Good evening.

Welcome to the Monday, September 15th, 2025 meeting of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission.

This meeting is now a call to order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Members please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Sample.

Present.

Commissioner Johnson.

Present.

Commissioner Coleman.

Present.

Commissioner Corbs.

Present.

Commissioner Griggs.

Present.

Commissioner Lewis.

Present.

Commissioner Brookins is absence.

Commissioner Espinosa Salazar.

Present.

Chair Carter Martinez is absence.

Vice Chair Buen Rostro.

Present.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public in the chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker sleep slip when the item begins.

To provide greater community participation in our commission's work, we will also be allowing a little bit more time for members of the public to give comments.

And we'll ask the clerk to accept speaker slips until after the final speaker has concluded their comments.

For matters not on the agenda, you will have five minutes to speak once you are called upon.

And for matters listed on the agenda, you will also have five minutes to speak once you are called upon.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Potwinton peoples, and the people of the Wolchen 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 Peoples history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

A welcome to Commissioner Coleman, the third.

Sorry, the second from District Three.

Thank you.

But thank you all for having me.

Welcome to this very important work.

You will have five minutes to speak on the consent calendar.

And just for information, the items in the consent calendar are approval of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission's meeting minutes from the previous meeting from the June 9, 2025 meeting, and the Sacramento Community Police Revision follow-up log.

Office of the City Clerk, it's for the August 11th, 2025 meeting minutes.

That is correct.

August 11th, 2025 minutes.

Thank you for that uh clarification.

Do we have any um any public comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no public comments on the consent calendar.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion?

So move approval.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

The motion is moved by Commissioner Sample and seconded by Commissioner Johnson.

Will the clerk please call the roll to vote?

Thank you.

Um members, please unmute your microphones.

Member Sample, aye.

Member Johnson.

Aye.

Member Coleman.

Aye.

Member Corbes.

Aye.

Member Griggs.

I abstained.

I wasn't here last month.

Member Lewis.

Aye.

Member Brookens is absent.

Member Espinosa Salazar.

Aye.

Chair Carter Martinez is absence.

Vice Chair and Vice Chair Buen Rostro.

Hi.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Okay, we will now move on to the discussion items.

Of course.

Thank you.

Okay.

The next discussion item will be item two, ad hoc committee report back.

The purpose of this item is to discuss the progress of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission's ad hoc committees, which includes the engagement and function committee, the community policing and response efficiency committee, and the resource allocation and efficiency at impacting public safety committee.

So should we start with the engagement and function committee?

Yes.

Thank you.

We have the opportunity to meet and discuss a number of things.

I think the first thing that we wanted to share back with you is we want to publicly thank Commissioner Brookins, who we joined our ad hoc meeting to share with us around our topic of youth engagement and how we begin to really look at from our seat, our role, engaging our young people into this very critical process because they are a part of our community and they do have a very important voice.

And so Commissioner Brookens uh I feel did a phenomenal job of really giving us a few things.

One, what was happening in terms of with our youth, what are some of the other opportunities, and even we learned that there's a number of activities already happening, uh particularly in the Del Paso Heights community, North Sacramento community, uh, where our young people are already working with uh RPD.

So we want to look for some ways to continue that uh conversation and continue that engagement.

Um we also uh talked about how we as a commission and representing our community could work with uh our uh partners and the police department to showcase the work that they are doing to build trust and strengthen community relationships and uh again it was a bit of our conversation as well as Commissioner Brookens that there are a number of really exciting things that are already happening that we want to do a better job of showcasing that and sharing uh with our community what we're doing.

In terms of our work moving into the month of September, our next uh ad hoc meeting will be focusing on onboarding and training, and we have um an outline of some work that we will uh begin to do uh with that.

And uh I will allow my other colleagues if there's anything they wanted to add to to the conversation to share, but uh really very impactful work and and a great meeting.

So uh thank you for that, Commissioner Sample.

I just want to echo your comments that we had such a great conversation with Commissioner Brookins, and uh I would love to be able to highlight that for the rest of the commission to hear just what he is doing with brother to brother.

