. And then I think as a body, we can come to the council and say,

this is what you ask us to do in order for us to actually be a voice for the community.

These are the things that we need and we should get funded. Because right now we've been like

just figuring out how we're going to, on a shoe, string budget, figure out, you know, can the

police department provide water? Can the city kind of figure out how to scrape by and kind of find

us a community center? I think if we really are supposed to actually represent the community and

bring up some of their concerns, we need to get funding for this. But in order for us to do that,

I think we need to then present a credible plan that lays out what we need so that we can be that

voice for the community. So I think to me that's what I would like to prioritize the next couple of

months doing. Commissioner Sample. Thank you. You know, I just want to dovetail on that. That's kind

of what I was thinking. I feel like if we're not careful, what we'll end up doing is we'll invite

a public meeting that if we're not doing this together with the police department, we're going to

create frustration for the community that we ourselves have times felt like, am I just an empty

megaphone saying something? I think we have to figure out a way. You know, the M.E.U. least the

ones from last year that I attended. It was nice because you had our commission members and you

had PD all kind of on the same page. They presented, they talked, they shared what was happening

from their standpoint. And then we have the opportunity to hear from our community. I really like

the thought of taking one of these that's in alignment with our current work plan and really work

it out and see if that's our next item. Is it now, I'll just use this one. Is it now that we're

going to together look at community engagement programs and relationship building initiatives,

which I think takes us back to the good old days, or the way it used to be, but we do it together.

Not we have something and we just elicit a lot of comments and concerns that we may or may not

better do anything about. But if we do it meaningfully with PD, with us jointly, I feel like we'll

get more results and we'll continue building the trust that I think we're beginning to build. And

that's what I would like to see.

I really appreciate this robust discussion because I think this is what the commission is all about,

really figuring out this process. And I would like to put the question over to Captain

Buchanan, an Assistant City Manager, Lara, to ask if there is interest in the department engaging

with the, collaborating with the commission on additional community engagement meetings around

the related topics. Yeah, Chair, Liz, Mario, our Assistant City Manager and VAs on to the commission.

When the work plan was adopted by the council, the commitment was that we would support the work

plan as best as possible. I will tell you from a staff perspective, the sooner you can decide

on a topic and the sooner you can decide on a date, a tentative timeline, because I can tell you

pulling off that MEU meeting that we had, we had to have IT resources there, we had to have

city clerk resources there, we need to have police resources there. And it's not something that we

can just kind of throw together. So what I would advise is that if you can choose your topic and

choose a timeline that is at least a couple of months out, because to put together your marketing

package, I mean, if those are all the types of supports that you're needing, we need a lot of

lead time to be able to pull all of that together.

Captain Buchanan, Sappy, Chair, I just have maybe a recommendation. We attend several community,

like association meetings monthly, like weekly throughout our patrol commands. Maybe if you guys

worked with them, since they already have a place picked out, they already have a following that

comes, and you guys could add to that, might help your resources and your logistics, because

we are already attending those, not myself personally, but like our watch commanders and our sergeants

are attending these meetings, and that would make it the ease of the transition. I think maybe

a little easier, just a recommendation. It's their meetings, it's not PD's meetings, so you'd have

to reach out to the community associations, but just maybe an idea.

And those are based on the calendar for those respective associations, right? Are they,

like, if there are places where a schedule that's available for that?

Yeah, you'd have to reach out to each individual association, like, you know, the

the Dabassah Heights Community Association, you know, the Roblo, like I'm just speaking on the

North ones right now, but they're all over the city that these are hosted. I think most of them do

monthly. Well, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Vice Chair, that we had actually talked about

certain neighborhood associations or community organizations that could be involved in

potentially sponsor these events, which we all, as community members in long time, you know,

actively engaged within, within these respective organizations, can easily reach out, and like,

request potential sponsorship or just collaboration to hold all those sites. We've done that before,

which is one of the reasons that we are looking at, too, not just the Lafamilia based on our

connections, but also Hagenwood Community Center, which we held it last year, and by our

understanding has a whole auditorium that can actually allow for a really, for a good number of

people to show up and participate, and we could have that as a, and if we have that as a special

meeting, then that like we can ensure that they, like that it is recorded and captured, and we,

and it's, and have it as long as we need to based on how many people attend, how many people want to

participate. Just to speak to the concerns, you know, around this process, I do want to remind us

that we had talked, like this is the reason that we had talked about the community engagement

process, which is the packet that I had in front of you and is in the staff report. Earlier this year,

as we, like, you know, as we were doing the work plan, and the final and the annual report,

I mean, the goal of this process to begin, like to begin with, start, like, you know, starting from

last year and continuing into this year was to begin a dialogue that we hope would lead to a

better understanding of mutual needs of community and police, leading to an equitable balance between

ensuring public safety for community members and accountability for police. And I realized,

you know, some, like, I think there were, like, there weren't, not everybody from the commission

could attend last year, and a lot of us are new on this commission, so I, we went around to,

necessarily, listen to those conversations. That was one of the things that we ultimately took

away and incorporated into our recommendations from last year, around the, based, like, the MAU

community recommendations that will be, you know, adding to the next item.

Rebuilding trust and changing attitudes towards law enforcement begins by first acknowledging

legacy of harm and impressions committed, but it also, the second step also involves good

faith engagement, with trusted community members and leaders of the public that produces meaningful

outcomes. So, and when this is an opportunity, I see it, for not just the commission, you know,

we are appointed from across the diversity of our city to represent those voices in which,

you know, has a unique experience, has unique insight into policing practices from us and,

and experiences from a civilian perspective, but it's also an opportunity for the police department

to engage outside of the traditional format they may be more comfortable with for, it to be,

like, for there to be a robust dialogue between community members and law enforcement that

is currently, like, there's currently freight. So, I see it as a potential opportunity. I'm hearing

some concern around the current process, and to take it back to that process that we agreed upon

earlier this year, everything that we did for the MAU community meeting is how we're going to,

like, is how we would structure the conversation for these next potentially two community meetings.

If there is additions to that process, or lessons learned from July 22nd, that we want to,

like, we want to update and incorporate to that, we still have time to do that, but the goal of

tonight's conversation around this topic is really to identify the dates and times, so that we can

begin putting it on people's radar, giving the city enough time to consult with IT, consult with

staff to see what they can pull off, as well as the police department, to see what resources they

can pull together to support this conversation. The invitation is going to go out to, like, to the

police department, if they accept that, then we'll treat, like, we'll give them the same amount

of airtime that we gave them at the July meeting to present on that, on whatever topic we decide here.

And if there are multiple topics that we want to decide, I support that. I think we just need

to figure out, like, you know, how we're going to do that within the format, which we still have

time to discuss. Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Chair, I'm in the wrong room.

I mean, one thing that we probably want to settle on a little bit is that we're not going to cover

all the topics in a meeting, so I just want to be clear. And I think that's the other mentioned it.

We pick one or two that we want to focus on, and that helps us with the conversations that we

have the city later on. I know we have our recurring meetings, and the next one, this is going

to be the topic that we probably should focus on, so that we can hone in on dates, and hopefully,

from the feedback that we're here, we'll hone in on a topic or two that we want to focus on,

so that we can shape it around that. But I think, I mean, I'm acknowledging that we're probably

not going to set on a date, but at least general feedback on dates to look at. I think the more I

think about it, the more I'm leaning on maybe a Saturday's a good idea. It's a different date

than what we've done in the past. Obviously, that's, again, a discussion with CDSAP about

feasibility of doing it on a Saturday, acknowledging that it's a weekend, but it gives us some guidance

as to how to move forward with next steps, as opposed to us just doing it based on our opinion.

It's helpful to get guidance from the commission, and then that's what we can focus on a little bit more.

The other thing that I'm hearing is we started by talking about two meetings in October.

The more and more I'm getting feedback, because we also need to work on the work plan for the next year.

It's possible that one of the top topics to conversations is, are we going to have two meetings,

or maybe we should just focus on one and making sure that one meeting goes off really well.

So those are just the thoughts that are going through my head.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I do want to open it up for commissioners to, if there is a

different motion than what was put out in terms of having two meetings, having one meeting,

taking more time. That is available for you all to decide and make.

Like the Vice Chair just said, identifying the topic is the most important, and then

if we can figure out a date and time for that, that provides us enough of the time to be able to

start the outreach and the process for figuring out the logistics behind it, which we already

meet with the police department on a bi-weekly basis, and that's where we would ultimately have

the conversations to figure out the city logistics.

So with that said, just to repeat what the topics are again, and I'll try and frame it within

like, you know, which ones I see as aligning with the current work plan priority topics, which are

the first one being community policing and response, strategic planning and budget management,

and civilian oversight engagement and function. Those are three work topic areas, and by these

topics that are here, I see at least, I see four that could eventually go under the first

the first work topic area, community policing. That's the policing, community policing techniques

and non-emergency response, there's traffic enforcement, community violence prevention and

any intervention, and community engagement programs and relationship building.

The last, the fifth one would be civilian oversight of law enforcement would align with

the work topic area for civilian oversight engagement.

And that's a topic I think that continues to be brought up in conversations both at the,

at the public level at city council, as well as among like within different community spaces around

what does civilian oversight of law enforcement look like.

So with that, I want to open up for commissioners to weigh in. We can do a round robin or

people can pass up to you. Commissioner Wayne Johnson.

