Good evening everyone and welcome to the Monday December 9th, 2024 special 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 members, please unmute your microphones. Commissioner Sample,

President. Commissioner John Johnson is absent. Commissioner Z Johnson is absent. Commissioner Carter Martinez.

President. Vice-chair Boen Rostro.

President. Commissioner Griggs.

President. Commissioner Landeros is absent. Commissioner Smith is absent. Commissioner Castillo Crinks.

With my screen. There you go. Here. Commissioner Espinoza Salazar. Here. And Chair Bliss. Here. Thank you. We have quorum.

Thank you everyone. I'd like to remind members of the public and chambers. If you would like to speak on an agenda item,

please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins. And to provide greater transmitting participation.

Our commissions work will also allow more time for members of the public to give comments and will ask the clerk

to accept speaker slips until the final speaker has concluded their comments. Given that this is a special meeting,

I'm, or I was informed that there are no matters. There's no public comments on for matters on the agenda for this evening.

But for matters listed on the agenda, you will have, you will have at least five minutes to speak once you are called upon.

We will now proceed with today's agenda. We'll please rise for the opening announcements and honor of Sacramento's Indigenous People and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, Valley and Plains, Miwok, the Patlin-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 together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's Indigenous People's history, contributions and lives.

Thank you. I will now turn it over to the Vice Chair to give the pleasure to leave this.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to their public who withstands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everyone.

So our first business of the day is approval of the consent calendar, which includes item number one, Office of Public Safety Accountability, Quarterly Reports, Quarter Two and Quarter Three.

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

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

Thank you, and I would like to pull it off of consent to ask a few questions of OPSA representatives who are here with us today.

And just as they're getting up there, are there any commissioners who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

All right. Good evening, commissioners, City staff, Jody Johnson, Assistant Director for OPSA. I hear to answer any questions or concerns you may have about the quarterly reports.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciated the Quarterly Activity Reports for Q2 and Q3. I noted that a couple, I have a few questions just to ask that are relevant to.

What we've reviewed in the past for annual reports and quarterly reports, as well as some items that we have that concern OPSA in our annual report and recommendations that we'll be discussing later tonight.

First off, I noted that OPSA did not include internal cases in the complaint demographics data set. And I was just curious to know what additional age, gender, race, ethnicity categories does OPSA track in those activity reports?

One second.

Oh, I'm so curious.

Is there any demographics?

One second, please.

All right.

All right. Just had to confirm real quick. There is no additional demographic data that is tracked outside of what's in the report.

So that's kind of what we have. That's trackable.

Gotcha. I was just noticing that on the second quarter of reports page 10, where I said percentage is may not add up due to rounding and internal cases not included in the data set.

So that was what reason I was asking that. I am curious to know regarding the usual process for OPSA's review of SPD complaint cases.

I was wondering if there is an average timeframe or general or recommended time for OPSA to complete a thorough review or investigation of SPD or SFD complaint cases. How long does it usually take?

So every case is different. So there's no way to kind of give you a first point of that. We do have a what's called a time bar for when PD does start the initial investigation for it to be completed.

So we try to complete within those time bars, which is 12 months. But there is no way to kind of say this case, some take five, 10 days.

We have more information to the next. More can body warm cameras and information for the investigators go through. So there's no way to kind of just pigeon hole.

This is a clear cut. But we try to get through it as efficiently as possible. So that way there's a closed date and an end point for every case of review.

So I think that that's a good point. I think that. Do you happen to know the time bar for SPD investigation is to complete?

Yes, the time bar is 12 months, so a year from the date of the complaint. But that is a HR component for PD. I know the representative might be able to answer that one, but that's not my role well, but I know it is 12 months by statute.

So that's 12 month period. It's generally required in a city code that SPD turnover all documentation of its investigations to OBSA in time.

That's all right.

So.

Gotcha. Have there been any instances where the internal affairs division takes most, if not, or almost all of the 12 month period before turning over investigation materials to OBSA?

Sure, there are some instances where that happens, but again, there's no way to kind of just pigeonhole that because every investigation is going to have more details than others, especially on PD side.

I know that they have to interview.

People are involved with this is finding so there's no way to say 12 months is done, but that is a personnel piece for PD.

How long that takes? We can't control it. All we can do is track the when the client comes in and when we get it, that's all we can do.

Gotcha. I noticed from past reports, there are a number of complaint allegations that OBSA was not able to review within a given time frame of the year.

And the 2023 report noted that there was 175 SPD complaints or 61% that were not reviewed.

And then in 2022 was 48% or 163 allegations. And then in 2021, there was 103 or 61% that were not reviewed.

Do you know what the status is looking like for this year's recommendations and why would there be such a such a large backlog with that?

So just a full disclosure, anything that happened prior to June 2024, I wouldn't have knowledge of it.

I received a position during that time. However, I appreciate you.

Hello, Commissioner. Dr. Leticia Watson, Director of OBSA.

Your question was, and just for your patience, Mr. Johnson hasn't been with OBSA very long. So anything you asked last year, the year before, is going to have to be me who answers the question because we're trying to get everyone trained and ready to go.

So you asked about previous years. And what was the question again about all the different years?

I was curious to know what is the reason for the large backlog on the PD side of things. I noticed that 100% of SFD Sacramento Fire Department's investigations are usually complete year to year.

But SPD is the one that typically has the largest backlog when it comes to complaint, complaint activities.

Okay, so we're probably confusing you. The backlog is, there are always is a backlog with SPD, but that is what you're reading is not about the backlog.

What you're reading is is that when I took position in May of 2020, I believe it was November that I decided that we were reviewed 100% of SFD.

So the fire departments, allegations of misconduct and complaints, I did not have the staffing to look at all the allegations of misconduct for police.

So that was the reason why council supported my recommendation and my presentation in 2023 that I needed more resources because OBSA cannot talk about trends and patterns and things like that when you want to look at a certain portion or percentage of allegations of misconduct and complaints that are reported.

So I hope that with getting two of my employees just last week out of training, my investigators that as of January, I'll be able to say that we also look at 100% of SPDs as well, not just SFD.

So that's the percentages that you're looking at in each quarterly report is talking about what we're able to do with the resources that we have.

So all of the cases that have not been reviewed by OBSA, it is not the fault of SPD or SFD. That is the resource that was allotted to this office from the beginning.

Gotcha. I appreciate that response. I think that's the only question I had in terms of anything sort of prior years.

Other than that, although I do have a question around trends or patterns that OBSA has noticed in this year's report compared to previous years.

We can't really say or identify, it's very difficult to say something as a trend or pattern where you're not even looking at half of what is going on.

So that is the reason why you don't see any generalizations in the quarterly reports because that is, you're not able to obtain validity when you don't look at as much as information that you need to.

And then you can really dive into it. The only issue I'll tell you with limitations from the audit that we did, it wasn't long enough.

And I've come before to speak about the first audit that OBSA did in 2023. One of the biggest limitations is I only look back for two years and really you want to look back five to seven years.

We just didn't have the staffing to do that and to maintain looking at case reviews and things like that.

But the goal with all the new staffing that we were able to hire is to be able to do both at the same time.

That's good to know. I noticed.

Well, I guess my, my biggest question I would ask is whether like how the commission in the community might be able to help OBSA have more meaningful input within.

I'm aware that there have been multiple recommendations issued calling for SPD to create a standalone policy requiring progressive disciplinary matrix.

I guess to frame out what I'm, my question of thinking, does OBSA have recommendations for the, in terms of,

does OBSA actually track the number of officers who receive multiple sustained complaints or have any input on disciplinary actions or measures?

No, we do not. One of the things that we've talked about multiple times since you've been in your, your role is that once we have a recent agreement with regards to the disposition of each allegation and each complaint.

OBSA, that means OBSA and SFD, OBSA and SPD, then OBSA jurisdiction is gone. We have no jurisdiction, no jurisdiction or no, we don't have anything in our scope that deals with discipline.

We don't have to ask outside of what we do. So we don't talk about, we don't address what should happen with a particular employee once it's determined that they did something wrong. That is on the size of the public safety organizations and is outside of OBSA.

Gotcha.

Actually, I just printed another question I had, which was this is also have any jurisdiction to investigate internal complaints regarding pay discrepancies or compensation issues within the department.

One has complained about that, are you mean just to go in and look at something that has to do with paid discrepancies?

Complaints.

Complaints. Anything that has to do with the complaint or allegation of misconduct, we have the authority and the jurisdiction to look at the problem with OBSA census inception in 1999 is that the office has never had the staffing to look at everything.

We don't have to change that we're reaching for for 2024. But as far as just looking at different topics or looking at the jurisdiction that you all have where you can say we're looking at this particular policy and we want to look at best practices of other organizations and see if we need to change our policy and this organization.

We don't do that. Well, we have what we deal with is allegations of misconduct and then what we also deal with is investigations that deal with the public being seriously injured or killed by public safety.

Got it. That's good to know.

I noted there were several recommendations over the past couple of years around in the annual reports that referenced turning over investigation materials and holding and waiting before disciplinary actions were were changed over in 2023.

There were a few that appeared to have not been acted upon or least as it was noted in the report have the recommend one of the status of the recommendations that OBSA has issued to the department.

Tell me again. Are you talking about the audit or are you talking about just general recommendations.

Well, actually, I was talking about the general recommendations, but I also was curious to know the status of the audit recommendations are as well.

What I'll say is is anything that is being worked on as far as the audit. I'll have to let SPD talk about that. What I will say is is that we're waiting on policies to be finished.

So we can have policies, we can have training, we can do a lot of things in policing, but if we don't ensure that it comes to fruition when we deal with people in normal day to day interactions in the field, then the policies and the training mean nothing.

So that's what I talk a lot about. Yes, we need the policies because we've identified the policies that need modification or that don't exist that they need to have.