And I the takeaway that I got was that brother to brother and the police department are doing a lot of like was mentioned, a lot of good things, but it's not being it's not being publicly announced anywhere, and how can we highlight some of that work that they're doing?

I don't know if that's through a PIO or I don't know, but we'd really like to see more of that.

The only other thing that I wanted to mention was that um this is for um Commissioner Zochi.

She said it was okay for me to call her that.

Um I just wasn't sure if you were planning to be on our ad hoc or not.

I just we haven't had you on for the last few calls.

Um yeah, I think there was a little miscommunication because I was originally on the ad hoc, and then um when I was getting the meeting reminders for it, they kept saying canceled.

So yeah, we can figure that out after because I just felt bad that you weren't part of it for the last two calls.

And I mean, if if if you want to be part of our team, we'd love to have you.

But if if there's a different ad hoc committee, then I assume you let the vice chair know today.

So okay, perfect.

We'd love to have you.

Great, thank you.

And I and I think it's a good reminder that as commissioners, if you want to participate in a committee, you're you're always welcome.

It's an open door invitation as long as we do not violate the open meeting laws and have a quorum for those.

Do we have an update from the community policing and response efficiency committee?

Uh yes.

Uh our committee is um has we have met and we're focused on uh traffic safety is our new uh goal we're at.

We're gonna be working with um in conjunction with the traffic department with SPD.

Um Commissioner Johnson, did you want to speak on that?

I saw you were in the queue, so I wasn't trying to jump over you there.

Um just want to say that um we invite um you all, especially our um SPD, to give us input and give us um knowledge that we may not have on hand.

And um I know that there's some things, some areas that we really want to cover.

Um, but we don't know how to really go for it because it might be tied up to a different type of um division in the police department.

So if we can just get some help on on that, especially when it comes to um the safety.

Yeah, uh Commissioner Johnson, we'll help out however we can, or I will.

So um, I think you already have my card, but if you don't, I'll give it to you, and you can just text me, and then we can set up a meeting for whenever you want to for your your ad hoc to say this is kind of what we're looking at, who could help us uh and I could kind of direct you to the right resources but on traffic safety.

If you guys haven't seen, we just put out a uh report for last year on our transparency page.

So it's actually a very thorough report, it's about 18 pages long and has a lot of status statistics of uh the enforcement we did last year, and it's uh it's a highlight of the great work the the motor team has been doing.

So thank you for that report.

Any okay, all right.

Uh lastly, we'll uh move on to the resource allocation and and efficiency at impact the public safety committee.

Uh so the report for that is a committee met uh briefly today.

Uh thank you, Commissioner uh Lewis and Commissioner Johnson uh for being in that discussion.

Um and part of part of the conversation was figuring out what what we wanted to focus on within this uh ad hoc committee since the topic can be broad, and we want to make sure that we get specific into what we want to look at.

Um a few things that might be coming out that were coming that are bubbling up from the conversation was uh number one um we will be reaching out to SEC uh to the police department um about uh when is the best time uh for us to get our presentation on the budget for the police department.

And I think one of the reasons for for us uh for that request when you get it, and I apologize you haven't you have you actually haven't received the request, so I I guess I'm elevating that it it will be coming.

Um is for us to understand what is in the budget for the police department, uh, what are the goals, what are the metrics that are being used to um to measure uh whether uh you know the allocation is being successful.

And I think it's also an opportunity for for us to be informed uh and to be able to communicate with the public about uh what the successes have been uh over the past couple years uh in terms of the department meeting, the metrics, and then what are some of the the needs that are still there?

Uh it's also a good opportunity for us to if a member of the public asks us as ever asks us what is in the budget or what is the purpose of these allocations, uh we we would be able to um a lot more thoughtfully answer those questions.

So um so we'll we'll be um asking for that and also part of the ask is when is the best timing for such a presentation?

Uh my guess is it might be after the budget is passed, uh, but uh we can we can figure out when when that works best.