To get it started, again, I want to be responsive to what we heard as community priorities,

coming out of the M.E.U. And so to me, that would be the community policing and techniques to

traffic safety enforcement and the community violence preservation prevention areas. The first

and the last are more of our sort of administrative, we need to get this straight and get it right,

kind of topic on it. So if you're going to go back out for your next major community input,

it's almost like the national elections right now. People are less concerned with the

over arching areas and more concerned about the kitchen table, round table, you know, kind of out of

our feet, my kids, you know, kinds of issues. And so from a policing point of view, what is the

public's angst and what is their ask? And to me, that's much more about traffic safety is on

the news and in the papers every single day. You know, somebody's driving like a bench,

you had a hell, you know, on it or somebody's shooting through a window and you think those are the

kinds that issues that people want to weigh in and understand what's happening, what are the next

steps of them for that in one prove the situation and that the police can speak to, and then be able

to voice what is the level of priority and concern coming from the public. Okay. And so,

so I think I think the next meeting, if you got two and a half hours, even call it three, you could

you could devote an hour to each of the three core topics here of community policing as one

traffic safety is the second and community violence and prevention as a third, you know, you could

break that up in in one session, you know, and have a break or you can do, you can do break out

groups where groups of the public go in a room and focus in on something, come back, report it

out to the whole. And then do we, does everybody agree that what the subcommittee, if you will,

came up with or not? I mean, there's numbers of different ways to structure that and get it through.

But again, that the, I think the key thing from in terms of what is the greatest value we can help

assist with the public concerns that we've heard and that we experience ourselves would be those

core three, two, three and four on the list here. And so with that, I would vote for one meeting in

October that's a meeting, meaningful and organized. Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner,

sorry, sorry, sorry, I'm doing that. Vice chair. I didn't have. Oh, I thought it was the previous one.

Oh, I got you. Commissioner Sample. Thank you. I concur with Commissioner Johnson. My only

suggestion would be, let me ask this question first, how much time would city staff need to adequately

you know, prepare for a community gathering? Yeah, I would say it's a minimum of two months because

depending on the number of amount of resources that you're asking for, right? If we do it like we

did it with the M.E.U. where we had IT there and we set it up at a different venue. And depending

on the venue that you choose, I mean, there might be some technical issues that will be difficult to

work out. So minimum, a couple of months out. And yeah. Okay, thank you for that. Then just a suggestion,

I like looking at those three of community policing techniques, traffic safety enforcement and community

violence. Could we structure it such that we have our community meeting first that Saturday meeting,

and then we have a special meeting of the commission, which then gives us an opportunity

to distill some of the things that we all heard from the community group. So instead of having the

special meeting first and then going out to the community, go the reverse. That would be my

suggestion. And I really like keeping it, seeing really focused to those kind of three items.

And then the final piece is, given the two months, I really would like to figure out how we do it

together with us and PD. So that, again, we don't show a bifurcated, divided group to our community,

but we show we're all working together on this. So that would be my suggestion. And I can put into

a motion of needed. So just to repeat the motion, it would be when it comes to the meeting format,

it would be we would have the community meeting, we have a community meeting on Saturday followed

by a special meeting of the commission during the weekday. Yes, that's correct. That's

what I would think. Okay. Vice Chair, Mr. Rostro. Or I mean, it could also just be the next

regular regularity scheduled meeting of the commission in November. I mean, it's just yeah,

it doesn't have to be a special. It could just be our next meeting. So maybe if we're looking at

the November meeting, it could be the Saturday before where to, you know, we talked to our community

than the next meeting, we distill this down as a commission. And I'm not throwing away the idea

of having a special meeting. I'm just saying, I think the focus will be the community meeting. I'm

making sure that that happens well. That's probably going to be the priority over having a special meeting.

And my thought around the us meeting is just, it gives us the opportunity to talk about what we

hurt. And so therefore, hopefully it adds to our community feeling like, okay,

we're going to do something with it. And if we do it together with Sac PD jointly and we plan

this together, we bounce ideals off of each other. Then I think our community sees that this is

a benefit, not just a session to come together and and gripe them. Because that's why I would like to avoid.

Keep in mind you got to, you're in, you're in report. Yep. That's the open outcome of this. Any other

commissioners want to weigh in on the topics as well as the motion if, go ahead. Commissioner Carter.

Summon hypothetically that we go with the three subjects discussed by Commissioner Johnson

is October sufficient time for the police departments to be able to speak on those three subject

manners. I think putting three of them in one meeting is going to be a very, put three of them in

one meeting is going to make that meeting very long and arduous. So I think if you guys can

narrow it down, it'd be very helpful for us to be able to provide better presentations and better

representation. I think just with three topics in one day, that's a lot of staff hours and a lot of

time. And I think it just a burnout for people that are involved also would be my input. But yeah,

if we knew in October, we had one topic and maybe it's something we decide on our biowikly,

which one it is. And if it falls in line with like the assistant city manager said with the

work plan, then yes. Thank you. Okay. Having heard that. I propose from three to two. Two is feasible.

I can't speak on X. I don't know what two they are. Okay. I don't know what two is going to end up with.

But the bottom line is we got to reduce it. Three is too much.

So I'll give that. And number two would be the community policing techniques and non-emergency

response and number three is traffic safety enforcement. Okay. Well, whatever two, let's just

agree on the two right now and get the ball rolling so we can just learn whether or not that's

going to be sufficient time. Like it's really hard to community, the community engagement piece.

I would have to reach out on the experts there to see what time they would need the traffic enforcement.

I think is doable for sure. That's what I could probably say right now. But we'd have to talk

about the details how long it was our presentation. What are we expecting from the presentation?

There's a lot of unknowns right now. Commissioner, so I don't really have like a solid answer for you.

But we would have to work out the logistics and the details behind it. So we knew what exactly

were present. We're like we're expected to present. Okay. So then let me just throw this out.

The hypothetically is community violence prevention and intervention. An easier subject to deal with.

That's never easy subject, but that's off topic. But yeah, I can't commit. I don't know what

presentation you guys are looking for is the problem right now. I don't know how in depth that is.

Right. So to give you a 10-minute presentation, absolutely. But if you guys are looking for breakout

groups and ideas for that stuff and collaborate on that, that's a further conversation we need to

have maybe like in the biweeklies where we figure out the details on it. So if we want to say maybe

one, maybe one, maybe two, or one, maybe two, we could maybe discuss that with a chair and vice chair.

But moving forward, that's all I can give you right now. I can't give you a certainty of that.

Yeah, we have enough time on that. But we definitely once definitely doable. So.

So just a direct response to Catherine Buchanan, the community engagement plan that we

agreed like that we approved earlier this year would fall like the meeting would follow the

same format. So you would have just like you did in July 10 to 15 minutes to present on the selected

topic area. And if possible, this would be presented using a PowerPoint or other visual

presentation that could cover up to just annual statistics, demographic data, and other information,

including budget numbers and whatnot and anticipated policy changes or current policies related

to the topic area. And we can yes, we can absolutely work that out in our biweeklies.

Yeah, and I think we could talk about the just soft line like on biweeklies on the topics because a

lot of time with like the the M.U. community meeting, right, as we present and then we get better

with question, it doesn't seem really interactive and real collaborative together. I would like to

propose to you guys, and I'm not I can't make recommendation can't make proper propositions,

but like if we can make it somehow where it's more intertwined, where we're working with the

community and getting feedback that's that with that are desired deliverables that we could actually

work on and get some results. And then I mean because right now this process is all, you know,

you guys make recommendation and goes to council. Well, why can't we maybe have a chance or the

ability to solve some of those problems within our community engagement process, right? Like hey,

come up with some like these are possibilities for us to move forward with. Not every we can't give

an answer because I don't know what those would be, but like if we work together on the

them instead of just us sitting up there presenting and they get in broad with questions,

it's really not conducive to that public relation, you know, like other community meetings we go

to there's very open I have a problem here. Well, how can we fix that problem? Here's some

issues. Here's why we can't we have those open discussions. Like, you know, that's why just

just just my piece. Yeah, we could happy to revisit and talk about it just to be clear we're not

deciding on the format or agenda for the meeting that would like based on this conversation we would

be discussing on that next month in September to like the finalize the format. But that said,

I heard two motions. Commissioner Sample had said proposing item, you know, had a through his

weight behind two, three and four with a adjusted format of the community meeting first special

meeting after. Commissioner Carter just proposed narrowing it narrowing the topics down to two

and three. Does that also include the same format community meeting first special meeting after

if we decide that? That's fine. My only concern is it's got to be doable. So we just heard the three

subjects in one day is most likely not doable. So it is what it is. So we got to reduce it to two

subjects. I don't really care what the two is, but whatever we come up with, we need to know that

is doable. Okay. Okay. That was good. Right now that those two that are being narrowed down is the

community policing and not emergency response and traffic enforcement. Number two and three.

Commissioner or vice chair Ben Rostro. Am I already on mute? I'm muted. Yes, again. Okay. So

I was muted this whole time. So I just want to summarize the direction that I think we're getting

from the commission. And if the commission is comfortable, I think this gives us enough direction

to have our next meeting with with city staff and the police department and start planning

around this. And I would actually say that maybe at the next commission meeting, if we get a head of

the planning, we can come here and present what the plan is and we can refine it. That might even

be better than then coming with a more blank agenda for what that meeting will be. But here's

a direction that I'm getting that I think I heard one meeting in October, ideally two months from

today or from when we start planning it. But hopefully still in October. I heard a desire to do

this collaborative collaboratively with the police department. We heard that there's three topics

with understanding that as we have those conversations, it's going to get narrowed to two, maybe one

of those topics. So the commission is comfortable with that happening in the process. Then I think we

can move forward with that, depending on what's feasible. And then the third thing that I want to add

to that, which I think does make sense and that's what Sergeant Buchanan mentioned, I think there's a

desire to also make it interactive as much as possible so we can get feedback and just have a lot more

genuine feedback from the community. That's what I'm hearing. I think if the commission is comfortable

with allowing us to move forward with that guidance, then we can move forward with the conversations

of the city and start planning around this. If I need to adjust my motion to be just that,

that's my motion. I don't know if we need a motion for something like this.

Do we? Well, your agenda says pass a motion. So you just made that look like.

It's clear. The agenda says consider passing a motion, approving the date's times and format

for holding two additional community engagement meetings. So the motion will not be to have specific

date, but I think the motion is just to have general guidance on how we're going to come to those

dates later with the city staff and the format. Yeah, what do you say? So you're and we're taking like the chair

and vice chair taking that your direction from this conversation to determine those those dates.