But at the end of the day, once the policy is done, I'm looking forward to the training being modified to make sure it encompasses what's in the policy, but I'm also looking forward to making sure that officers that means new officers in the academy and that also means officers through in service who are already on the force going through this training to make sure they understand the application of what has been changed.

And then they are therefore we have first line supervisors paying attention with our out on calls to make sure that what they have saw in their policy, what they have learned and training is actually being implemented when you deal with somebody.

That's the most important thing. And that takes a lot of time. So I'm not expecting anything, especially when you talk about the key issues that I've identified with search and seizure.

I'm not saying anything needs to be done overnight, but we should be making incremental steps as time goes by to make sure that we see it when we happen when we deal with people in the community.

I agree with that. And while last question was going to be around the inspector general's investigations, I think you remember a few years ago we had requested a presentation from the inspector general around officer involved shootings, but we were informed that we can't have that presentation until it goes before the city manager and city council, I believe.

You know, oops, when you talk about any reports or anything that we do it goes before council first, but what we talked about with the inspector general is that the inspector general is essentially equivalent to a homicide investigator at another agency rather sacrament or any organization in the country.

And those are your most extensive investigations in any organization and they take years. So that is what you're waiting on. So it can, you know, it can be two years, it can be three, it just depends on all of the outside entities that an organization waits on because you don't have a police organization in this country that handles all their own forensics, all their own.

So as we send stuff out and we wait for the reports to come back. So you can't finalize an investigation of that magnitude without having the autopsy and all this other stuff that you need in order to determine what happened and what should have happened or if any policies have been violated administratively or criminally.

So it's a lot of moving pieces when you start talking about the concurrent investigations of the inspector general and it's slow and that's just the easiest way to put it is very slow sometimes it can be three years, sometimes it can be two, it just depends on what happened.

You know, with the individual, how many people were involved, how many officers were involved, what happened with the victim. So it takes a lot.

The turnaround time, I know that the way the position was announced and a lot of the news surrounding the position may have been misleading because that investigation, no matter who does it, is not fast.

What has been the turnaround time, but my understanding when we've talked about this in the past, a lot of it had to do with whether the inspector general was getting the investigation materials.

No, there's been no issues. I can say that there's no issues as far as the investigating material and things like that. It's just low, depending on who you're waiting on to get the information from because everything does not come from from SPD.

It depends on what it is that you're talking about the support of the investigation that you need to have for the entire complete investigation.

So it just it just depends on what you're waiting on.

That's all my question. Are there any other commissioners who had questions or want to comment? Commissioner Landaros.

I just have a question. Is the ability to file a complaint online in multiple languages? Is there access to multiple languages or just in English?

The city is in multiple languages. The city has a brand new website. It's not when you click on OBSA doesn't have it in multiple languages.

That has to be transitioned over as well. But through the city there are different avenues.

We don't get a whole lot of online complaints but we do get a lot of phone calls.

When we have to then we have to see the last trace later in order to find out what it is that they're calling for and what is that they need help with.

A lot of times though we found that we get a lot of complaints for counting.

And we have no jurisdiction over that. So we have to make sure my staff has to make sure that we do our best to not just say we don't do that and hang up to provide them with the avenue in order to file it with who they need to file it with and not just leave it as it is saying we don't have jurisdiction over that.

So we try to make sure our customer service is quality as well.

You welcome.

I see no other commissioners on cue for questions. Thank you, Dr. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Appreciate your time today.

And with that is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

I move approval of the consent. A calendar?

I have a motion by Commissioner Sample and a second by Commissioner Carter Martinez. Will the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you chair commissioners. If you could please unmute your microphones. Commissioner Sample.

Commissioner J Johnson.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

Commissioner Carter Martinez.

Vice Chair Boone Rostro.

I Commissioner Griggs.

I Commissioner Landeros.

Commissioner Smith is absent. Commissioner Castillo Krings.

I.

Commissioner Espinoza Salazar.

I.

And chair Bliss.

Yes.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, clerk and commission.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar and we had a PowerPoint ready to go through some of these items.

So we'll just get that here set up.

Our next item is the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission's evaluation of SPD's implementation of 2020 recommendations.

Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you.

So those of you that have had a chance to read these recommendations.

So earlier this year we received the written responses from the police department regarding the 37 recommendations of the commission had approved and submitted to the department in early 2021.

Those included recommendations concerning mental health or discipline and accountability.

It included mental health and also included internal recommendations and procedures for the commission itself.

And they were taken company with a rationale which provided more specific information for each item.

And through the police office's professional standards unit, they were assigned to receive, analyze and research and update policies and procedures as well as organize those responses to which they submitted in cases where the recommendation was not within their domain or ones in which it was appropriate for other city departments they noted.

Each recommendation is accompanied with the following dispositions as listed on the screen there which they had indicated they approved and implemented 14 recommendations and approved and had at least two pending or had started implementation.

So there were really six partial implementations and 14 that were unable to implement which were involved exclusively on the internal procedures for the commission itself and then one that was denied.

Following the commission's evaluation which is between SPD and subgroup of commissioners that included the chair and vice chair each response we had evaluated and is company within evaluation which is in the agenda packet with one of the following dispositions.

Based on our evaluation we had found that only four were approved and implemented with two partially and at least two started or as the PD indicated approved and were pending and then at least two that we thought were pending for review but the vast majority of which were not implemented.

And those rationales for why they weren't are included within the agenda packet. I would just know one of the biggest pushes and frustrations has been around the turnaround time to our responses which have unfortunately negated or made some of these recommendations obsolete.

And a lot of that didn't have to do with individual staff we actually had a good rapport with the representative from the professional standards unit that came through but we evaluated that a lot of the hold up and getting our recommendations turned around and getting a response what had to do with leadership at the top.

Not really structural issues by our recommendations particularly the chief and city manager made it very hard for us to get through a lot of these recommendations which there's still backlog and we have yet to receive responses for 21 22 and some of 23.

Based on the time that has passed and based on discussion that we had last last month or an November meeting we had made we the following recommendations were re evaluated to be removed from consideration by the council simply because there have been since those recommendations were approved and drafted and approved.

The creation of the Department of Community Response as well as the county's establishment of the community wellness response team program has made some of these recommendations obsolete so we had I'm recommending that seven of the mental health ad hoc recommendations be removed from consideration most of those were not implemented or had pending for the review.

But they're no longer relevant and future commissioners may choose to revisit those recommendations at their own discretion which will be part of the work plan conversation coming up.

The one recommendation I would suggest I would recommend maintaining was mental health ad hoc recommendation number five which was to hire trained mental health professionals to screen 911 dispatch calls and appropriately divert service requests to the office of community response or other community based mental health response teams such as the community wellness.

I think that still is a timely recommendation and to date haven't seen whether this is ultimately implemented within the overall policies that were given back to us or it was partially implemented according to the department.

But there is which they identify saying there does not exist any community based well mental health response teams available officers and were unable to implement and required further input from other city departments.

So with that the recommendation is to approve the proposed evaluation of the SPD's implementation of our 2020 recommendations and direct the chair and vice chair to finalize the evaluations for inclusion in our 2024 annual report and other apical reports as needed.

Do I clerk are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item.

Thank you chair. I have no speaker slips on this item.

Thank you and are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item.

Commissioner Castillo.

Thank you chair. Just just a clarification when we're talking when we're looking at the recommendation is the idea to include the 2020 recommendations as part of the 2024 annual report but not necessarily to move the recommendations forward to the PPN and E committee.

Not by themselves would be part of the 2024 annual report.

But it would be part of the report in order for council or the actual committee to consider whether they want to do anything with the 2020 recommendations or not.

Correct. It would be like they were the intention for the 2024 report is to include all of our previous recommendations that have been submitted to council for further for consideration that we have approved.

So this was going to be a part of those additional recommendations sets.

I think we were able to understand the last conversation from our last meeting.

What I thought we were doing was basically summarizing all of our recommendations up to 2024 to ensure that the future commissions had everything in one document that they could then come back and decide whether from 2018 to 2023 review what pertinent information they wanted to kind of dust off and say we need to review based on current changes to state law.

So I think that the city and try to then update and provide new recommendations to city council.

But I thought that we were basically going to provide them for transparency and awareness of both the public and future commission without necessarily an expectation that the committee or city council would necessarily take action.

I think you're understanding of the last community conversation and welcome other commissioners to chime in and if they agree was that all of these recommendations rather than just the handful that were there would be kept out of the annual report or would not be carried on.

So just a distinction they would be included in the annual report because I think that would it would be the only document that actually has a summary of all of the recommendations in one place.

As opposed to having everybody searched for them anywhere.

However, the expectation is that we're kind of closing that chapter recognizing that we are no longer going to necessarily talk about a backlog.

And that way it would reset the conversation with city council and what the new commission could then set a priority and the focus for our hope would be right because some of the commission are not going to be here.

The hope would be that the new commission would basically prioritize figuring out what the duties of the commission are.

A process by which the work can actually be accomplished and city council can act on it.

And then from there figure out for themselves what priorities they want to work on and it might be that it's a 2025 work plan that can start the guidance.

But I thought that again, I think it's kind of resetting that conversation and hoping that we can move forward and have a more efficient and effective commission moving forward.

Commissioner sample.

I just want to piggyback that's kind of what I thought the that we left off last time is what we were going to do.

So I would agree with Commissioner Castillo Craig on this.

But that was my understanding.

Commissioner Wayne Johnson.

We're going to make this a three hump camel.

You know, I kind of remember it the same the same way on it.

You know, and and part of our discussion was just over the fact that every time we have new membership come on board.

It's tough to get them to understand what the big picture is about what the work has been here to for.

And so we want to set a recommendation and that therefore we wanted to capture everything in this 2024 report on it.

And together with what the issue what the issue or recommendation is what is the status of that on implemented not so forth.