Um other aspects that came out of the discussion were um doing some research into what other departments uh in California and maybe across the country have been doing and what metrics they're they're using to measure success.

Uh so that's gonna be research that is done individually by this ad hoc committee by individuals within it.

Uh and then another aspect of it uh that came up were previous recommendations.

So we know that one of the ad hocs is tasked with looking at previous year previous years re years recommendations that were part of the backlog in previous years.

Uh one of the recommendations that came up from this discussion was uh looking at a 2022 recommendation around the adoption of the of the MEU report and decoupling that uh from the approval of MEU purchases.

Um so that is something that this committee wants to look at.

If if it if it is a topic of priority and and this board does decide to move forward, then I think one of the proposals that would be coming is to make that into a new recommendation for 2026.

So again, uh for the backlog, as folks remember, we decided to take all of those backlog recommendations and make a decision of whether we want to move them forward or not.

Um and I also want to clarify something within that since I I know that um at a previous city council meeting I mentioned that 22 recommendation when I provided public comment when the council was approving the MEU report.

Um I mentioned that there was a 2022 recommendation from this commission uh to decouple the approval of the report from uh the purchase, uh approval of the purchases.

Um I did not clarify in that meeting when I mentioned the 22 recommendation that it was part of a discussion that we were having this year about whether that recommendation was still relevant or we wanted to move it forward or not.

So I do apologize that I did not clarify that.

Uh having said that it was a recommendation that this uh commission previously approved, it just wasn't something that was in the um workload for the police department this year.

So um you know, when this happens, I you know, I just want to make sure that I'm transparent on um what happened, and um, you know, it's it's not my purpose to to frame things uh and not be the way they are, but we are volunteers, so we want to make sure that we um are being transparent with the discussion.

But if that recommendation doesn't move forward, then it has to come back to this body, and we do we would have to approve it as a 2026 recommendation.

Um, and it's something that this ad hoc decided to uh discuss and explore for 2026.

Um I see Commissioner Corps.

Yes, thank you.

I wasn't planning to bring this up until the portion of the city council meeting, but since you brought it up, it's perfect.

Um and I wrote up some comments just so I can make sure that I was thorough and get everything across.

So on August 11th, and the and the minutes were just approved, um, the ad hoc committee, uh at least the role of the ad hoc committee is to review items and then bring them back to full to the commission for discussion, debate, and approval.

And I just want to make sure that we were on the same page about that because on August 11th, we did talk about previous recommendations, and as a commission, we all agreed that we were not gonna go back and look at previous recommendations.

Everybody did, everybody said yes.

I went back and looked at the video.

Um so we unanimously agreed to not revisit past recommendations at that time.

I didn't hear anyone raise concerns or objections.

And if I missed something, please let me know, because I certainly did not see that again.

I went back and watched the video, and that's not what I observed.

And then the following evening, just like you said at City Council, um, we were both there, and Captain Buchanan asked if we could speak during the police department's time to share the findings of the MEU community forum and policy.

And during that time was when you endorsed an old recommendation, which came across as a commission request rather than an individual comment.

So afterwards, I spoke with my city council representative to clarify, and he watched the video again, and he felt that it appeared to him that it was comments that were represented from the entire commission, and we know that wasn't the case.

When he learned that it wasn't the case, he asked how this might be resolved.

I so appreciate you bringing this up today, Vice Chair Buen Rostro.

I really really do.

So thank you for that.

Um I want to be mindful that we avoid misunderstandings like this in the future.

So two questions.

First, um it I don't know if it's you as a vice chair or a chair that would then communicate to city council that this recommendation was made by you and not the commission, um, if that would happen.

Um, and then second, uh if the ad hoc committee brings forward information and we agree on that as a group, which we did, it was unanimous agreement.

How do we move forward if later if someone speaks on behalf of that commission in a way that conflicts with our agreement?

Um I just don't want there to be any misunderstandings, and so maybe we need to agendize that item just to say like what does that mean when if we come to city council or if we're talking to the public that we're not saying on behalf of the commission if it's just ourselves.