Go ahead, Commissioner Garcia. I think I just I really like thank you so much for bringing that

back to the commission. I think that's what I was hoping to get. And I think that we will benefit

from kind of figuring out what the process is going to be and how we can start actually outreaching

hopefully after our next September meeting. But one of the other things I want to go back,

there's not a lot of like a lot of detail as to what some of these headers are going to basically

have under them. So I would actually going back to what Commissioner Carter's saying would like to

kind of see them narrow down to community policing techniques and traffic safety because within

that umbrella, there's so many different areas that back can go. And so maybe focusing the refining

those two topics are basically focusing the conversation and it's having you guys decide how

what topics or what areas are going to be covered and then coming back. So I would just maybe narrow

the scope to those two. Sounds like a good motion. Does anybody want to, uh,

Commissioner Carter? Did you have your hand up? All right. Do we have a second? Does it sound

like Commissioner, Castillo Cranes, do you just second? With that modification second.

Right. Is that good? Do we know? Great. We know exactly what we're voting on.

Yeah, go ahead. Someone needs to say it. Restate the motion. Should I summarize the guidelines or

the feedback that we got? Yep. Okay, I'll summarize it again. We're looking at one meeting in October,

ideally two months from from this week. We want to do this collaboratively with the police

department and we have narrowed it down to two topics. We might do both or maybe one depending on

the conversations. Community police techniques and traffic safety are the two that I got.

And then, um, and then the last piece is we want this to be interactive as interactive as possible

with a community. And I heard a second from Commissioner Castillo Cranes.

Will the clerk please call the roll? Thank you, Chair. Members of the

Cupelese, unmute your microphones. Commissioner Sample. Yes. Commissioner John Johnson is

absence. Commissioner Z Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Carter Martinez is absence. Vice Chair Boen

Roestrow. Yes. Commissioner Griggs. Yes. Commissioner Carter. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes.

Commissioner Lendero's is absence. Commissioner Castillo Cranes. Epstein. I'm kidding. Yes.

See that's a yes. It is. Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Castillo Cranes, can you clarify your? I. I thank you. Commissioner Salazar. Yes.

And Chair Bliss. Yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

Excellent. Thank you, Commission. We're engaging this robust conversation.

Next item on the agenda is the discussion on Sacramento Police Department's efforts towards

and the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission's recommendations for the proposed 2024

military equipment use policy in report per AB481. On September 13th is for folks who aren't aware.

September 13th, 2022, the council gave directions to the police department and the commission to

develop a process for community engagement related to military equipment use policy.

And on February 13th, we'll meet after our work plan. They included goals of collaborating with

the police department to formalize a community outreach process and provide recommendations.

Since then, we held our first community engagement forum after approving the work plan on

a May 21st, 2024. That focused on the military equipment use policy on July 22nd, 2024.

Since then, the Chair and Vice Chair have been working on completing a report from the

MEU forum, military equipment use forum, and have drafted additional recommendations related to

the policy and draft and are working on a report based on the engagement forums.

So based on the conversation that we had in the notes that were taken from July 22nd,

several critical issues were raised, including that while the police department has participated in

AB41's community engagement has required, the department has yet to demonstrate meaningful

engagement with community concerns regarding the harm caused by past misuse of military equipment.

Community based recommendations and those produced by the commission have been largely ignored

or dismissed with marginal improvements in transparency and demographic usage data,

but reduced transparency concerning authorized usage.

There's also a concern raised around the unproven necessity. As year after year,

the police department has failed to provide evidence or justification that show how this

equipment is necessary for ensuring both officer and civilian safety,

nor have they demonstrated the alternative methods that have explored.

It also remains unclear how the police department's military equipment will safeguard

public welfare, civil rights, and civil liberties based on the recent demographic data.

There still exist significant racial disparities in this equipment being used against, particularly

in the area of black residents comprising 53% of military equipment uses out of 210 incidents.

And then concerns around cost effectiveness, given the financial burden of military equipment

used on taxpayers and whether or not his budget has been justified in any report since 2022.

Even as we face an ongoing shortfall that requires significant cuts across many city departments

except the police department, the department does not provide enough detail or justification

for the proposed acquisition for the new equipment. And for related to past misconduct,

the police department's compliance with its own policies on improper use of military weapons,

particularly during the 2020 protests, remain questionable. While there are still pending

lawsuits against the police department and the city still counts in the courts, the department

has yet to show how its MEU policy has fixed prior misuses raised by community members,

civil rights attorneys, and other advocates. With that said, it's important that for the

police department and the city council to consider feedback from both this community input and the

police review commission based on our review over the course of this year. Before it finalizes the

equipment, military equipment used policy and annual report as required.

So with that, we will now turn it over to public comment. As a reminder for the public,

you will have five minutes to speak on discussion calendar items. Clerk, are there any members

of the public who wish to speak on this item? Thank you, Chair. I have two speaker slips for

this item. Our first speaker is Christina Rogers, followed by bad hours. Hello commission.

I support the so-called requests for military equipment as proposed by law enforcement.

I attended a community meeting and heard some resistance about purchasing armor,

piercing bullets. My first question was, who is wearing armor if it's not the police?

And if someone is wearing armor and they're trying to shoot up kids at my kid's school,

which is certainly possible these days since school shootings have spiked, I want law enforcement

to have this option. And if anyone is wearing armor and taking hostages in any situation,

in any neighborhood, I want police to be fully equipped to protect the innocent. Also, while

reviewing page two of the document for this item three, I'm concerned to see the chair of this

committee so focused on the quote past misconduct of police during the 2020 riots in downtown Sacramento.

This was a time where my family had to remain at home. My kids out of school and told we were not

to free, free to go wherever we wanted. Well, at night, I could hear helicopters downtown dealing

with the protests that were actually riots. I saw the aftermath of those riots the next day,

and it appears the police were not allowed to do enough to secure the area from angry and

titled mobs who destroyed local businesses in our city monuments. This concern about past misconduct

during that time concerns me. Is there some goal to ensure that police can't do anything next time?

Is there a next time being planned? Because if there is, I want my officers fully equipped and

able to handle the dangerous tantrums of those who do not care about the safety of our city or

other citizens. And also, the use of drones is essential in these situations. Many protestors

broke car windows and vandalized property as they wandered about. As we know, police can't be

everywhere and drones can help identify, follow and hopefully arrest people destroying property as

they wander the streets. Because many of these people were masked in black to hide their identity.

So it makes it very difficult to find these people later on. And I think the drones actually

helped. So I support the drones and armor piercing bullets and anything that officers need to

protect everybody in every community in Sacramento. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our last speaker is Brian Powers.

Good evening commissioners. I'm a resident of District 7. I'm here because I support the Sacramento

Police Department. I think it's an excellent department. It is not as is implied in your report

a racist or militarized organization. There's no evidence of that. As to the topic at hand,

military equipment use. Your report says that is a difficult and complicated topic. I don't

think it's that difficult or complicated. I think it's made difficult and complicated by some

people's subjective response to the description of a piece of equipment as military or the style

of the equipment. To me, it's as simple as any other piece of equipment that the police

department would consider it buying. The framework should be will it be effective to save lives

and prevent injuries to citizens and officers. Two, how often is it expected to be used? Three,

can the city afford it in light of its other financial responsibilities and do the safety and

frequency factors justify the cost? A pretty simple framework. I'm in somebody's going to say

AB481 is much more complicated than that. I believe AB481 expresses that framework in a more

detailed way. It's just not that complicated. So I wish that simple framework had been kept in

mind while your report was being prepared. Your job, as has been mentioned before, is, quote,

to provide community participation in reviewing and recommending police department policies,

practices and procedures and monitor the implementation, evaluation and sustainability of

city policing initiatives. I think this report has gone far beyond that. I agree with and 100%

support the comment that was made. Your commission should be a liaison between the police department

and the community. And I will tell you that having, I didn't have time to read the entirety of

that report and the amendments, it was too big for the two hours that I had this afternoon.

But I was made very nervous by the hostility that it seemed to express. However,

listening to the comments from the commissioners tonight, I am very encouraged that you do want

to be that liaison. And that's what we need. There are problems between the police department and

the community. Some of the communities in Sacramento, I think it's a problem of perception. It is not

a problem of racism or militarization of the Sacramento police department. You can help to resolve

that perception and help people understand the truth of what the police department is about and

why we need the officers. Thank you. Chair, I have no additional speakers on the side.

Thank you, Clerk. Are we able to bring up the recommendations?

One moment. We're still working on that.

It was just a moment where we have the recommendations that we

are currently considering over. It's in the packet. And we can probably start with a general

overview. You know, go ahead. The PowerPoint document, correct? Yes.

Okay. Perfect. With that, so just to go through the community, like the draft recommendations,

we have related to military equipment policy and usage.

So just to give a quick overview for folks, because not everybody, I know not everybody could

attend the meeting that we had on July 22nd. A B41 requires law enforcement agencies to

obtain approval from the governing body prior to taking certain actions relating to funding,

acquisition and use of different types of equipment. So all the police departments,

sheriff departments and other law enforcement agencies are required to have this back in 2022.

And ours was approved in September 2022. And the intent was, according to legislature,

to create a transparent process that involves the public and local governing bodies before

local law enforcement agencies acquire military weapons. Granted, in the key tenants listed above,

which are military equipment use adversely impact civilian safety and welfare, including higher

deaths and loss of civil rights and liberties. The public has a right to know about any funding

and use of military equipment by police, including the right to participate in government agencies

decisions, as well as decisions about whether and how military equipment is required or used,

that should be based on meaningful public input and strongly consider the public's

welfare safety civil rights of liberties. Transparency oversight and accountability measures

also must be in place to protect the public's welfare and safety and rights. And the police

community relationship is jeopardized and undermined when law enforcement is not seen as an occupying

military force without public dialogue. And the policy that we were discussing in July

covers these equipment that are defined under AB481. And this is equipment that is

for those of us that have served the military, is designed to have them buy for military purposes,

but it's been made available for commercial purposes on some areas. But drones and robots,

armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, and these are categorized within the policy and report itself.