So one breathing living document.

Right.

That as opposed to having to constantly go back to you know a whole series of emails and you know minutes and so forth captured one time as part of the year and close up which starts us off with the next year.

Commissioner Griggs.

For Humps.

We need to have one comprehensive document that provides all the information for the people coming in.

We not only have new commissioners coming in.

We have new council members coming in.

So it's going to make it much easier for them to understand if they have a list of the items that we've talked about over the past.

I mean, there's still items.

I've only been here a little not even a year.

And I think it confused at times with all the different types of paperwork that we have to go through just to find what we're talking about.

So therefore I believe that we need to change that document and make it a comprehensive document that it's going to provide information for the people that are coming in so we can all talk about it correctly.

Speaking for myself is I don't think there's a disagreement on my end.

I agree that we like to list all of those recommendations within the annual report.

That was the intention and it was going to be like I understood that the future commission would use that as just a place in time to like be able to assess and understand that.

So the recommendation for this particular item for the 2020 recommendations is to approve what has been evaluated so that it can be attached to include it within the 2024 and the report.

Does that make sense?

I'm okay with that.

The way you said it sounded as if we were going to only provide those items that have been approved already and it's kind of like a blanket approval that I don't agree with.

Okay, go ahead.

I think it sounds like then we're all on the same page.

I think all everything is going to be included and then just for clarity then I would modify the motion for number two to basically say for the chair and vice chair to finalize the evaluations for inclusion in 2024 annual report period.

Okay.

And I think that would clarify and then again I think given all the work that has happened so all of it is going to be compiled all of the from 2018 to 2023 all of those recommendations are going to be continue to be included in the annual report.

Understanding that our main or the main focus for the future commission is going to be for the recommendations that are included for 2024.

Correct. So just cutting off that second like that second part of the motion which I believe is just added there as a placeholder.

I think it's a standard so yes that I think we're in agreement.

Do I have a.

Oh I'm sorry commissioner vice chair of when rostrum.

Yes, just quick question on the recommendation here to maintain the 2020 mental health ad hoc recommendation number five so is in 10 or my understanding is that that would now be treated as an additional.

So is that not necessarily I was intending to just stay within the same set.

It's part of the same report so yeah essentially as we talk about the next topic it could be that the next commission looks at it and they they re elevate this to them as something that they might want to look at.

Okay.

With that sounds like we're all in agreement.

Do I have a motion to approve the.

Just to ask that we clean up that original motion to what we have discussed now and stated.

By itself rather than add on or take away so just one motion please.

The motion that's on or that I'm here on the table and would you like to be the or I'll just speak speak out is to recommendation is to approve.

The proposed evaluations for 2020 recommendations for the inclusion in the 2024 in a report.

Is that the motion that's on the table is that do I have a motion in a second.

Second.

Actually we need a person who agrees with that motion who follows motion.

All right.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Brebroker city clerk's office there was in the recommendation also a part two directing chair and vice chair to finalize evaluations for inclusion the 2024 annual report.

Right.

And stopping there is what I heard correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Motion by commissioner Castillo crings and a second by commissioner Wayne Johnson will clerk please call the roll.

Thank you chair commissioner sample I commissioner J Johnson I commissioner Z Johnson I commissioner Carter Martinez I vice chair Gwen Roestrow I commissioner Griggs I commissioner

Desmond Darros I commissioner Smith is absence commissioner Castillo crings I commissioner Espinoza Salazar I chair bliss yes thank you the motion passes.

Thank you clerk and commissioners will now move on to the next item which is item three the proposed 2025 work plan and the associated ad hoc committees.

Thank you.

Turn over to vice chair Ben Roestrow.

Okay.

So I'm going to do a brief overview of the 2025 work plan and also answer any questions just in case I'm not as clear and might create some confusion.

So thank you chair bliss for the slides that that you created.

I think something to just ground us in the conversation or the recent changes to Sacramento city code that will impact the way that this commission can do its work next year.

So the main change that I want to highlight is that the city boards committees and commissions may once again form ad hoc committees and subcommittee.

So this is again going to allow us to be able to do some of this work hopefully in smaller groups and being able to move some of the work plan forward.

The second piece is the absence policy I just want to remind folks that that commissioners are now allowed up to three absences during the calendar year.

So again that's during the calendar year.

So if a commissioner misses more than three absences they must notify the city clerk.

And the city clerk must send written notice and consult with the point council member and then lastly.

City commissioners may continue to serve until they are reaffirmed or a successor is appointed by the city council.

So essentially my interpretation of that is that as commissioners we can continue to serve until there's a new appointment done by or a pointing officer or council member.

Okay so briefly going over the first section of the of this report which covers the proposed goals and objectives.

So let me make sure that I find the right language here.

So as we think about the proposed goals and objectives that is going to ground the work for this commission.

The first goal and objective is to strengthen the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission and its working relationship with the Sacramento Police Department and the city council.

So this again is a continuation of the conversations that we had with city council this past year around the proposed joint workshop.

So the language here is that we would request for their for that joint workshop to happen or other comparable engagements that can address the city auditor's recommendations in October of 2023.

Some of the things that we want to see through this work and I think this is foundational to the to what we want to accomplish next year.

We want to make sure that we are clarifying the purpose, powers and duties of the of this commission.

We want to improve the inner workings of this commission by identifying dedicated staffing and additional resources.

Obviously the implied understanding here is that if we do identify what we need in additional resources that does have to be a conversation with the city council through the process.

The other piece of this is one we want to make sure that we continue to improve the relationship in cooperation between this commission, the Sacramento Police Department, the Office of Public Safety and Accountability and the city council.

And we want to make sure that we do whatever we can together to improve those relationships.

And then the last piece and I forgot to mention as we were working on this we got feedback from various commissioners.

So I just want to thank Commissioner Landeros, Commissioner Castillo Cranx, Commissioner Salazar for your input and obviously chair bliss for your input.

Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your feedback.

And again the last piece under strengthening the commission and its relationship is establishing a suggested on board and professional learning plan for commissioners.

And obviously this is suggested there's nothing that is required but we want to make sure that we are proactive in creating a list of options and opportunities for commissioners to engage with Sacramento Police Department and relevant city of Sacramento Department so that we can better understand the way that these entities work and better understand the work that is ahead of us.

So this can include attending the citizens police academy attending a right along and also identifying conferences and other relevant topics and conversations where we might be able to learn more about the work that we're doing.

So that's go number one under the 2025 work plan.

Next is go number two and that one is to ensure timely responses to recommendations and I'm going to just highlight this for the 2025 work plan.

We are specifically highlighting timely responses to the 2024 recommendations.

So the focus for the recommendations for this next calendar year is going to be the recommendations that we are proposing for 2024.

And as we do this we want to make sure that we continue to create a clear process with the department with the Sacramento Police Department and the city council in terms of what we hope to see in terms of timelines for this.

So some proposed timelines that we see here in the work plan is that we want this commission to present all of our 2024 recommendations to the city council but by the end of the second quarter of 2025.

So we want to make sure that we are putting these recommendations in front of the council by the end of the second quarter.

And we also are requesting for the police department to provide complete responses to all of the 2024 recommendations by the end of this next calendar year.

And as we do that we want to continue to work with the city council to establish clear and consistent processes for reviewing this commission's recommendations moving forward.

So hopefully as we focus next year the focus on just making sure that we focus on the 2024 recommendations.

Hopefully that allows next year's commission to you know to have a more guided process and to have a clear process in terms of what recommendations we're going to be looking at for that year.

Now the second part of this piece is as we mentioned before.

For all of the outstanding recommendations from previous years we are not going to discard them completely what we want to do with them is allow the commission next year to establish an ad hoc committee where they can review consult with community members and decide on which recommendations if any or to prioritize and or update for city council and SPD recommendation.

So essentially what what what next year's commission would do is they would have the option to take a look at all of the previous year recommendations.

And as they update them as they review new changes to the law.

They can make a decision about which of those recommendations they want to put forward and they the theory here is that they would be adding them to the 2025 work plan as 2025 recommendations to be considered in the next year cycle for this commission.

So I'll pause there.

Can I pause for questions as I feel like it's okay so I'll pause there just because there's any questions on the first two goals.

And if not I'll go through the next two.

Commission.

I'd like to add in on one D when it talks about suggested onboarding professional learning plan for commissioners.

I had an opportunity a few weeks ago to spend the day with the the police department at the academy day and I had a great time.

I got a chance to meet several officers talk to them.

I also get a chance to speak with the chief for about an hour and a half.

And there was no question that she would not answer.

And I highly recommend all of you should attend that the academy day or do a right along.

Do something to learn about the police department and the people that we're supposed to be advising.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Appreciate those comments and I think that's the goal that we have.

And I think that's not that these were not opportunities that have been available to the commission but it's just making sure that we're more more proactive.

About making commission or so aware of it and encouraging folks to attend those opportunities.

There's no more questions on the I'll go on to the next two goals.

The goal number three is around engaging the community.

And this is really around making sure that we organize up to three community engagement forums in 2025.

So there's three topics that we identified.

The first topic is the topic that we do every year making sure that we have that forum on the police department's military equipment use policy as mandated by assembly bill 481.

And then the other two topics would be to have a forum on the Sacramento police department's traffic safety enforcement.

And then the third topic would be a forum on community engagement programs and initiatives.

And we identified specific programs here that we want to make sure that we cover this includes drive safe Sacramento homeless and mental health outreach LGBTQ plus outreach and police use you've services and programs.

And then lastly recommendation for is around evaluating Sacramento police department resource allocation and efficiency at impacting public safety.

So a few things to highlight here for this go number four is for this one the commission would review and evaluate Sacramento police department goals and keep performance metrics to measure the impacts to public safety.

They would provide recommendations to the well that the commission will provide recommendations to the Sacramento to this commission to the Sacramento police department and the city council for future actions and policy changes.