So I don't know if that needs to be agendized or what happens.

I don't know.

Or do we just talk about it here?

I don't know.

But um, but we need to make sure that we all are on the same page about that because it was definitely a misunderstanding at from the city council members perspective.

Um, and that needs to be that needs to be clarified to city council that it was not a recommendation from the commission because we've already agreed that we were not going to go back and look at previous recommendations.

I mean, I can I can look at the video.

Um my understanding is that if at any time we want to look back at the previous year recommendations, but they would have to be proposed to us new recommendations for 2026.

So the idea is a new recommendation we can do that.

Yeah, absolutely.

And then in that case, the process that I think would happen is we vote on those recommendations and we move them forward as 2026 recommendations.

Um I still feel comfortable saying that in 2022, the commission approved a 2022 recommendation.

I feel comfortable saying that, but what I need to do in the future is clarify that it is something that we need to discuss this year to see if it's still something that we want to move forward and push.

Um again, our recommendations are recommendations.

Um they're in our way guidance that we're giving the council, it's up to them and or the department to um review them, give us feedback, see whether they're feasible, maybe propose something a little different.

So it's for me, our recommendation is a conversation starter, or it's a way to have a conversation about ways to improve.

Um so at any time, if a council member wants to ask us, can you share the recommendations that you approved in 2021, 2022, 2023?

We can always share them.

Uh what is meant the step that is that I missed in that situation was clarifying where they are in terms of the workload for this commission.

So I don't know if that clarifies it, but that's that's my attempt at at least you know, being being truthful with with where at least I thought I was saying what what you know what had happened before, um, but also clarifying where that is.

Um I mean I I so appreciate you bringing that up.

I just again when I spoke to my city council representative, he said we just assumed that that was, and and there was debate that night among the the council members.

They all assumed that it was a recommendation from the commission, and that was not the case.

We agreed that we weren't gonna go back.

And the reason was I've been on this commission for a few months.

Like I I haven't gone back to the previous recommendations.

I don't know, Rick or Jason, if you have any comments on that.

And I don't know what happened in 20, you know, 24 hours from August 11th to August 12th.

I don't know, Vice Chair Buen Rostro, what changed.

Because you did agree with us, did you not?

You didn't remember that.

I don't my understanding, and and maybe Commissioner Sample can clarify if that's just under since since you are part of the um engagement and function committee.

My understanding is that those recommendations are supposed to be reviewed by that committee, and they could also be reviewed by any other committee if it's relevant to the workload.

Um, and if we do want to bring them up again or refresh them or update them a little bit, then it would need to be a new 2026 recommendation.

So it's not that they're over with per se.

Well, they're over with in terms of the they're not current recommendations from the that that the that we're working on right now, but they are recommendations that we can look at and bring up again in the future if we if we vote on that and we decide to do that for 2026.

I don't know because maybe Captain Buchanan can talk on behalf of this.

That I thought you had a meeting with you said you weren't gonna have staff for previous recommendations.

Yeah, I mean, until you guys come up with recommendations this year, we're not allocating staff to work on the backlog of recommendations.

However, to the point if you want to bring up new ones, I don't know how we're gonna respond differently because like that one you brought up had it was cleared out by us, and you got a response from us.

So that would be what you did.

You took it to city council, right?

So if you say, hey, at the end of the year, we want to come up with new recommendations that are go back to our old ones that we've already closed out, then that I don't know how we we or how we're gonna answer it differently.

You see what I'm saying?

So then it becomes now just a recommendation to council, not to we're we're out of that.

I think we'd be out of that chain of uh of like custody there for lack of better term.

To my understanding, what I mean what what happened is what should usually happen with recommendations, right?

Like we're they're out there.

The police department uh had an appropriate response to that recommendation, and what I remember happened in the com in the city council meeting is that it was brought up again by a city council member, um, and and the city council appropriately took action or gave guidance to staff on that recommendation.

That's what should happen.