And the requirements for military equipment use requires that the military,

the policy may only be approved by council if it meets four minimum criteria as stated in AB481.

That the military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can

achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. To the proposed military equipment

use policy must safeguard the public's welfare, their safety, and their civil rights and liberties.

Three, if purchasing the equipment, the equipment is supposed to be reasonably cost effective

compared to available alternatives. These alternatives must be equivalent meaning they should be

able to achieve the same level of officer and civilian safety. Four, previously owned military

equipment and previous use of the equipment needed to comply with the military equipment use

policy that was in effect at the time. And if prior uses did not comply, then the new policy

fixes nonconforming uses and shares future compliance.

So the requirements that are met within the report, the other minimum requirements also cover that

it has to summarize how the equipment was used, any complaints or concerns that received as well

as audits and findings, and actions taken in response. It also calls for total annual military

equipment cost including funding sources and an inventory of all the military equipment owned

by the department, as well as quantity for all those all that military equipment that is intended

for purchase and that it intends to purchase. And then of course the minimum one well publicized

and conveniently located community engagement meeting within 30 days of releasing the report.

So just to get through the takeaways that we had just where we're at within the current process,

there are 13 recommendations about military equipment usage based on the MOU policy from 2022.

Last year the council directed us the commission to collaborate with the department to host three

community meetings in July 2023. And from those conversations we were able to produce nine

recommendations based on community feedback. And so some of the key takeaways that we noted was

you know current policing practices produced deep just trust and a mosque from the public,

greater transparency and more comparative trend data is needed by the department, especially on MOU

deployments and demographic data usage, and that there needs to be independent oversight. As

many people expressed the police department cannot self certify as compliance with AB 41.

And there was also the desire for more community policing techniques and positive relationship

building activities from the department, which we discussed earlier. So just to go through what

we already have on the like we have already approved over since 2022, recommendations include

adding specific language that prohibits purchase acquisition or usage of any military equipment

or munitions that are prohibited by the federal government for use by the military or law enforcement

agencies, which I based on the review that was done, it seems as though they've complied with

this recommendation. Adding specific language requiring its annual report using comparative

reporting and demographic reporting to provide information about how it was used, who it was used

against and what not. And demographic data has improved significantly since 2022.

It also called for adding specific language detailing the usage rationale and justification

for use of all armor piercing munitions in the context of public safety.

We're still waiting to see that specific language based on our review and welcome the department

to wait like the way and if they show shoes. And also requiring the council to approve before any

public or private funding may be spent to procure or require purchase of military equipment.

This language has been changed within the policy itself.

It also called for catalog the inventory of military grade firearms and launchers,

which has been changed since 2023 and just 2022. Also adding written language to clearly state

the limits and conditions for the police departments use of each type of military equipment

and specific details for when it is authorized for use and when it cannot be authorized,

namely having specific limits on its use stated within the policy itself.

Some of the general orders have been updated since 2022 when this recommendation was implemented,

but members of the community still express this as a serious concern and it's not directly within

the current policy by our recent review. It also calls for a specific, it also calls for requiring

written justifications in each annual report to provide context for why this equipment is necessary

and how it will achieve both officer and civilian safety. It also calls for adding specific language

establishing an upper limit of each type of military equipment and may process within a given

fiscal year removing any language that would allow the police department to procure or acquire

or purchase military equipment without council approval. This has actually been implemented

based on the removal of section H in the 2022 report that was no longer in 2023.

So that recommendation has been met. Adding specific language to the policy and city code to

prohibit the use of robots and un-crued aerial systems as a use of force option against

any person without exception. This has not been implemented and this is more for council's direction

to establish change city code. It also required the police department to

include costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades,

and other ongoing costs in its calculation, which the annual report was much more comprehensive

at least around how the acquisition cost as well as personnel cost and time and funding sources

was included. There's still more to be desired in terms of having that within the policy itself

versus the annual report, which is not listed within the policy on the policies and procedures page.

It also called for establishing a process for removing military weapons or equipment that

banned prohibited or otherwise no longer limited for use by the police department.

As well as a process for how they evaluate reasonable alternatives and research

additional equipment before they make those purchases. In 2023, a lot of the recommendations that

were approved by the commission were based were had actually supported and aligned with a lot of

the recommendation of the original 13 recommendations. That included requiring the police

department to track and report all military equipment deployments in its annual report rather than

only reportedly use as a force or discharge of military equipment as it currently does.

And this year they actually did provide more demographic data that showed not just

reportable uses but also the use like the deployments or which they build as usages in the report itself.

And they also were asked to make the report more plain speak and less jargon-y, less legal jargon,

which the report has done a tremendous job on actually including more direct language and

is accessible to a wider range of the public. I also called it clearly state and its policy when

and where military equipment and weapons are prohibited from deployment use or discharge separately

from its authorized usage sections currently in the policy. This is still waiting to be implemented.

And in addition to removing ambiguous language that allows military equipment deployments in

virtually any situation where police believe they have a tactical advantage. There was a strong

desire for the public to remove all language that allows military equipment deployment or usage

for crowd control purposes which currently can be authorized against protest or crowds with

this view as for people. Those specific authorized uses sections have actually been updated so that

it doesn't include that and there are certain policy updates under the general orders listed in

that policy that does make it more clear about the limits for use in for crowd control purposes.

Particularly under assembly established under Amit Assembly Bill 48.

And other changes included that community members desire was a standardized process

with clear climb lines for soliciting community input through occurring community surveys

in public forums where the feedback is actually incorporated in the annual updates and the military

equipment use policy itself. And this has been something that the commission has requested

as well in previous cycles. And as well as for clear independent oversight of the police department's

compliance with AB 41. Since 2022 the police review commission and the office of public safety

accountability has been added into the policy itself and this year there was a little bit more detail

around how those function. But more could be done and we were more prescriptive in the 2023

recommendations around what role each of these independent entities could fulfill. And then it

also called for having council coordinate directly with us to either host a community forum within

the respective council districts or at minimum attend at least one of these forums which we have

seen certain council members attend the recent forums. This year council member Maple actually attended

the Oak Park community conversation and ideally they could attend the upcoming community meetings

that we plan in the coming months. Today though none of the recommendations have received the

formal response from the department or have been agendas for consideration by the council.

So on to today's recommendations. Rather than like these are just a summary of the recommendations

as they're stated I'd like to go into what each recommendation approves and there was an

additional recommendation that I'd like to offer for consideration that discusses the timeline

for that. So recommendation number one is reinstating language in the purpose and policy sections and

restoring the philosophy section that was in the general order. Community members have long

demanded a good faith commitment to transparency and accountability from the department and in 2023

again the department made good efforts to show the commitment by adding a philosophy statement

to its 2023 policy as well as a detailed purpose and policy statement to help ground it to its

fundamental goal of ensuring the safety and welfare of community members. However and attempting to

simplify the policy's language there was concern that the department had over corrected by removing

this statement and shortening some of the other statements as well and potentially undermining

the bill's efforts. So that's why we're recommending restoring the original language to maintain

transparency and uphold the department's commitment to the community.

Number two is amending the order to require the police department to list current

quantity ongoing costs per units. Approved situations for use restrictions and total annual costs

and fiscal impact of each military equipment type in both the general order and the annual use

report. And while like again acknowledging the efforts that the police, that second

rental police department has made to provide greater transparency and reporting as current

inventory usage we did notice in our review that it was able to, we were able to corroborate

community concerns that were lifted up during the July meeting which were that current,

the annual, the authorized usage in particular and approved situations were removed from the

general order and replaced with a statement that refers to multiple general orders and reference

manuals but no, but that require community members to really dig through pages on the website

in order to really access that. This was actually something that was helpful to have within the

policy itself given that it is supposed to govern the use of that equipment in the first place.

And the previous policy provided specific legal references to general orders as an addendum.

It also didn't list current quantities for each item of military equipment. That was in the

annual report but not in the general policy itself. And annual costs or fiscal impact of each type

of military equipment was moved from the policy to the annual report which this recommendation

call for to be added back in. And yes. Pardon my interruption, Chair. We're closing in on

730 which would be two hours after the start time of the meeting and per council rules procedure

chapter 8 section D6 city established legislative bodies shall automatically adjourn after two hours

unless extended by a two-thirds vote of members present. But in no case shall an advisory body

advisory body meeting exceed three hours. So at this time we'll need to take a vote to extend

the meeting past 730 PM for an additional hour. Is there a motion?

I'll make the motion.

I can have the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you Chair. Commissioner Sample. Yes.

Commissioner Z Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Buen roast vice chair Buen roastro. Yes.

Commissioner Carter. Yes. Commissioner Smith. It's a

Commissioner Castillo Crenes. Yes. Commissioner Salazar. Yes. And chair Bliss. Yes. Thank you

the motion passes. Oh my apologies. Commissioner Griggs.

Thank you. Thank you the motion passes and the meeting will be extended to 830 PM.

Promise it's all we're getting through this. There's only eight recommendations on the table right now.

So as stated in previous recommendations and expressed by community, you know the intent like we expect the

assembly bill 41 to be the floor and not the ceiling for the department's compliance and we

consider this information to be critical for transparency and independent oversight. So fortunately

the department has already provided this information in prior versions of the of general order 410.06

and require and it just currently provides it across multiple documents. So it's really a simple

matter of consolidation across those pieces including from the annual report.