So that is a fourth goal.

As you take a look at the next section section of the work plan we see the 2025 policy focus areas.

So here's where I want to highlight what we hope you see a some alignment between the policy focus areas and the goals.

These policy focus areas the proposal here is that they're clearly connected to the goals and that these would involve the creation of an ad hoc to cover each of these policy focus areas.

So essentially what we're proposing here is a policy focus area a would be one of the ad hoc that we propose for the commission in this ad hoc would focus on Sacramento community police review commission engagement and functions.

So for this ad hoc they would focus on goals number one and number two so making sure that they focus on the commission's functionings and making sure that they also focus on goal number two around ensuring ensuring time the responses to the 2024 recommendations.

So this is a focus area B is focused on community policing and response efficiency.

This folks that do this focus area would focus on reviewing Sacramento police department policies and trainings related to community engagement and public safety strategies.

This includes all of the programs that I mentioned before and goal number three including drive safe Sacramento homeless and mental health outreach and other programs.

So that would work on this focus area would also be tasked with organizing and helping organize the forums for community engagement.

And then lastly focus area C would focus on goal number four and that would be the that Hock and commissioners a focus on Sacramento police department resource allocation and efficiency impacting public safety.

Those are the goals in the focus areas the last section of the report includes a 2025 meeting calendar this calendar is not completely filled out what it does include are some actions that we identified as needing to happen within each quarter of 2025 and then some proposed actions that we would like to see happen.

So for example on that proposed calendar we have some potential timelines for when we will that for when we would like to see some of the workshops to engage the public.

So for example in the first quarter we are proposing to do a workshop with the city council to talk about improving the the functioning of the commission within the second quarter of April April through June.

We want to make sure that we have covered at least one of the community engagement forums during that time.

And then during quarter three July through September we would continue to see the work of that Hock committees and during that quarter third quarter we would like to see the two additional community community engagement forums happen.

And then during the last quarter that's when this commission would finalize the 2025 recommendations and draft the 2025 annual report.

The last thing that I forgot to mention about that Hock and the topic areas the policy focus areas is that as the commissioners working on those policy focus areas they would be able to place things on the agenda for the commission and also proposed recommendations for 2025.

So I'll stop there and pass to see if there's any questions.

Commissioner Carter Martinez.

I don't have any questions I just want to say I really like the way the report was put together it's very easy to follow and I really appreciate the work that was put into it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Castillo Crenz.

One echo kind of the same sentiments looks very well put together and very easy to follow which is going to be the easiest for new commissioners.

I was hoping that we could do one tiny tweak on page three of the report and right now it talks about determined at the very bottom the last.

The last point under goals is talked about determine which outstanding previous year recommendations and I just want to revise that from 2020 from 2018 through 2023.

Just to make sure that they don't think that somehow they're precluded from visiting previous ones.

Would you like to make that change throughout the whole document wherever we talk about previously recommendation that would be great thank you.

Commissioner sample.

Yeah just want to give a huge affirmation like the flow of this like House of Sinkton very clear and I think it really does provide a nice roadmap for the future commission so great job on this.

Second that.

Commissioner question to comments.

Commissioner Griggs.

Yes just also I think you guys did a great job. I know it took a lot of work put this together and I appreciate it as well.

I would like to ask about item number four though.

I look at these these goals and I'm wondering if this commission can provide such a broad scope here.

I would like to evaluate the SPD goals and keep performance metrics to measure the impacts of public or to public safety.

How are we going to do that with this commission.

And we have new commissioners coming in so there's can I perhaps can I just mention a few of the research and outreach items that are under policy focus area C page four.

Those items help the commissioners with how they might evaluate resource SPD resources and allocation and the goals.

So with this we would be requesting the Sacramento police department to provide a presentation to this commission on their annual goals and objectives and key investments to meet them so hopefully through those conversations and that presentation but I would imagine that there could be additional conversations we this commission will be able to get some better understanding of that and be able to do.

And initial evaluation based on that just just seems like a rather broad broad request on item a and then item B.

That's basically what our responsibility is as a commission is to provide those those observations and requests and make advice so that's already part of our job so my question is do we need to state it again.

So I think it's implied within all of these goals.

It just seems redundant is what is why I asked.

So are you recommending that we just take that part out that's just that's my recommendation since it's sincerely responsibility.

I don't see a problem with that. So you know the commissioners the screen.

So the man minutes is just take out B from.

And then I'm sorry I just I don't I just don't see how we as a commission can provide all this information letter A.

We'll certainly try and work on it if that's the approval of the board but it seems rather broad.

And I understand you're you're asking for the the least apart.

The least apartment to provide presentation for us but comprehensive report is is what you're requiring here by an ad hoc committee is that correct.

So that's how ad hoc have function in the past usually we meet on a regular like on a recurring basis between the meetings and conduct research into policy like in the specific policy areas that were tasked to research and then.

So from those the reviewing we provide recommendations or just evaluations and observations essentially.

So this would be informed by a presentation specifically around from the police department specifically around its its annual goals and performance metrics some of which we were able to review based on public meeting records.

And is included in the annual report and this is it's a recommendation that I'm prepared to make that further study be continued but it's ultimately up to the commission to decide if this is a specific policy focus area that we want to do.

So there are additional policy areas that we wish to that commissioners wish to see including this work plan you're welcome to make that proposal.

And we can if we if need be I mean we could alter like we could change our work plan or add additional ones before like our next meeting the beginning of the year but ideally work like we're not going to see new commissioners come on to this body for.

So we're a couple of months depending on where the council members are out with the recommendations and we're all based on the changes allowed to continue on as long as until a successor is appointed so it's ultimately up to this commission or the commissioners here whether these are the policy focus areas that we want to work on for next year.

So commissioners come to us.

You're muted.

So I was just going to say that I would like to keep letter A for a I think it also is our job to review and evaluate SPD goals and keep performances we may not be able to write a report but maybe we can change the language to review and discuss or whatever but I think it's really important that we keep in there that we're in touch with SPD's goals and metrics and that we're reviewing them so that we are aware of what the.

Police Department is putting out there thank you.

Thank you.

I mean in a way I do agree with commissioner Griggs and that it can be interpreted as being rather broad in terms of what the scope would be for going number four but having said that in a way that's.

The work of the commission next year to figure out within the review of SPD resources allocations what is you know what what is it that they want to look at do they want to look at specific goals that the around public safety that the department has.

So in a way I mean I guess I'm not answering the question in terms of what the focus is going to be in that I'm going to say that it it's going to depend on the commissioners next year and the commissioners that are on the ad hoc that would be looking at this issue and their level of interest and to look at this issue.

I would just say.

Yeah just to just to chime in yeah I I would agree with the vice chairs point on that and I mean I think it's important to note we are different among commissions not just that we are responsible for providing community participation specifically into an I like to policing specifically but we're also the only city commission that has zero staff support.

Well everything that we put to get like that you're seeing here in the staff reports that was put together by us with some help from our senior attorney or what not for the commission but beyond that it's on us to how we ultimately frame the report and we and it's just on us to do our best the best with what we've got and I see that as one of key obstacles like to any work plan to work for which is why I think policy area and I think that's what I think is going to be a key.

I think policy area number one or policy area a is the most important for the next year because we have that we need to have clarity around both our purpose our powers and our duties as well as how our commission works and the staffing and resources that were provided other commissions have staff support to provide the reports that were that were used to seeing with other places but we are the only ones that do not so I'll even that and pass it to the commissioners.

I believe it that and pass it to commissioner duck while Wayne Johnson.

I just wanted to chime in and agree to we ought to retain what has been proposed thus far on it but also to to point out the fact that while we're asking the police department to stretch a bit and look at you know pass history pass practice and whether it continues to be relevant and bring the kind of benefits both to the department and to

the community at the same time we have to ask ourselves as commissioners to stretch you know reach out to other departments this people kind of input you can get from them or look at some of the reports that they come out from the international association of police cheats as a for instance and others and the Gallup organization has done a lot of work with various departments around the country as well and you can access some of those that are in the

process some of those reports you know so educate ourselves because part of our role is also to educate the community you know on it you know many times are the problems between between the two sides has as

got to deal with the issue of do you understand the shoes that they have to walk in and and be insensitive to that and they in turn be insensitive to the shoes that we were and what we experience you know on it

but it's a two way street okay well said commissioner Wayne Johnson yeah I see a lot of the work plan being being feasible and possible but with that key policy area being like the critical one to get into I mean I think like I think we're on the right track going forward I think we have several

opportunities including resolving some of these long standing issues that the commission has as well as not clearing the backlog but specifically evaluating and moving forward with the

recommendations that and the work that we've already done through good faith dialogue and figure out and really determine which ones which of the work can be carried

forward despite the the turn on time and also I think we need to like it will hopefully we can improve the function of our commission as well as engagement with community members and really be a source to really welcome community

numbers into that into this space yeah go ahead yeah thank you the last comment I wanted to make is that when we start to think about resource

allocations and like I want to also acknowledge the challenge that the police department has on recruitment and this is happening across the nation right now you know on it and so at any given

point in time we've got the X percent of vacancies you know that are going on which which requires the the remaining personnel to stretch you know do OT or to choose strategically

to forego you know certain activities or the like so we've got to kind of you know think through all all of that as well I agree and I hope it's

understandable too that the for the commission the department isn't responsible necessarily for staffing it but we do depend upon close engagements with the liaisons for the department's professional standards

unit in particular and I think we've made some great strides over the years to really have that conversation like to engage in that trust building and repair some of the deep seated distrust and frustrations that we've dealt with between community members and

the police department there's still a lot of uncomfortable conversations to be had of course not just in the area of staffing and resources which specifically for the commission hinders our ability to really conduct outreach engagement as well as creating meaning for

like reporting in a timely manner but also communication which doesn't require a lot of staffing to provide and just like be direct and really get over the the

the slowness in response but also the temperamental this which I think I've been pretty like pretty vocal about coming from the management culture within the city as a whole and increasing like and needing to really move past that but I

also to have a formal process for how our recommendations actually are considered that's going to be the most critical piece I think to figure out when or if we have this joint workshop with the new city council vice chairman rostrow

want to suggest that if there's no more questions or feedback that we move the motion. Do we have a motion in a second motion from Carter Commissioner Carter Martinez do we have a second second from Commissioner Wayne Johnson.