Um it's it's really up to the council, it's up to the police department to update they could always go back to previous recommendations if if they want to, as guidance for the future, right?

So it it's it's good information to have, and I still hope that we look at previous year recommendations as we develop new ones because it helps us figure out where we have been and whether there's things that we want to try differently.

So um I'll go down the list of speakers, and and I do appreciate Commissioner Corps for bringing this up.

I I I I mean, if I can clarify things more or at least change um clarify how we should operate in the future, happy to have the discussion and figure out how we can do that better.

So I you know, I I do I do apologize if there was that misunderstanding or we don't have clarity on something, but I I want to make sure that we continue to have these conversations because I don't want us to you know not understand the intentions um or what we mean by by uh the comments that we make.

So I appreciate that.

Uh next speaker that I have is Commissioner Johnson.

Um I just wanted to say that um I do agree a lot with you have said already.

Um and I can understand where Commissioner Corps is coming from, but um we need to realize that for instance is even in our district, district two, there are a lot of situations, a lot of problems going on right now, and every once in a while we may have to address um and bring the past cases in order to make sure that we're able to um to answer um those those situations that we go on.

So I figured that what we have in our our hand is we have historical data, and we just can't throw historical data out.

Um we just need to it was once in a while use it and then bring it up to agree to uh not to agree to use it.

That's just my recommendation commissioner Griggs.

I was just gonna clarify was it wasn't there a uh a vote on this issue on whether or not to when when our committee uh uh provided this information uh at the August meeting, is that correct, Karen?

The vote was to start a new 2025 and move forward.

And I totally agree that yes, we should keep historical information, but if there was a unanimous decision to table anything below 2025, then that's what we should stick with and not try and continue to try and bring up things uh independently 2022, for example.

We need to stick with what we voted for or what the committee voted voted for.

So I the problem is I don't have the same recollection of that vote, so I need to take a look at what we if we did vote to table them.

My understanding is that we voted to uh move them forward to the ad hoc committee and for them to consider whether they're they were um we as an ad hoc committee agreed to look at those, and then when we our ad hoc committee got together the last two times, we talked about that, and then the last meeting.

I went back and watched the video again.

That's why I'm just and there wasn't necessarily a vote, but we I I asked, I think Commissioner Sample asked, are we going to go back?

And and the answer was unanimously no, we are not.

I mean, it was just you so if there was if if and again, I guess I don't know what happened in 24 hours from that night to the next night.

Um I I just so if we want to bring this old recommendation back, then our ad hoc committee will I guess discuss that, or are you taking on now?

Is your ad hoc committee taking on old recommendations on this?

Any recommendation?

If I can clarify, any recommendation that we want to put on the 2026 work plan that we want uh the the department um to uh review and provide comments on needs to be voted on by this body and it needs to be forward put forward as a 2026 recommendation.

That's my understanding.

Having said that, and and and maybe we have a difference of opinion here, I still think it's appropriate to if if somebody asked me, can you can you share the recommendations that this body approves in 2022?

It's still appropriate for me to share that and say this is what we approved in 2022.

And like I said before, what is missing is saying, however, these recommendations are not what the department is currently responding to.

They're responding to a 2025 recommendations, but there's still recommendations of this body approved at some point in the past.

It was a 2022 recommendation, it wasn't a it wasn't a current recommendation.

Commissioner Lewis.

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding this.

I understand I I know the discussion that you were talking about.

We were saying we're gonna move forward, this and that.

However, in what worlds do we live in that we don't look back in order to learn to move forward.

I don't think that Commissioner Um Um Bonastro was trying to say that this is what the commission is gonna do.

We're gonna take this recommendation from 2022 and we're moving it forward.

That's not I don't think that's what was being said at all.

Now he may have neglected to mention that hey, I'm standing up here as a private person XYZ, but for us to sit here and say, oh, we can never ever talk about anything that we ever did before in the past, that way lies madness.

And I don't think that that is the intent of what we're trying to do.

I think we still have to be able to speak of what worked in the past, what didn't work in the past, because otherwise we're not gonna learn any lessons.