We also called for the number three adding verbatim language of AB 41 to specify the four

minimum requirements for city council to approve military commune's policy and we even prescribed

suggested the language that could be added based on what's in there already and last year there was

specific language that was made verbatim within the policy itself but for some reason this was

removed and we think it's important that this actually gets added back in and it's important to note

assembly bill 41 is not a polite suggestion it's a statutory code and requires all law enforcement

and the governing bodies to follow in a poll in public policy practices and conduct. So

this is what like the mid like stating the minimum requirements for the governing body both

informs the public of what's required for the minimum policy for the policy to be approved

as well as for city council to ensure that this equipment is necessary because there's no

reasonable alternatives and that it will safeguard especially that will safeguard the public's

welfare safety and civil rights and civil liberties. So one of the reasons we have this added in is

to really have the council ask direct questions and that would prompt the police department to

sufficiently explain how it complies with these minimum requirements which include what situations

in the is the deployment or use of the military equipment necessary for ensuring both the safety

of officers and civilians and do reasonable alternatives exist which may achieve the same objective.

How will proposed military equipment use policy safeguards to safeguard the public safety and welfare

while also ensuring their civil rights and civil liberties are protected and how does the

department deter or prevent violations of the policy through legally enforceable means. Why is the

proposed purchase or acquisition of military equipment necessary within the current budget cycle?

What alternative equipment or even practices has the department explored which move

up which prove justice effective at achieving both officer and civilian safety but also being

more cost effective and where have changes been made in the policy that fix past misuses

or at a minimum address complaints alleged under previous military equipment use policies and

how will these changes ensure future compliance. This actually speaks to a later recommendation

I believe under item number seven but just to quickly summarize some of the other ones adding verbatim

language of AB 48 to specify or adding verbatim language of assembly bill 48 to specify the

language or the minimum requirements for the clear limits and conditions for using kinetic

energy projectiles like rubber bullets or and chemical agents such as tear gas and we prescribe

the following language apologies for the error but just adding in the under the definitions it

which it calls for shifting not just the kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents but also

the definitions that are added in the annual report but for some reason are added under the category

sections when they go through the equipment inventory it's just a simple shifting over that first

page that was for each category that was out the proposed acquisitions in the current inventory

over into the general order itself but additionally adding these the new additions added in red

adding and kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents which are mentioned in AB 48.

It also would call for a meaning of the authorized usage around that which is currently listed

in the reference and the reference manual 532 which is the first and assembly manual but having in

specific or like specific or specific language from AB 48 that expresses clear limits on when

this equipment can be used kinetic energy projectiles less lethal weapon systems or what not

and tear gas particularly that it cannot be used to disperse any assemblies protest or demonstrations

unless it meets the following conditions as listed in here.

Additionally for number six we're recommending mandating the police department provide written

justifications for any proposed purchase of military equipment detailing why it is necessary

in the current fiscal year and any alternatives that are considered cost effective because

it's been it's come up in multiple meetings now over the course of this process of at least two

of the four minimum requirements specifically the first one being you know is like the equipment

is necessary because there's no reasonable alternative and the proposed equipment use policy

with safeguard the public welfare safety and civil rights and during the approval process SPD

hasn't really provided any detailed rationale or justifications for why the department needs its

current stock of military equipment or how the equipment that are going to purchase would achieve

the same objective so we're requesting this actually be put into a questionnaire format that

would be attached both to the general order as an appendix just like it is now as well as to

any staff reports concerning the proposed purchases of equipment that would answer along these

questions that get really to the core of what we believe council should be asking for

and in addition to demographic reporting requiring the police department to produce

its annual report using comparative reporting analysis regarding the uses trends and fiscal

impacts of its equipment and we were very specific in what data like what measurable data were

like we want to see within the department policy including the total number of times each type of

military equipment ammunition was used within the reporting period including how many rounds of

ammunition were fired the department actually did a great job of listing out the specific

instances of the equipment where the equipment was used and it actually does provide this information

in that but it didn't really show this over the trend even though it was mentioned in the prior

military equipment use report for each category of equipment also asking for the number of uses

for each type of military equipment by demographics so a breakdown of race, gender,

agents of code the commission was able to do some of these use like in excel to really show out

how many like what type of equipment was used most often which based on our analysis

armored vehicles and uncrewed aerial systems were by far the like the highest amount of usage

but things like flashbacks or the 40 millimeter shock single-shot launcher and multi-shot

launchers were only used less than 10 times and there are based on the requested inventory or

the proposed acquisitions like request additional munitions to be requested by the department

that concern these weapons such as flashbangs in 40 millimeter rounds and besides that too

I'm sorry the total cost for all proposed purchases as well it's in the report some of that but not

as clearly defined within the general order itself as well as the fiscal impacts of its current

military equipment inventory compared within the overall police budget we believe that should be

at least in the report and of course one of the plot and continue to support the department using

less legal jargon and allowing the data to allow the data to be more successful.

The last one that came in that I'd like us to really consider and discuss is establishing a clear timeline

for with specific dates for this entire annual review process including the inventory the

compiling of the annual usage reporting as well as community engagement and approval process

for the equipment that flows with the calendar year or fiscal year especially. Beginning in 2025

that would call for the recommended dates which are to have the reporting period

beginning on December 1st and concluding by November 30th that way that by December the department

can conduct its annual inventory process of the equipment and conclude that within 30 days

based on what we've learned from the past two cycles. Also providing by February you know

drafting the usage report but not necessarily having to publish it right away as is currently

typically done like this year when the report was we've finished in June and then published

a couple of weeks afterwards. This would actually call for the annual report to be submitted to the

commission within a two week period but giving us time to actually review that early on in the year

rather than trying to condense all of this in the July months and the first couple of weeks of

August. It would also call for in March you know having us discuss the annual usage report and

give feedback to the department prior to publishing and then having that agenda item consider

commissioner and SPD input regarding potential changes to the draft and timeline for the

community engagement meetings related to the equipment use. And then by the second Monday and April

approving by discussing and finalizing that draft and confirming the community engagement

meeting dates and and schedule during its public during the next public meeting in April.

Following that it would by the end of the month the department could then actually publish its

annual usage report and begin the clock on that 30 day window that's required that's required

on day before you want and you know allow us for us to provide significant outreach more like

more outreach for communities actually engage within the process and talk about the policy and

usage data. And then that what like that those conversations or single or singular conversation

would begin from May through July where we of this commission could host and facilitate the annual

community engagement meeting we could have multiple meetings like we did in 2023 or just a single one

and complete the report and recommendations no later at least draft them no later than the end of

July that would give us like you know at least a couple potentially a couple months lead time or at

least more than just the the less than three weeks that we had for this cycle and previous cycles before.

And then by August the commission would discuss and approve the community engagement

or community engagement report and recommendations submitting it to council's law legislation for

review prior to scheduling for its monthly public meeting and then by within the months of September and

October presenting the annual military equipment usage report policy changes and proposed

acquisitions to the council's law legislation committee with our commission presenting either

before after that presentation to and before it submitted to the full city council for final

discussion approval by the end of October. So that's what's on the table right now the last one

came in under the wire it's a request that is a recommendation that I'd like for us to consider

but I want to open it up for commissioner comments and feedback and I want to ask the clerk as well

if there are can we I know we just we took some time to get the presentation up and running but

can can we actually open up the public comment period again after the commission discusses this.

No we can't the public comment period has as already occurred and and we won't be going back to

that for this item. Got it. Commissioner or are there any commissioners who wish to speak on

the recommendations.

First example so I'm still digesting but I do like recommendation eight and that I think

it's a very clear timeline that is communicated early it's communicated now of what the expectation

would be in again I can't quite see all of it but I do like that it's really drawn out it gives a

flow for the calendar year and it helps us meet our deadline and I think it gives our partners at

SacPD enough time to know what the full timeline is for this so I do like recommendation eight.

Thank you commissioner sample.

Any other commissioners wishing to speak on this item?

Just to put the recommendation then the recommendation is to discuss this the proposed military

committee use report as well as community feedback and then provide feedback on the policy and report

if there are any further questions and then pass emotions approving these recommendations

and then forwarding the recommendations to city council for consideration approval with direction

the chair and vice chair about the community like the correspondence that will send to that

send to the council for these recommendations and just to note that we are on this timeline based

on the direction from council at the law and legislation committee when it met on July 23rd

they gave a they postponed consideration of the policy and report until August 20th so that's

why we're considering this on a tight timeline it was really hard to produce it as a report like we

did in last year's meeting and so the chair the vice chair and I have been talking about sending it

as a in a letter format with these recommendations attached along with this their summary vice chair

Ben Rossero yeah thanks I mean I I want to speak to the last recommendation I apologize that I

haven't had time to process that as well as much but I do like the idea of dealing a timeline

the question I have is is whether that is a recommendation that we should maybe hold a little bit

because I want to get feedback from from all the parties that that would need to be part of the

timeline to see about the to ask about the feasibility of the timeline and to see if there's any

feedback that can make it stronger maybe we still move forward that recommendation as a

proposed draft timeline but the desire is that there's a timeline for this process but I guess

I guess a question is as a recommendation I you know I like the timeline I don't know if I have

enough information to know about the feasibility or whether there's any you know any anything within

that that should change. Commissioner Castillo-Kringes. Is the expectation for these

recommendations to inform next year's MEU report? Based on the department's position and what was

in this conversation and based on last year's process that's usually how it's been. It's up to

council to decide if they want to have these done within the current fiscal year or the current year

that is reported but I also welcome Captain Buchanan or Assistant City Manager to weigh in.

Yeah I think that's what we discuss it's very to be for next year's to improve the report for next

year and to go back to Vice Chair's question about recommendation recommendation number eight I

believe the city attorney is already up high in that it is the reporting period which is May 1st

of the last day of April and that's the legislative mandate that we would have to follow and to

change that we would be at a compliance. So I applaud like I do like the layout but I don't think

changing it but I'm not an attorney and I won't repine to that but I believe that was what's

stated before and these chambers. So if that is the case because I think the other thing that I

would be interested in knowing is kind of what the rationale is but I'm guessing that the idea

would be for us to submit it to law and ledge and then next year then have the feedback from the

police department as to kind of whether they're adopting it or not as kind of that back and forth

and then document this as part of that report. I just want to make sure that I understand.