So as we move the motion there were some it's implied that these are from the amendments within that motion that's my.

So I'll review the recommendations which were based on the staff report which was approving the proposed work plan with minor adjustments based on commissioner feedback which was part of number two which is directing the chair and vice chair to finalize.

And this will be included in our 2024 annual report to be submitted to the personnel and public employees committee at the earliest opportunity and also establishing ad hoc's committees to research and propose recommendations and based on the policy focus areas.

Is that a appropriate.

All right will the court please call the roll.

Do we have any public comment.

Thank you chair we have no speaker slips on this item.

Will the court please call the roll.

Thank you chair commissioner sample I commissioner J Johnson commissioner Z Johnson I commissioner Carter Martinez I vice chair one rostrow I commissioner Griggs.

Commissioner Landeros I commissioner Smith is absence commissioner Castillo crings I commissioner Esponosa Salazar I chair bliss.

Yes thank you the motion passes.

The commissioners are removing on to the next item the last item on our agenda which is the 2024 and report and recommendations to city council.

So we'll have received the agenda packets this is still very much in draft form and the recommendation.

So for this item will be to review and pass a motion approving our 2024 annual reports with the additional attachments.

I noticed in the staff report that we're missing the additions that we had identified which are the previous years recommendations from 2018 to 2023 that are also intended to be included.

They're listed but they're not specifically attached which would have been many more pages long.

So that might be over 100. But then directing the chair and vice chair to finalize the report for submission to the personnel and public employees committee for consideration at the next available meeting.

But I have a quick overview given that this is a long report and it has some end up the analysis that again was done without staff support.

So I'm not sure if you're going to be able to prepare with me within that this is intended to help make make it easier to explain.

So just this summary of what we're covering is basically what we were able to accomplish within their approved work plan from 2024.

For community policing response we had included the military equipment use review that was done.

We had a strategic plan and budget management we had done a fiscal analysis as well as performance metrics examination which can inform our policy area next year.

But based on the analysis and review that we had of public available records recommending that continues on.

So then civilian oversight engagement function which our biggest item which was the joint workshop we did we're not able to do.

And we're continuing on with our recommendations moving forward.

So speaking to civilian oversight and engagement.

A civilian oversight engagement and function everybody is aware that we were invited to a meeting a joint workshop with the full city council and the commission.

So we were invited to a meeting back in October 2023 and we incorporated this into our work plan for 2024 and we have provided verbal feedback.

We have provided written feedback on its format and topics in March we met with a subgroup of us met with the mayor and council members to discuss staff ideas for addressing the deficiencies and recommendations that were identified by the city auditor and it's 2021 report not of our commission.

We've also evaluated of course the 2020 recommendations and I've begun evaluating responses to the MAU recommendations from 22 and 23.

But right now we're still waiting for obviously PDs responses to annual recommendations from 21 2021 22 and 23 and as well as response from mayor and council or their staff to schedule a date and time for a workshop.

So based on where we're at the proposal is to make five recommendations for improving civilian oversight and the commission's function.

First and foremost being scheduling a joint workshop to address the city auditors report or audit of our commission within the first quarter of 2025 so that we can provide guidance and direction for the commission going forward.

We also are asking for the.

There you go. The directing city staff to agenda are 2024 recommendations for vote as city council meeting within the first quarter of the year and direct PD Revive responses written responses prior to the meeting on which recommend 24 recommendations will be implemented.

These will include the record as with the annual report this will include those past recommendations which will be attached at the end of this.

Thirdly we had some recommendations concerning OPSA to really improve civilian oversight function one of which was to propose a voter approved city charter amendment to really answer to really establish OPSA as a civilian lead charter office and independent oversight entity of the police department with full investigatory and subpoena powers relevant to investigating police miscarried.

And establish the commission as a civilian lead advisory body under the purview of OPSA and comprised of non law enforcement appointees by the mayor and council with the authority and resources to facilitate community participation given that this is taken so long for council to really get to an address.

This is this recommendation is intended to put it before members of the public who can either for the council either the council can put this forward to have the public decide whether this is whether civilian oversight of this of this level is expected or requested or the public themselves can put forward in petition for a voter approved ballot measure as they have done with several recommended measure of voter measures in the past.

In the meantime, I a recommendation number four would put this to the city council to establish OPSA as a city charter office with expanded authority to review and recommend disciplinary actions upon sustaining any police misconduct complaints or allegations by the internal affairs division.

And that would require the police department to statutory formalize internal investigation process to incorporate OPSA and account for its timeline for completing its reviews and issuing recommendations before issuing any disciplinary actions.

And then lastly to direct the for the council to direct the police department and city staff to invite the police review commission and OPSA representatives to any meeting where the police department is providing a presentation to city council that involves work that we are already under take.

And then we are not taking as part of our work plan or as part of audits that OPSA is performed or is undertaking.

City staff, we are here as an advisory body to the city council and yet a lot of times when items come up over the years we have not been really meaningfully included or our guidance and advice really sought beyond the use of force policy recommendations which were from back in 2021.

And we are not simply making it so that that is standard operating procedure given that that is our role as an advisory body for the city council and mayor.

So to hone in we see number I see item number or recommendation number one being the most important which is the schedule a joint workshop.

We have these audit recommendations in before us several times and the city council has heard and reviewed them as well.

And it addresses the three areas which are getting clarity around our powers roles and duties and establishing what resources and investment the city needs to make in order for us to effectively achieve our objectives.

And then also to create a formal process to ensure our recommendations are documented and presented to city council and approved recommendations are provided or implemented by the relevant department.

And a lot of the audit and findings were a lot of the audits findings corroborated several recommendations that we had already put forward over the years going back to 2020 and into some of our 2020 and 23 recommendations for the military equipment use.

We have a number of different solutions and ideas we know how to address these deficiencies but the goal is like the purposes of this is to ensure that we are actually sitting down with council to make them formal and approved.

If they don't the alternative recommendation that's included in the packet is to dissolve the current form of the police review commission of the city advisory body and just to clear no intention for community meaningful community participation and reviewing policing policies because at this point if we're not going to move forward on what we on these deficiencies and addressing them why are we here commit I will stop it there for the first one being that this is the first part of the annual report.

I have a just a comment I apologize that I didn't catch this before but as we look at recommendation number two I'm wondering if we should align it with the 2025 report sorry with the 2025 work plan.

In the 2025 work plan says that we would present the recommendations to the city council within the second quarter of the year.

And that SPD would fight written responses by the end of the calendar year I know it's a little different but I'm just wondering if in terms of alignment that the language should be the same in terms of that recommendation.

And I know that the language that we're taking out is that we're not necessarily saying that it needs to be a gen die for a vote by the city council but we're saying that it should be a gen die as a presentation that the commission does to the city council within the second quarter.

Seeing nods a few nods on this and I would agree with that so I'm making note.

Any other commissioner comments questions around the set the first set of recommendations.

Commissioner Griggs.

I'd just like to add that I think that we should remove any inflammatory language I agree with your frustration at times but I feel fully that we need to stop the complaint about communication.

On a regular basis I think that if we continue to have inflammatory language like this it's not going to make our association with the city council or the police department better it's going to make it worse.

Appreciate that feedback commissioner Griggs.

Is there any other commissioners that want to get on.

Just a direct response with that I would agree we can frame it in a way that may be maybe more comfortable for city council and the police department to do and believe me we've done that in many years past.

I think up until this point we have been very patient I like I'll speak for myself I've been very patient within a lot of us and the reason that.

I'm excited to include that I am excited to include that in there is because this year in particular was the breaking point and it had nothing to do with how polite I was or.

So I think that was a good one and I think I was going to go back to the council.

Respect for language was considered it had everything to do with just personal disagreements of leadership and if the rest of the commission wants to see that removed which we're making a note to remove such language from there.

And I wanted to make that publicly clear and allow because frankly my experience on this commission the last four years has been despite my best efforts.

I really disrespect and immensely discouraging and discriminatory in my opinion.

I've said this at city council I've been targeted with malicious false accusations that are based on racist stereotypes about my like about especially about opinion black men of my size I've been subjected discriminatory treatment disciplinary action without due process and even retaliation that has impacted my fellow commissioners that you all.

I've been prohibited from adequately fulfilling my duties as an as an appointed member of this body and I'm going to speak I'm going to speak up to that because we're not going to move past these frustrations and discrepancy unless we have these uncomfortable conversations and acknowledge and meet.

I'm all for uncomfortable conversations I have any day of the week on or offline with you.

My point is these kind of comments mean that each and every one of us feel the same way and when we vote on it it means we feel the same way and that's not correct nor is it fair to anybody in this commission.

I will continue to do so and I would if other commissioners feel the same way we are welcome to remove that particular portion of recommendation number one.

With that if there are any other questions we'll move on to military equipment use review.

So naming it to date we have issued 13 recommendations about military equipment usage since 2022 when AB 41 was first entered into effect.

We have continued to do in 2023 we had done for the first time a set of three community forums that provide a community feedback which led us to producing additional nine recommendations that were based on that feedback in those forums last year and this year in 2024 we collaborate with the department to host one community forum in Oak Park.

We have used key takeaways including eight recommendations for improving the police department's MEU policy and we presented that to the city's law and legislation committee and the full city council on August 27th.