Yeah there's I mean with the timeline of going to law ledge next next next week there's no way

to get through all these and make changes to the report which is 107 pages long in the policy

but like just like the previous years and we do have all the recommendations from the previous

years completed so you'll be seeing those shortly they'll be published shortly so those are done

but that's kind of the thing and we're really trying to make a forward effort here of

implementing all the all the ones we can right and working together with you guys on it.

No and I appreciate that my other than comment is I'm wondering if we go ahead adopt the

timeline understanding that it is going to be out of compliance but we're that way we're able

to adopt it presented before law and ledge and it sounds like we are going to have an opportunity

to go back and forth in terms of finding an actual timeline that would work within the confines

of the law. I think that it has it has been something that I know in the last two years we've

been wanting to do set out a timeline that is more aligned to the work that the PD has to do

but it allows us enough time to go back to the community get the report ready so if it's not

this timeline that we are presenting in recommendation eight I think it does give us an opportunity

to figure out okay if this is not it let's figure out a different timeline by which we can start

actually operating to ensure everybody has enough time. Yeah I get what you're saying that the issue

we have is not it's partially due to the legislative the reporting period right because we only

have a certain time we have to generate that report in the last day of April it's the last day

of our reporting area so we can't finish the report until then so we can't give it to you any

earlier than like whatever that day is so we were to hold by these these dates be holding by these

dates and so that's we could work out a logistics of a better like a timeline but it all depends

on when we get it's like going to be the same thing we have the 30 days we have to put it out

there we have this we have we have these record all these guidelines we have to follow so working

within those guidelines I'd more than willing to work with you guys absolutely and that's what I

mean I mean I I understand you guys have guidelines and timelines I think I don't want to be having

the same conversation every year where we're you know the commission is jammed we're we're trying to

figure out July we have a commission meeting with the public and then try to kind of synthesize

that into a report it's it's it would be better to get into a different cadence that we can all

expect that way we can just have and I get it we're still working through the kinks of this

project but it would be really helpful to have a timeline that everybody understands the public

knows PD knows the commission knows and then we can work to meet those goals yeah that's a that's

a fair request to work through some sort of timeline so understanding that the timeline in

recommendation eight does not align to the legislative one because that's what I'm hearing it sounds

like the actual 481 has a different timeline than what we laid out here

based on the review of assembly bill 41 which is now government code section 770 through 775

second 771 that section concerns the approval for use of military equipment and

besides you know the date and time and which it came effect there are no other specific dates other

than that no later than May 1st 2022 under section 770 paragraph 2 a long force of agency seeking

to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1st 2022 shall

commence a governing body approval process in accordance with the section.

And then goes on to describe the like you know the if the government body doesn't approve the

continuous of equipment within a hundred and eight days of submission that long force of

agency has to stop using its equipment. I don't see anything within the policy itself that prevents

a governing body which is the city council to shift the approval date and time period

in order to adjust and provide like and provide more lead time for both their consideration of

the policy and annual report as well as our work and other independent oversight entities within

that. Last year it was stated you know that the deadline by the city attorney's office read of

like of assembly bill 41 stipulated it had to be done within the year that was approved

but it doesn't but unless the city attorney's office can point to a place within the state code

that prohibits council from adjusting the approval timeline that's that was the basis for

making this recommendation. And like and just as a hypothetical suggestion

if this were implemented it beginning in 2025 it could actually you know the council could direct

PD to like have a half year for the reporting period and then incorporate that into the coming year

after like you know into the coming report at the using the new timeline but that's as

purely hypothetical. I think this is a better conversation for the city attorney to apply to

but it's an annual report so doing a half half year report would be a biennial report and that's

not within line of legislative mandates so that's that's I would refer this to the city attorney though

for my side of it. And I don't expect an answer here it's really just like if we agree that

with the spirit of the recommendation we can approve it and it's an advisory to council who

ultimately decide what they implement what they know. Well and that's what I was going to say in

terms of I think I'm willing to approve it recognizing that the time frame still has to be figured

out and at the end of the day again if the report why don't we approve it for recommendation eight

understanding that the intent is to establish a timeline by which everybody agrees to right

city attorney PD and that way we can actually have a timeline that guides the work for the next year.

That would be kind of my I think I'm willing to move the recommendations as proposed

understanding some of them are still going to be worked out and they are going to be

conversed the timeline conversation will continue with PD and and or city attorney and the feedback

that we're going to get are going to be incorporated in the 2025 annual report for MEU.

So I hear and correct me if that is a proposed motion or not. That's a motion. So that would approve all

the recommendations including item eight but with that direction to make sure that we are actually

working in collaboration with the city attorney SPD to find out a timeline that actually works

but that that timeline can then begin guiding our work for MEU in 2025.

I hear that there's a motion on the table does any other commissioners want to weigh in or give

feedback. Is there a motion is there a second for the motion?

See a second by Commissioner Wayne Johnson will the court please call the roll.

I think chair commissioners if you could please unmute your microphones.

Mr. Sample I Mr. J Johnson is absence commissioner Z Johnson.

All right.

Commissioner Carter Martinez is absence vice chair Boen Rostro.

All right.

Commissioner Griggs.

No.

The microphone was off but to confirm can you say I have your troubles my screen.

Understood. Can you say that your vote one more time?

No.

Thank you sir.

Commissioner Carter.

All right.

Commissioner Smith.

All right.

Commissioner Landaros is absence.

Commissioner Castillo-Kringes.

I.

Commissioner Salazar.

I.

And chair Bliss.

Yes.

Thank you the motion passes.

Thank you commissioners.

Our last and final item is item number four.

A presentation from the Sacramento Police Department on the racial identity profiling act compliance and data.

Good evening commission Clayton Buchanan Sacramento Police Department kept him with our

Admin Services Division.

Tonight we're going to talk about the racial identity identity and profiling act

and how we implement it at the Sacramento Police Department.

The Simu Bill 953 was signed into law in 2015 requires California law enforcement H.C.

to collect report data to California Department of Justice and accordance with California code 12525.5.5.

The Sacramento Police Department general order 210.09 establishes procedures

for the collection of the data requires officers to complete in an entry for each individual

detainer search during a call for service or self initiated activity.

Just a quick overview of how we uh a RIPPA entry on RIPPA on the use of the acronym as we move on

is generally completed at SPD.

The officer performs a detention which meets requirements for RIPPA.

One has to be generated.

If I'm clearing the call for service the officer is required to enter a room or how many

RIPPAs are owed or if none are owed.

So when they go to clear a call they can't go past the screen unless they say I owe a RIPPA or I

don't owe a RIPPA if they hit I owe a RIPPA they have to put how many they owe for the entries.

Upon selecting a RIPPA as owed the officer's RIPPA dashboard which is a dashboard

eternal to SPD is populated with the required RIPPA to be completed somewhere to like an email inbox.

When the officer completes the RIPPA it will be added to a queue which is submitted to DOJ.

If the officer does not complete the RIPPA and assists on their dashboard our inspections

or standards team audits completes audit every two weeks and we'll find it and the officer will be

notified to complete the RIPPA.

The situations in which RIPPAs are not required because not every detention requires them.

Data elements in section of the California Code of Requirements is 999.226A for passengers

and vehicles subject to a stop who have not been observed or suspected of filing the law

or have not been subject to the officer's actions.

So if you're a passenger and the officer didn't see you throw a cigarette out the window that's

just one example then a RIPPA does not be owed because the detention is based on the driver even

other person is detained. Stop's made during public safety massive actuation so we don't have

the RIPPA does not have to be completed. Stop's during an active shooter incident.

Stop's that occurred during or as a result of routine security screens required of all

persons with interbuilding or a special event including medical detector screenings including

any secondary searches that result from the screening. Generally interaction is during traffic

control of vehicles due to a traffic accident or emergency situation they require that vehicles

are stopped for public safety purposes and any type of crowded riot control in which pedestrians

are made to remain in a location or routed to a different location for public safety purposes.

Also interactions during which persons are detained at a residence so that the officer may

check for proof of age for purposes of investigating underage drinking and checkpoints and roadblocks

in which an officer detains a person as a result of a blanket regulatory activity or neutral formula

that is not based on individualized suspicion or personal characteristics. Also interactions that

take place within with a person in his or her residence who is a subject of a warrant or search

condition. If you're on probation you're in your house I don't have to plead to RIPPA if I

detain you outside your house I do have to plead to RIPPA. Interactions that take place with a

person in his or her residence who is subject of a home detention or house arrest while an officer is

on home detention or house arrest assignment. Stop's in custodial setting in which we have very

few of stops that occur while officer is off duty. How are we maintain our compliance at SACPD?

Compliance check is completed every two weeks by our inspections and standards team.

It is fair to say the department is within 99% compliance. We have for the reporting period of

January 1st of this year to July 15th. We had completed 20,214 RIPPAs and we had 73 outstanding

so that's pretty good compliance rate and those have all been fixed. As soon as we find

them they get fixed they get notified through the chain of command. As for the government

code section of 1252.5 it tells us what we have to enter. So it states the report should include

a minimum of the following information for each pedestrian traffic or any other type of stop.

The date, time and location of the stop, the reason for the stop, the reason given to the person

stopped and at the time the stop, the result of the stop such as no action warning citation

property seizure or arrest. If a warning or citation was used the warning provided or

violation cited. If an arrest was made the offense charged. The perceived race or ethnicity,

gender and approximate age of the person stopped provided that identification of these characteristics

shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop and the

air formation shall not be requested from the person stopped. Action is taken by the peace officer

during the stop including but not limited to the following whether the peace officer asked for

consent to search the person and if so whether consent was provided whether the peace officer

searched the person or any property and if so the basis for the search and the type of contrabander

evidence discovered if any whether the peace officer seized any property and if so the type of

property that was seized in the basis for seized in the property. General order 2109 for

officers responsibilities state that officer shall complete a rapid entry for every individual

who is detained searched including pat down the consensual searches and anytime the search of

a person is conducted officer shall enter a detailed justification for the reason the stop and

why the subject was searched shall be recorded. Officers shall complete the entries in the

ripassism by the end of watch. Officers shall confirm if a rapid entry is owed prior to clearing

the call. Our RIPAA coordinator shall generate a incentive by week the RIPAA compliance report to

also one employee's. Our supervisors responsibilities are listed as review the compliance report for

their teams and address any missing RIPAA entries and ensure officers complete any missing entries.

That is pretty much how we conduct our RIPAAs if you don't have a computer in your vehicle

they notify comps that are over the radio that they have a RIPAA entry owed and it goes to their

base their RIPAA inbox their dashboard. Thank you captain Buchanan I see Commissioner Carter

I'm the chief or actually before we get into Commissioner questions and comments

clerk are there any members of the public who wish to give comment on this item. Thank you chair

I have one speaker on this item Christina Rogers.

Hello. Speeding is increased in Sacramento and neighborhoods like mine it's increasing everywhere

and it's running stop signs and lights that's the choice of the driver so I find it hard to believe

anyone can identify someone's race when driving behind them especially at night. Yes I've not dealt

with racial probe filing personally but that doesn't not that does not mean that I've not been

pulled over by officers in the past and when I was it was because of my behavior and instead of

arguing and resisting I was polite obeyed orders got my ticket and went on my way and I wasn't happy

but didn't make it worse for myself so I think the majority of time anyone being pulled over is due

to their driving behavior and that person should not be given a pass based on any status equal

accountability for behavior is vital to a fair and just society and if someone is truly compliant

and then mistreated by police yes I believe that's a problem that needs to be addressed

in Sacramento I think those types of situations are rare this is a very diverse city

and there's different cultures and they may have different attitudes about police officers

but we are all accountable for our behavior we must follow the same laws so everyone can go about

their business and safety anyone with bad driving behavior should be pulled over by police and

law enforcement should not be concerned that any citizen is seen as a protected class and really

it's really important to remember that we only have around 13 traffic officers for all of Sacramento

that's a little over half a million people so if someone's pulled over for bad driving behavior

it's a good bet that they've been driving dangerously before and endangered the lives of others

so they could be used to driving this way you know at driving however they like and an officer pulling

them over could be the wake up call that they need and I consider that a good thing so we need more

traffic officers training and support to mitigate speeding and dangerous driving so I support police

pulling people over when their behavior justifies it thank you very much thank you for your comments

chair I have no additional speakers on this item

Commissioner Carter yes captain Buchanan you have your paperwork at your desk yeah okay

all right so 12 525.5 government code I was comparing the actual code to the policy

and I just need you to walk me through a few things a two sacpity personnel should not use

or release any rip a data unless authorization has been given by the T for police or designate

okay so what's your anytime somebody wants some ripper information

um your staff has to get permission from the T for police

we we submitted to to Caldeo J monthly so we released it and that is just because we have

guidelines in in in the system um we don't analyze any of this data so it's all rat raw data

it would follow the same guidelines like a PRA if it had to come out okay the statue says

that all on section F all data reports may be assumed to the section of public records within

the meaning of section blah blah blah open to public inspection pursuant to blah blah blah

so I was trying to get an understanding between that and item number a two to says

pack sacpity personnel should not use or release the ripper data unless authorization has been

given by the T for police so I was trying to figure that out again I'm not a lawyer um so I'm

not going to pretend to be one but that says all data and reports um so we don't we don't compile

any reports so that takes that report part part part of it out the data that we compile is raw data

when it had to be redacted within accordance with our PRA so that's go to the PRA channels to get

like if they wanted data so that's that that is the way I know I'm to understand that but I

that's my interpretation so when you were standing at the podium you mentioned that they're not the

MDT and they put in the information and it's just simultaneously going to DOJ?

No but it comes back in a sale spreadsheet and it's just all data columns right so it's not we

don't go through the data and then they have to go through and purchase any of that data that may

have any PI per private information which it shouldn't be in there but doesn't mean it doesn't happen

right so we have to go through a perjure information there's certain information we can release

and there's certain information we can't I'm not the subject matter expert on that so but I know

that's the rules and regulations just like with any public records that were a request okay so

when um Dr. Watson first came on board I was seeking some information on

the website and they had a page that had a whole bunch of stocks but the information wasn't

used a friendly I had tried to print it out and it really didn't print out right so my question is

are you collecting that data they reorganized the website so I tried to find it tonight and I

couldn't find it since the city and we reorganized the whole website when I went to SAC BD and I

went to transparency and I'm trying to find that same similar data that I came upon I don't know

how I'm gonna Dr. Watson been here but I couldn't find it so are you still putting that data on the

website I don't know what data you're referring to it was all vehicle stocks it had the date the

time that that that may have been a whole spreadsheet yeah that may have been our vehicle stop data form

prior to RIPPA and that it's a different mechanism right we were releasing that because we didn't

release that to DOJ DOJ gets this raw data they analyze this data with the RIPPA board and they

put out their annual report so we we don't conduct a report on this and we don't analyze the data

okay but the way you were doing things before RIPPA is that still available to the public on the

website no because that was that was a vehicle the vehicle stopped out of form VSTF is what we

called them and that we once we got into RIPPA was reporting the same information it was redundant

and so we stopped reporting on those okay so B1A12 detainment search I got that and then it says

including Pat down consensual searches so I went over to 8A of the statute and I didn't really see

that criteria in the policy and in regard to B of the statute the time the date the location these

are all the minimum requirements the time to date the statute the reason for the stop I see that

in the policy at 1A2B anytime searches conducted a detailed justification for the reason for the stop

so I'm assuming that's to cover B2 in the statute and why the subject was search shall be recorded

in the narrative so I'm assuming that's B3 from the statute it says the reason given to the person

stopped at the time of the stop I didn't really see 456 so we are we are in compliance with that

is part of our reporting in our RIPPA system so that it's not built into the policy yeah because

it's a box you can't go by I don't know if it's in the policy I mean they're here so yeah so we

have detailed like training bulletins that are out that go through all this and the training they

go through the policy is not going to list every box you have to check the policy is going to give

you guidance on what you what you shall do when you do these and like the highlight the things that

like if you search someone we want to make sure that you are following that because there is a

narrative box that they can write ABC right and the narrative box it says why the person with

searches the narrative box you have to actually write that out right all the rest of these are

most most the time are dropped down or checks so okay and so like for example eight says whether the

piece officer asked for consent to search the person and if so whether the consent was provided

so it's not like directly written into the policy so you're so am I I'm too soon that's

covered in b1 a2 a it's it's it's it's covered in their training and it's covered in when they

go through the the the thing because right when you when you get under the rip of dashboard would

you get a pleater rip a entry you can't go past a certain certain screen to complete that entry

unless you could complete all the boxes right so you have to check those to go through so that is a

drop down was consent requested yes or no okay is there a reason that it's it's covered in a

training but it's not directly set forth in the policy is there a reason if I had to if we

had to spell out every little thing we had to do in policing and policy our our policies would be

100 pages as long and to have people maintain those so they it's they they can't complete these

and we when we do our inspection standards team when they go through them they they've met them

to be okay there's an error here so they'll send it back to the officer you had an error here fix

that the system 99 90 percent of time I don't get quote me on the number majority of the time

will ensure that you're completed it correctly if not it's kicked back to you to to fix your

errors and I'm not I'm not a computer guy so I can't talk about the back in IT stuff hall that

works and how you can't move on but that's I know that's when you fill it out that's what happens

is there like a paper template accuracy I don't know if there's a paper template but I could

route I could report back to you so you're you're saying for all the entry boxes yes I want to

see it's okay yeah I'll report it with the vehicle data stop from the racial profiling commission

me so you want to see if there's differences on what they match up to be okay yeah I let me look

into it and I'll report back next commission meeting or it or by weekly to the chair and vice chair

okay just so I make sure I got that request down you're asking for a printout of the or like a paper

copy a template I think she's asking like for each screen officer has to go through is the one

I'm gonna understand is that correct commissioner Carter like each screen they have to go through

you want you want to see it yes yes okay that's it

I want to open it up to for other commissioners if you have questions

but I'm looking at the general order and noticing a lot of the things that you

can cover and cannot cover and not really listed within the general order itself I mean it's

only two pages but similar what we were requesting for when it comes like and committee members

have requested for for like less legal jargon a lot of what you described out and just in that

presentation around what kick like you know what data we include within that what we cannot include