Right now we the status of our recommendations as it we've gotten our written responses for 22 and 23 and the council did not prove any changes to the MEU policy this year but provide a new direction.

We've got provided a new direction to the police department to continue its collaboration with our commission and for the recommendations which included answering a few outstanding questions and our proposal based on the meetings that have come about since our first set of recommendations which we approved in August of this of this year which were eight recommendations we approved proposing additional three recommendations for improving the MEU policy and we're going to move on to the next meeting.

We have the MEU policy and review process. So just a reminder these are the summaries of the recommendations that we approved in 2020 or in August 2024 and these are the recommendations that we are proposing for this year.

So we have the same recommendation which being number nine adding verbatim text of assembly bill 41 specifying which independent persons or entities have oversight authority remove the governing body and the city council from section G of the MEU general order and consolidate section H to leave OBSA and the police review commission as the independent oversight bodies.

Number 10 is requiring written responses to all MEU related recommendations that we've provided and have those attached to the annual military equipment used report and to staff reports accompanying any city council agenda item where changes are proposed reauthorization or new acquisitions for the general order as well.

But lastly number 11 is specific to the MEU but it's similar to the civilian oversight recommendations number five which is for any meeting that police department is presenting the city council or the general public that involves MEU related analysis or equipment purchases that the police department and staff invite the commission and OBSA representatives to provide feedback in those presentations.

So shortly we had not in the up until this year we were not invited to present our recommendations around the around military equipment use and this year's my experience trying to present to the full city council was again less than less than respectful.

So that is one of the reasons why we're proposing these recommendations here within that.

We have a significant analysis compared to previous years which include around the military equipment use this data there has been a lot more transparency that the department has provided in this year's report versus last year.

And the language has been much more accessible as well and that's allowed us to provide more in depth analysis when it comes to the usage of military equipment.

So this year we observed several different takeaways from the military equipment usage from 2024.

Yes. Sure. Commissioner Carter Marchinghans.

Okay so on this slide I see MEU recommendations proposed for December 2024.

Are we voting on these outside of the whole document or how is that working?

Because I am seeing proposed recommendations I just don't understand the difference.

So these are part of our annual reports. We can either approve all of the annual report with those proposed recommendations in a single vote or we can go item by item and review the and motion to approve those recommendations individually.

I don't want to go item by item through this whole document because that would take hours and hours and hours.

But I am concerned that these recommendations are in there and I feel like particularly recommendation number nine needs more research and analysis.

I could speak to actually had this slide review or I had a present or a slide for specifically recommendation number nine for why we put that in there and particularly when it comes to removing the governing body.

I'll skip through some of this the analysis. It's all in the report.

Thank you.

So this is one of the stop and highlight some of the outstanding questions that were waiting for written responses and these were part of the city council's recommendations when it came to their

committee.

I have a quick feedback and actually work with the commission on going forward. So just to note that.

So recommendation number nine adding verbatim text of assembly bill for anyone to specify which independent persons or entities have oversight.

This has been a question. This has been a point of contention that we've had with the department since maybe 41 came into effect.

Namely that according to the department's leadership.

The city council or the governing body is considered the independent oversight entity for the department. However, based on the memo that we have sent to city council as well as previous recommendations and community feedback.

We don't believe it's a way we haven't considered appropriate to have the city council be considered both the governing body and the independent oversight function.

And in fact, there are specific city departments such as opsa and advisory bodies like us to provide that feedback.

So it's only to beyond just the current the current oversight entities which are all internal department that be the internal affairs division and the inspection and 大

standards team. The city council also is beholden to certain special interest that including like including the labor associations that the department or that contribute to individual city council members, which by my analysis.

Is as much as $88,000 to the majority of the city of the current city council including $53,000 to specifically to the mayor.

That to me precludes that creates a direct conflict of interest and precludes them from being the independent persons or entities with oversight to provide that oversight authority.

They'll still can govern as is like as is liberated but to consider them both the governing body and independent oversight entity was one of the reasons I think is essentially allows them to skirt actual independent entities outside of the department from doing that from actually providing them an honest analysis and feedback when it comes to those.

I wanted to make sure that was included and explained out there. Alternatively the council could just refuse as a matter of course in city policy all campaign financing or in kind contributions from law enforcement associations to avoid those perceived or actual conflict of interest so that they can be that independent oversight entity but until such time as that happens that's this recommendation I believe is necessary.

So are there any other questions regarding the proposed recommendations for military commissus.

I see a prisoner Kasiot crinks.

I just want to cut I want to clarify the recommendations in the report one through eight have already been approved and they were approved earlier but how I don't believe the body has voted on number 9 10 and 11 so by voting on this report we are approving 9 10 and 11 and so I just want to go back to commissioner Kim Carter Martinez's question.

I think I heard her say she believes that question number 9 requires additional research before the body could approve is that is that the still the sentiment yes and I have to say I would actually agree with that and as we were having this conversation right now I'm looking at the text for 481 and I think we're going to have a just a disagreement on the intent of 481 I don't disagree with you about the

change I disagree about the reason for the change and so just step back when you look at 481 and this is where I'm going to get in trouble because I'm not a lawyer.

However the way I'm reading 481 they specifically define governing body which calls it out to be the elected body that oversees the law enforcement agency so you have an elected body and then later in the law they also talk about an independent authority.

So in my mind you basically the legislation is distinguishing between the elected body and an independent body and the reason I just want to say I agree with you on the independence portion of it is I think that there is enough legal ambiguity in the way that the law is written to basically say yes of course that the governing body is going to be the elected body for the city they're they're the ones that can finalize and say yes we want either additional changes to the M.E.U.

ordinance or not I don't think it has to do with whether they get contributions because they're elected officials so I just want to kind of create that distinction but however I think there is additional ambiguity as to what the legislation actually meant when they included an independent oversight body that is differently spoken about or defined from the governing body.

So I would agree I just want to see if where other members of the commission are on that specific recommendation.

I agree I don't feel that it's from my condom sorry it's not a good idea first to be voting on on partial recommendations which is what I see this as and what I say when I mean partial is yes we have approved part of this but then there are items that are going to be

being added in that whether we have not approved and now we're going to vote on the whole thing so for lack of a better description I see this is the bills that go through our senate and assembly that items are put in triggers and other things are put in bills and you don't even know what's in them completely and then they're voted on so that being said I recommend that we do not vote on this this session since we have these items that are not complete.

Specifically what Miss Martinez said number nine I believe think it was Commissioner Wayne Johnson.

I'm going to agree as well I would like to encourage the commission as opposed to trying to be being lawyers and trying to interpret the statute ourselves.

How has this requirement been implemented by other major departments you know and bring that back so we have a juxtaposition about where we are and where is most of the world moving you know kind of thing so because much more of a decision on fact as opposed to opinion.

Commissioner Castillo brings we're going to stack again.

Yes I also want to be careful not to throw out the baby with bath water there are three new recommendations I think the nine is the one that is the most difficult to parse out because it talks about the release and that's I agree with my colleagues about.

I'm making sure we that once a little tricky for me but for example I just want to raise and highlight number 11 which I think is a really reasonable approach and it's something that we should consider and move forward.

I don't know if I need to make a motion but I mean I'm I think I'm okay with 10 and 11 I get the sense that nine needs more discussion so I mean I propose that we just take out nine from the report and the ones that we're comfortable with we we keep and when we approve it they'll move forward as recommendations for 2024.

We have a motion on the table from vice chairman rostro to remove item nine commissioner card on Martinez.

I think we need to go through the rest of the document before we vote on motions because there may be other things we want to edit change or remove I don't know if you do them one at a time.

I'm not an expert on that so if someone else wants to fill in that's fine.

I want to co-sign with vice chairman when rostro let's take out number nine I wouldn't be comfortable voting on this document with number nine in it just because I do think we need to look more into.

I need more research and analysis how is this worked in other places and how could the alternatives work here and then I do want to go back to something commissioner Griggs brought up earlier about some of the non non factual opinion that are appearing in this document I I have paused with some of that as well.

I put on a document that everybody feels comfortable this is what we did in 2024 and this is what we want to accomplish in 2025 and I do think there's language in there that not everybody is comfortable with there's some that I'm not comfortable with.

I'm generally very left leaning on this issue but I think that if this is a document we want the whole commission to feel good about that some of the yellow highlighted language at the bottom of the cage I think some of those should come out.

I heard and appreciate the input on his feedback within that these aren't meant to be comfortable conversations and not used or I'm used to be like being in these question of just remit.

Just to note before given the breath of this document and the recommendations on there I was going to I mentioned earlier about we can we have the option of voting on the sets of recommendations by set and being that we're here right now with the me you right you know the second set of recommendations there's three additional ones that are coming up.

I think it would be helpful to double back and maybe start with a most start with a if we want to we can start with a vote on the civilian oversight function engagement set of recommendations and then vote on the these ones.

Yeah I think the way this is the conversations turning it probably makes more sense to do it that way just because I think people may have maybe okay with parts of the recommendations or parts of the yeah parts of the recommendation but not a full recommendation so maybe if we.

And just to note the full like the full recommendations these are summaries overviews of those recommendations but the full recommendations actually are in the agenda packet at the bottom there under their laid out the verbatim text of a be 41 is listed in there.

I was going to comment on specific item nine but I'll wait until the until the actual vote on that specific one to just explain where we're at there's actually is like a pretty large body of researchers that's in happening over the last few years and I can talk a little bit about that.

So but for the first set the motion would be to double check to make sure I have the language right approve the civilian oversight engagement function recommendations and direct the chair and vice chair to finalize the language for the report for the annual report.

So I think the other recommendation number two for recommend or for recommend or we read the I was we can vote on each of these by set like one by one or we can vote on them as a set and like make it like make additional changes to like specific recommendations that's why I was proposing so this set of recommendations five recommendations for civilian oversight engagement function.

permission or sample.