I'm wondering why is why can't that be included within the like within the public facing policy

so that folks can know what you're collecting and what you cannot collect from a given stop

you're talking about the requirements when a rip it has to be completed or it does not have to

be completed right yes okay good question something we could discuss definitely it is yeah good question

yeah I've been I can have looked across the California DOJ's website they haven't a data

explorer called open justice that folks can like look into download like a lot of the raw data that's

entered in spreadsheets and then also a period or like a portion that you can explore specific

crime statistics such as crime and clearances arrests or arrest dispositions and whatnot

under those specific categories like is any of this data available within those

those open-facing databases or is it all within spreadsheet data and it cannot be shared out like

via the department basically we house it just in the sales spreadsheet to my best of my knowledge

don't quote me on the back end of it but it's it's we don't generate any like reporting out of it

that to my knowledge so to your question that if you're asking if we have certain information

but not the other I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if we what we'd have to purge and

you know we'd be releasing that on the forward side but we have explored looking at expanding it

to with the power of BI kind of dashboard it just cost effectively we can't do it right now

so we can't make it a more robust system at this time

thank you I guess maybe there's something we'll have to talk about on during our biweeklies I'm just

thinking about you know if Commissioner Carter remembers you know the vehicle stop data that's

available within that and out of that can be like you know presented out publicly or entered like

you know so that folks can actually get a clear look at police interactions day to day because I

mean I think that's you know not getting into the legal ease of the racial and identity

profiling act but you know it's kind of the intent is to reveal you know the the stops and

dispositions and like who is ultimate like who are being most engaged by the police department

and everyday activities including traffic stops and I'm curious to know with the relation to

the the call and dispatch data because a couple of years ago like for when I like one and within

the first two the gear that I joined we had requested like that raw data that's provided by

or that you kind of described to a bit that is like required under rip under rip to be provided

but we were constantly kind of met with back and forth and asking about the specific like for

specific details within those spreadsheets is that raw data available only through PRA requests so

like we we as a commission couldn't just request that as part of our review of like of our work

topic priorities we would have to go through the public records acts process I think we have to

talk a little more on that because I'm not tracking over what you're asking but I think a lot of

the information you're looking for is in our open data portal that we just went live again there's

a lot of information on staff stops calls for service citations so I think if you look on that

and maybe research that and maybe we could follow up or by weekly with like you for like clarifying

questions and like what you're looking for most likely it's going to be a PRA because we don't have

it and we have to do the work in that staff time so but I don't know what you're looking for so I

can't give you a correct answer here's one thing that I'm looking for is the call types particularly

if like it involved a mental health service call that's that's all on open data portal okay so

and if you if you want a five-minute tutorial on our next biweekly I could we could jump on there

and I'll share my screen and show you how you can pull call types for certain areas and and it

it'll actually filter that way the I got to give credit or our IT team and our city IT did a

fantastic job on creating this new open data data portal system so appreciate that I just

may take you up on that vice chair been rostro I'm going to summarize what I think my understanding is

so from what I heard police department collects rip a data you're in 99% compliance you send it

to the DOJ DOJ then does release some that data through their data portal because I mean I see

I mean it's not maybe we can argue that as an user friendly that's not the police departments

role but but they they have CVS files and other zip files that we can download and then if

somebody from the public wants to analyze that data or anybody wants to analyze the data for that

matter it's there for us to look at and we can we can it looks like we can just pull out

sack pd data and and do any analysis of folks want to do based on that so that that's my understanding

and I I just want to make sure that I and I apologize if this is obvious I just want to make sure

that I have the right understanding of where this data is available how it can be accessed so that

if folks in the public want to when I've downloaded analyze it or do anything with it they know

where they can get it and they also know the role that the department has and collecting it and

then sending it to the DOJ and then they they they report it and they really correct and they have

that data I believe I don't know if they how often they publish it don't call me on that it might

be just annually but they do have it and I don't know the last year I should know that but

but to your 99.7 when we when we submit our data to DOJ we're 100 percent compliant because

that's what we'll client because we make sure that every ripo that's owed is is completed right so

we're we're running 100 percent compliance with DOJ when we submit our reports because we know

exactly how many we owe and we make sure officers get them done but yes that's I understand

the same way you do this for clarification on my end a river report is there are

incidents of noncompliance based on whether officers hit that button of like are will they

enter a ripo data here or not yes that is the case we're expanding our compliance

check for like say a traffic stop right someone has to be on a detained on a traffic stop but with

staffing we're trying to expand our compliance checks and to go that direction to where we could

we could do more outside the realm compliance checks on internally so

Commissioner Carter so under the river you don't keep the data or the reports everything

goes to DOJ so if a council person wanted information on how many stops searches in

season whatever in a 30 day period would sacked you to be be able to provide that information

I would not have the correct answer for you right now so I would have to go back and it has

that question to our IT person so I really don't know the answer for you okay so I would assume

that we have some data I don't know what that data is and I don't know if that what that

would have to be scrubbed for public release so we we do have the data and we do give the DOJ it

doesn't go away right there is retention periods so I'm assuming we would have the raw data but

that's that's my assumption okay but you're gonna look into it and so come back when it answered for me

okay thank you

Vice Chairman Rossero oh I already said what I needed to

go yeah I would I'm wondering if the department can produce a list just of like what of the what

you read off of the required rip of data and what's not required or if there's a besides the DOJs

webpage where on the Sacramento City page can we find this information especially the open

crime data portal two things there I think right you were asking about yeah the the the

where people could find it or in the government code and law that's where I took all that out of

right so that's that's all that stuff comes out of when you can and cannot do it and the califers

code of regulations covers that also and the second was what was your second question where they

can find the open data portal that the city manages that includes this rip of data yeah and give

me one second I'll give you an answer I believe it's on our transparency page I pulled it up through

links before so let me I could report back on that because I know we're getting towards the end of

time here but I'll keep looking if you want to continue on yeah yeah I think that would be a request

that we would like to have for that for next meeting for the next meeting to bring up during a

staff and commissioner comments are there last call for any questions from commission

if not this is this item is since this item has received a file no votes going to be required so

moving on to the last item staff and commissioner comments ideas questions and announcements

are there any commissioners who wish to speak

chair just report back real quick it's it's data.cityofstacrimino.org and if you go down you go

down halfway there's animal care budget finance and public safety is one of the grouping of like

eight things and you get on the open data portal there so data.cityofstacrimino.org

thanks for saying that in the public record.

We only got 10 minutes left in this meeting and I want to get you out of here. I did want to

address a particular comment that was levied at me earlier but it's a bit personal because

the question came up it was one of the first things I heard after the community meeting that I

thought went decently well compared with like how much time we had within it which was around

a sticker on my laptop and I just want to note that as like appointed community members who

are not paid to be at these meetings we are volunteers we're not public employees and

the phrase that was uttered which in full actually says if the police means we don't act like

cops to each other is a cultural expression that was given to me from my brother.

Many years ago long before I joined the commission this phrase and what like whatever we may say

publicly outside of this body is protected by the first amendment so I'm not really obligated to

explain what the cultural significance of that is but just for the record the phrase is a cultural

expression from a collection of writings from the creators of a popular podcast called Effing Canceled

and the podcast and creators actually seek to challenge cancel culture,

identityarianism and social justice orthodoxy and progressive and activist spaces in order to

build an effective and organized movement based in solidarity and collaboration rather than

vitriol and sectarianism and the writers advocate for a shift in how communities approach accountability

and conflict in a way that fosters a more compassionate trauma informed and liberatory culture by

challenging punitive and authoritarian approaches prevalent in cancel culture so as to encourage

dialogue around complex issues like harm reduction survivor autonomy and the importance of

descent and ultimately promote a vision of community building that prioritizes understanding

and transformation over punishment and exclusion. In short the stickers actually are criticism

of cultural views that are on the quote unquote left and a criticism by I would thank many people

across the political spectrum would share but most importantly the phrase also just just by the

phrase that was mentioned F the police by itself is also a culture expression proper lies as far

back as the 1990s if you read the lyrics to NWA's hit song after the police and the communities

that I and the community that I come from many of whom are black like me the police are rarely

perceived as honorable or compassionate peacekeepers but rather as punitive authoritarians who target

black and brown people for suspicion and often violence over police marginalized communities and

ways that disrupt our daily lives and who have caused lasting harm to our physical and mental well-being.

In the commission's official community trauma acknowledgement that we read last July we expressly

admit that historically marginalized people and their communities have suffered significantly

negative impacts from current policies and the culture of U.S. law enforcement from the loss of

basic civil rights and liberties to irreverable trauma and death including preventable deaths

and the evidence for these systemic racial disparities is well documented overwhelming especially

here in Sacramento where it's been documented no less than four separate studies over the last 20

years alone and even drawing attention internationally from the United Nations Office of High

Commissioner for Human Rights. So in short the sticker is a rejection of the idea that we as

civilians should emulate the tactics fear-based tactics within our communities that are often

they're often expressed against us by certain members and of law enforcement not all but some

as such tactics rely upon fear in the threat of violence or pain as a means of particular

worries compliance to another's will. Instead it advocates for an approach that prioritizes

healing change and accountability over mere punishment or coercion so that we can actually foster

more supportive and inclusive community for everyone regardless of their identity or belief.

I was happy to explain this to the person that actually approached me after the meeting during

that time and tried to do my best to do it on the fly to the Assistant City Manager as well who

loved you the comment. What could have been a learning moment actually became an instance

another and a long line of complaints since the St. I first joined where the comment

an email was sent to me asking about the cultural expression and then forwarded to the City

Manager's office who then forwarded to City Council demanding they take action and as much as I

understand that it can you know that it may appear outrageous to some with it who don't understand

it or who aren't from my culture. I want to be very clear if a sticker on a laptop is enough to

cause the City Manager or the Chief of Police or anybody within the City staff to want to disengage

with me or the rest of the Commission then I don't believe for a minute that they had any serious

intention of building trust of engaging in trust building or collaboration with us let a

loading good thing and it's something that I continue to deal with as I approach the end of my

term and deciding whether I actually continue on this body or not because it's knowing what I

went through and this being one of the fourth complaint based on personal disagreements of my

first amendment protecting speech I don't know how I can recommend other people like me or from

my community to actually participate in this process. I find it I find it petty and I find it

ridiculous and for all the effort that's taken that's been taken over the years to exclude me

which has taken up months of time we could have actually like been used the City could have been

using that effort to actually engage with more people like me who just like who feel the same way

that I do who have experiences the same like the same experiences that I have and actually include

us in the conversation and make sure that we're actually there rather than trying to exclude us

and target us for punishment. So with that said in the last few months of which I'm serving on

this Commission I'm not going to engage I find this this conduct in these complaints about my

personal speech to be just unprofessional it's unbecoming and it's a waste of city resources

time and effort for this Commission for me and for the rest of the community. So with that said

I'm not going to engage any further unprofessional behavior about about first amendment protective

speech going forward I just wanted to put that on the record with that is it last call for any

commissioner questions or comments that concludes today's meeting me and adjourned