Yes I don't have quite a preference but I do have a few questions then since we're going to take them one by one so looking at and maybe this is a question for the city attorneys as an advisory body to the council and mayor are we able to use language such as direct city staff to can we call for a voter ballot initiative around city charter and

amendments kind of how should we change that language so that it's more in line with our role or is it fine.

So if it's a recommendation if you're recommending for council to do the direction okay so you don't really need to change it because you're not the commission is not directing.

Yeah it to be clear with if you look at the the formal language that's at the bottom of the report it lays out the respondent and city council is addressed on all of these specific ones and then my other question kind of goes with timeline so when are we do to I went back and looked at the last meeting just to see kind of what we said when do we do to have this particular document.

And for the annual report is it something that needs to be definitely approved tonight or is it something that could be approved at the January meeting.

If there is a counter motion to continue the full document to the January meeting commissioners can propose that.

The recommendations the proposed recommendation recommendation for this particular item is to approve the 2024 annual report and recommendations from attachments to through five and direct the chair and vice chair to finalize the report for submission.

Everything that you all are suggesting we the vice chair and I are copying down and will make those changes in the final language that we submit to city council so.

And then once that is submitted to city staff it will be a gen dies for the earliest available personnel and public employees committee meeting.

So there is still time to like change the language and you can make recommendations and alterations to the language before it's ultimately submitted.

I just wanted to make sure that you're all aware since the work plan for 2025 is a part of 2024 annual report any delay and approval of the report will delay your work plan as well.

Vice chairman rostrow.

I would kindly ask that we try to approve this today if possible one one thing that we could try to do because I effort comments about the language.

We could ask for one or two commissioners volunteer to review the document and flag any editorial language that would just be removed with understanding that they wouldn't be removing any language that deals with actual content if that makes sense.

So any language that might express opinion or editorialize something and I know the chair did remove some like he did try to his best to remove it so again when somebody draft something it is their voice sometimes that comes through we're not professional writers when it comes to these reports so we write with a style that we're used to so that happens a lot even you know I do that a lot even when I write even when I don't try to so I mean we could ask for two volunteers to just make sure that we can do that.

So just make sure they review it and flag any editorial language with again with understanding that it wouldn't change the actual content of the document.

See that editorial language and what we were what's on the agenda with the city I just or not as it's not as blatant as it is in the presentation.

So it looks like they're not exactly the same language in both places.

And again I mean as I'm looking through it I don't see a lot of it I see maybe a few instances where it's still there so I mean if that's the submission of you're more comfortable with that we could have an additional set of eyes look at it and just remove any of that.

If it helps to clarify the language in the report is much different than what is in the presentation.

Just to name that out loud I put this together for ease of use but also to convey.

Got it.

Okay that is helpful thank you.

So to make sure sample or did you have your question answered.

Yeah.

Okay.

Then the motion on the table unless I've by shared did you have the.

The motion on the table is to approve the civilian oversight engagement and function recommendations for 2024.

And direct the chair and vice chair to finalize the language for the recommendations before adding to the any report.

I have motion from commissioner Carter Martinez.

Second from commission commissioner Castillo Crenz.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you chair for the record can you clarify which recommendation numbers those are.

That is recommendations number one through five for civilian oversight engagement function.

And that's on page six of the report.

Page six of the report.

Thank you.

We have the understanding that recommendation to would be aligned to the language that we approved in the work plan.

Yes.

Thank you chair.

Commissioners if you could please unmute your microphones commissioner sample.

No.

Thank you.

Commissioner J Johnson.

Mr. Carter Martinez.

I.

Vice chair.

Commissioner.

Commissioner.

Commissioner.

Commissioner.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Griggs.

No.

Commissioner.

Commissioner.

Landeros.

I.

Commissioner Smith is absence commissioner Castillo Crenz.

I.

Commissioner Espinoza Salazar.

I.

And chair bless.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Commissioner now we'll move on to the three recommend new recommendations for me.

So the.

I believe there was a motion on the table for from commissioner Castillo Crenz to remove recommendation number nine and move forward recommendations number ten and eleven.

And the.

Is the.

I wanted to speak specifically to this just to name that there's been a significant or not I shouldn't say necessarily a significant but since the years because it's

we're only in the third year since AB 41 was formally came into effect that there are organizations and community groups that have been doing research across the state when it comes to.

And the military can be used policy and I think it should be noted that in Sacramento, Sacramento police department is actually.

Doing a.

Doing a much better job than the vast majority of jurisdictions across the state when it comes to transparency and and complying with the policy that said.

You ask organizations like the American Friends Services Committee that has an extensive.

Body of research and is.

In coalition around police militarization demotorization.

No none of the law enforcement agencies with across the state of California appear to be complying according to them.

And we have a.

AB 41.

We've come up for a long way through that but I'm just noting like what I we have within that like what I know from the research that we did for this report.

On the interruption chair we do have to take a motion to extend the meeting past two hours.

Do I have a motion in a second?

I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Thank you commissioner Sample.

Yes.

Commissioner J Johnson.

Commissioner Z Johnson sleep.

Carter Martinez.

Vice chair.

Mister Griggs.

Commissioner Landeros.

Commissioner Smith is absence commissioner Castillo cranks.

I.

Commissioner Spinoza Salazar.

I.

And chair bliss.

And chair bliss.

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you clerk.

So continuing with the right the newest any recommendations set.

Yes.

The police department has come a long way it's being used as a model for other jurisdictions which haven't come nearly as far including some of the mandated requirements such as community meetings, even the Sacramento sheriff has not been complying.

Half as well as the police department has in the Sacramento police department.

However.

By our review and which has been consistent across the last two cycles.

We haven't had a we haven't seen full compliance with AB 41 regardless of whether other jurisdictions do it or not.

This is the law of the land.

It's not a polite suggestion.

It's a mandate.

But we ultimately are an advisory body and it's up to city council to decide whether the department is in compliance with the law or not.

We're just providing that advice and in the last two three sets of recommendations.

We haven't found them to be in compliance within that.

Although they come close.

They've definitely raised the bar when it comes to transparency providing a demographic data.

But when it comes to independent persons or entities for oversight.

That's still an area of contention that we disagree on.

You may agree to disagree.

And that's up to the council to ultimately decide that's what we're here for.

To make that like to provide that advice and then the city council will ultimately decide as the governing body.

Having said that.

I don't think it's appropriate to have the governing body serving these two roles when there's a clear conflict of interest that is widely known.

The information that I provide for the amount of money that the majority of council is receiving from law enforcement associations is a matter of public record.

And I can provide that information if necessary.

But which is why I would make a counter motion to approve the recommendations as are.

And with the understanding that and I will go to the language as it is written in the bottom of the attachment just to make clear for what we're going to be voting on within this.

So the recommendations formal language was this being just a summary of.

Would be adding verbatim text to eight assembly bill fority one specifying which independent persons oversight entities.

Removing the governing body of city council to read as in accordance with government code section seven seventy D six.

SPD is required to include the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy.

Including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority and if applicable what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of policy.

And the following entities shall have independent oversight authority of SPD's military equipment use policy.

The Office of Public Safety Accountability and accordance with Sacramento City Code chapter 2.20 or 22.

And the Office of Public Safety Accountability shall review any investigations into complaints and concerns alleging employee misconduct and violation of this military equipment use policy.

Including but not limited to misconduct investigations completed by the internal affairs division and audit and inspection reports completed by the professional standards units inspections and standards team.

That's the first section of this amended language.

Seconds would be the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission in accordance with Sacramento City Code chapter 2.110.

And Sacramento Community Police Review Commission may advise and make recommendations to the governing body regarding SPD's military equipment policy including but not limited to providing community participation reviewing SPD's and military equipment usage reports and making recommendations based on community input.

So to the first motion I think we have to go in order anyway so my counter motion may just fail which is fine.

But that is the language that we're ultimately voting on for this.

The other two recommendations actually are as are like as is but we can make adjustments based on what commissioners ultimately wish to approve.

But I'll we can start with the motion from Commissioner Costeo Crenz to remove item 9 and approve numbers 10 and 11 for military equipment use.

Do we have a second.

Second Commissioner Carter Martinez please call the roll.

One moment.

Thank you chair.

Commissioner sample.

No.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

Go.

Commissioner Carter Martinez.

Yes.

Vice Chair one real stroke.

Yes.

Commissioner Griggs.

Commissioner Landeros.

Yes.

Commissioner Smith is absence.

Commissioner Costeo Crenz.

Yes.

Commissioner Espinoza Salazar.

Yes.

And chair bless.

No.

Thank you.

The motion fails.

So the other motion the counter motion that I would I'm prepared to make is to approve the recommendation number 9 through 11.

So I would like to move forward with the language that I just read which is in it's hard to tell which attachment is which but I think it is attachment number.

Attachment number four.

Is there a motion at a second.

Did you make the motion chair.

Yes.

Okay.

So we have second on the motion.

If there is no motion then can we do we want to revoke on the other ones it can we do a revoke.

Okay.

Can I just make a motion clean motion just remove number nine and then after that we can decide on the other two.

Okay.

Just remove number nine from this.

I thought that was the motion that we voted on remove number nine proceed with 10 and 11.

The challenge it was a motion to remove nine and vote for 10 or 11.

Oh, I know.

No, I'm sorry.

I thought the motion had been remove nine and vote for 10 and 11 in that failed.

So it sounds like I don't think we're going to move forward with any of the three new recommendations.

Maybe that's a case.

I guess I was just trying to clean it up and say let's just vote on number nine and then after that let's make a decision.

I think the decision is and maybe this is the last motion removal of 9 10 and 11 from the report.

So the only thing that moves forward is the previous things that we voted on one through eight removing 9 10 and 11.

I just want to say I think there's one vote from the committee.

I mean, I'm just guessing there might be one vote in this commission that would have changed if we had made a clean decision on number nine and then may vote on 10 and 11.

Do you want to try both motions or maybe we just.

Or I mean as it is now 9 10 and 11 go forward.

No, no, no, they don't.

We're voting on these as a set.

So the motion.

The motion was that we move forward with just 10 and 11 removing number nine.

Right.

And that's the right.

Yes, that failed.

I proposed moving forward with 9 10 and 11.

That did not get a second.

And commissioner or vice chairman Ross row is proposing voting just on number nine, whether we want to remove.

I'm on removing number nine.

What's not a catching at the 10 and 11.

I think what happened in the first vote is we were voting on two different.

Yeah, I like my opinion.

I heard that we can't fish for votes.

And we've already voted on this and the vote should stand.

So what goes forward is my question.

It sounds like nothing, which was right.

But I have a couple commissioners on the stack, which is a commissioner sample point of order.

I believe because and city attorney can correct me.

The first motion failed.

The second motion failed.

However, recommendations one through eight would steal.

Stan since that was voted as part of our work.

That wasn't on the table.

Yes, already approved.

Okay, so 19 and 11 would be a dead issue.

Yes.

If I'm correct.

And that's my question for the point of order.

Yes.

Okay.

That's all I need.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

If I share.

Yes, commissioner Griggs.

We voted one through five.

That's correct.

We voted nine through 11.

We have not voted for six seven and eight.

Is there six seven and eight?

If I may clarify.

We voted on one through five for page six.

Yes.

There are recommendations on page nine and ten that are numbered one through eight.

Those have been previously approved by the commission.

So we don't need to vote on those.

Yes.

Those are all like yes.

Military committee's recommendation is number one through eight were approved in August.

So my motion that I'm proposing is that we just make a clean motion to remove nine from the report on page ten.

I think what commissioner sample had just clarified is that we are just I think we're done with this this item right because it failed and so we move on to the next set of recommendations.

That's correct.

That's right.

Okay.

So yeah.

So all so nine ten eleven are going to be removed from the report.

Okay.

That will skip through a bunch of these slides.

The analysis that went into this strategic planning and budget management.

So today this has been partly continuation of some of the work that's been provided since 2021 when we first began researching the police department's budget policies and practices.

And we from the previous ad hoc committees we have provided we produced seven seven recommendations in 2021 and 2022.

And then 2024 we continued some research and district planning and budget trends with a focus on police performance metrics vacancies and overtime practices.

I did a lot of this work within that and reviewed several policies that were provided via city council documents, which are the general orders are listed there.

Initial findings from the fiscal analysis that it was done weren't further study into how the police department allocates and prioritizes resources based on a seventy seven million dollar deficit that's being projected.

It's this demands me attention by the mayor and city council starting with an audit by the city auditor, which leads to three recommendations for enhancing the police department's budget transparency and management for twenty twenty four.

And continue further review and analysis via ad hoc committees in twenty twenty five, which is one of the policy focus areas.

Those include number one conducting an immediate audit immediate and complete audit of a police department overtime policies practices and expenditures.

This audit should be conducted by the city auditor or an independent non law enforcement agency outside the department, the city managers purview and not among the city's existing list of contractors and would include as part of the audit review and make recommendations related to SPD's minimum staffing policies vacancy rates existing limits of overtime hours and key performance indicators.

Number two would recommend the department and or in the city establish clear specific key performance indicators or performance measures for measuring SP services and programs, including but not limited to the total numbers and types of nine one calls for service officer initiated calls reported crimes and crime clearances or arrest use of force incidents traffic related stops and their outcomes and enrolled participants in.

And then the city council would require SPD community programs. This would require SPD to publicly present this data as part of its annual department operations reports and annual budget presentations to the city council.

And then number three would require the police department to report its annual savings or unspent budget allocations and annual overtime expenditures by program and job classification and all proposed budget documents every fiscal year.

And SPD budget documents presented to city council should provide programmatic details with specific budget allocations.

I have many slides that pertain after this, but I'm going to for go those unless there are specific questions or needs for clarification within that.

But it's all in the draft of this draft of the annual report, which will be cleaned up.

Any commissioner questions or comments about these three recommendations.

I have a motion to approve the set of recommendations one through three as is.

I have a motion from commissioner Landeros.

Second from commissioner Johnson.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you chair commissioner sample.

Commissioner J Johnson.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

Commissioner Carter Martinez.

Vice chair one roastro.

Commissioner Griggs.

Commissioner Landeros.

Commissioner Smith is absent commissioner Castillo crings.

Epstein.

Commissioner Espinoza Salazar.

And chair bless.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioners.

That actually includes this portion the recommendations portion now to talk about the annual report, which is.

I ask out it was approximately over 30 pages.

And it provides a lot of the analysis and rationale for these recommendations and what the work the work that was done.

It is it is a working draft.

We have direction.

The vice chair and I to clean up language that commissioners are not comfortable with.

And it was proposed from the vice chair that two commissioners might be invited to.

Who are interested in reviewing the document to remove that language.

I don't know if that is a particular motion that you wanted to make.

But we can also do that offline based on whoever speaks up.

Here we had a working group before.

Commissioner Landeros.

Commissioner Castillo crings.

And Espinoza Salazar and me and the vice chair.

So we can just go back to that and work to remove that if that's so desires.

But if there are additional folks that want to do that.

So commissioners sample.

There we go.

I'll be willing to chime in on some of the language, which is kind of what gave me quite a bit of pause tonight.

So I will definitely raise my hand to give some feedback on that.

We have you down that.

Is there so the motion on the table then unless there are any additional questions or comments from commissioners about the report.

Then the motion on the table.

Does anybody have a motion to make around approving the 2024 annual report with direction for the chair and vice chair and subgroup commissioners to finalize the report before submission.

The PMP.

Motion.

Motion.

Do we have a second vice chairman rostro seconds.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you chair.

Commissioner sample.

No.

Commissioner J Johnson.

Commissioner Z Johnson.

Commissioner Carter Martinez.

Vice chair, one rostro.

Commissioner Griggs.

Commissioner Landeros.

Commissioner Smith is absence.

Commissioner Castillo cranks.

Commissioner Espinoza Salazar.

And chair bliss.

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

I believe that concludes the meeting.

Are we are now moving into chair real quick.

Just for the record we have we had no speaker slips for public comment.

Thank you for that.

We are now moving we are now done with the discussion calendar and move on to staff and commissioner comments ideas and questions.

Are there any commissioners who wish to give comment ask questions.

Commissioner Castillo cranks.

I have been wonderful to serve with all of you.

The meeting and I just wanted to say thank you to everyone and especially Jacob, Adrienne I got to say I'm going to spend the number I'm going to miss the number of hours at eight o'clock talking about all of the work that PD was doing.

I really appreciate it.

I commend all of you that are going to continue to work on this and are raising your hand to continue to do the work.

Thank you.

And I know it's not have it's not easy especially when you have all the reports to write but I do appreciate the number of hours that you have spent because I know that it's only to do the public meetings that we actually are here.

And I think many of the public members don't see all of the extra work that happens behind the scenes so thank you.

Thank you commissioner Castillo cranks and just to name you have been immensely helpful and an inspiration for me since joining this commission into 2021 serving with you as your vice chair for two years taught me a lot about both the city processes and how to go about these things.

And I don't know if I was stuck around on the commission without without you there to have my back and support me.

So truly I will truly miss you and wish you well on your continued work going forward because I know you're not going away or just transitioning off and you've done your time for many years on this and we've learned a lot.

I've learned a lot.

So thank you.

Just to note myself my term makes also expires at the end of this year I have a reapplied to continue on but I have no illusion that I will be selected to continue on but I'm going to continue as long as as long as they allow me to.

So you will still see me next year but if this happens to be my last meeting I just want you all to know that I have learned a lot from all of you through this process.

I know it has not been easy and you have caught a lot of the commission itself has caught a lot of flack based on certain individual disagreements with me and for my outspoken nature but I appreciate you all having my back.

There have been many instances and opportunities where we could have got like you know moved along to get along a sort of thing but we engaged in very difficult and principal conversations I think we're necessary.

I think we're going to have a lot of community members that I have spoken with and have continued coming up to me on the street and as the council meetings continue to express how they appreciate our work and our discussions no matter how difficult they are.

I want to thank you all for sticking in with me and continuing your and those of you who continue to work on I will continue to be supporting you and you will continue to see me as well regardless of whether I'm on this.

So thank you all for your service and your support and dedication to this work.

I'll just be very quick when I first came into this commission we had chair steel cranks and vice chair vice chair.

I planked on your name for a second and I just want to thank both of you for your service as a commission.

I've learned a lot from both of you and specifically the work you do behind the scenes and that you don't behind the scenes and I know that it's it's it's work that is hidden a lot of times even when we come to this meeting when we have disagreements we don't see the work that happens behind the scenes.

I'm glad that we're going to keep seeing you because I'll say this about chair bliss his perspective is important it represents a segment of the community that needs to be engaged even more by SPD and the fact that we're able to even have some disagreements see that as a positive thing for us so thanks again for your service.

I'm sure you're going to be able to share and I appreciate your service as well and support throughout this past year my first time as chair on a city commission.

I wouldn't have been able to do half as much of what I did without your help. Thank you.

I just want to close line on saying thank you both of you when I joined the commission last year you both welcomed me and oriented me to the work and I think this city has so many communities in it with so many different points of view and so many different points of view.

I'm sure you're going to be able to hear those and talk like adults about different points of view and these meetings and still being able to build a consensus and get work done is a really hard skill and I appreciate that you've been able both of you were able to do that.

So thank you and I know we will see you over there.

Thank you all and with that we are adjourned for the year. Happy New Year everyone.