Um and so I don't think at any point this body, at least not while I've been here, voted to say, okay, it is now September 2025, and we shall no longer think of those things that have gone before, we can only look forward.

That that doesn't make any sense.

I don't think that that that serves our constituents.

I don't think that serves this body.

I think that we have to be able to say, as we're forming our recommendations for next year, to say, hey, if if XYZ was the recommendation last year and that was addressed, then obviously we don't need to talk about it for next year.

But the only way to do that is that we looked at the recommendations from last year.

So I I think we're it's a little bit of semantics here happening, but we we can't back ourselves into a corner saying we can never look back, because that's part of the problem with with some things right now is we're afraid to look at our history.

We have to look at our history in order to go forward.

Commissioner Sample.

Thank you.

So uh just maybe to get a a little bit of clarity, uh definitely for the ad hoc, but also for this group.

What was brought to the table at the August 11th meeting was really to gather consensus of did we want to begin to look at not did we want to have that information?

We always knew that information lives there.

I I don't think there's ever any conflict with we know that we have those old um uh recommendations.

Uh matter of fact, I believe that they are part of the annual report that we said we want to make sure that that's always there for historical knowledge, but I think the heart of the question was do we want to go back and take those on and begin to continue to move them forward?

That's what you were saying.

That's where I believe we we left our conversation and the consensus was if it was gonna be moved forward, then it need to be brought up again.

Uh, but our ad hoc was not going to take and continue to advance those.

And I felt like there was full consensus from this group that it would be um appendix, it would live in our former work plan, but we were not going to take those recommendations on.

Uh and I guess maybe I'm asking, is that what everyone else understood?

Is that that was not that we were discounting, but we were saying that we were not going to advance those forward unless someone created those to be brand new.

I think that's understanding that we all have.

I think the the difference is um because what what I thought I was doing uh when I spoke at the city council meeting was I thought I was just providing information.

And I thought I was providing factual information relevant to that agenda item, which was MEU, that in 2022, this commission had approved a recommendation.

What I'm learning is that if I do that, I should be maybe more careful in clarifying where it's at.

Like I I understand that I understand that there was confusion.

But I I don't think I said anything that wasn't factual.

I said this was a 2022 recommendation from this body.

And I mean, I'll I appreciate this conversation because if if I say something as a vice chair in a public forum and it's it's perceived as me representing this commission, I have to make sure that I have agreement from folks here, right?

So I take this seriously that there was a misunderstanding on that because I want to make sure that that's it that doesn't happen again.

So I do up, you know, I do apologize for that misunderstanding, but I I I thought that I was being factual with what I was saying and and providing information.

So that's that's you know that's what I was thinking.

Uh Commissioner Griggs.

No, I cancel it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um we'll move over.

Uh we're gonna fine.

No.

Oh Commissioner Corps.

Um, I just want to point out, and I 100% agree that of course we have historical data.

Of course we do.

You guys all worked on this for years.

I completely agree with that, and I am not discounting that whatsoever, and I hope you understand that.

Um, it was our little ad hoc that talked about it, and we moved forward, and that was it.

And and I kind of left that night thinking, great, everybody agreed.

Everybody, including you, agreed, and so I don't know what changed in that 24 hours, and that's fine.

Again, um, there just is the communication was just a little bit off, and so now the city council thinks that that was on behalf of the commission.

So I I do think we need to resolve that.

That's so I'm happy to send an email to the city council, and I if I send them an email, I'll tell them this was a 22 recommendation that this commission approved in 2022, but I want to make sure you're aware that it's not a current 2025 recommendation.

Here's a response from the police department on this recommendation.

They can do whatever they want with that recommendation, and I feel like they're doing what they need to do with that recommendation.

They they're considering it, they brought it up, they give guidance to staff.

So what needs to happen to that recommendation is what should be happening to any previous year recommendation, which is be it it creates a conversation.

Um, and it and then it's up to the legislative body to figure out if they want to move forward or not.

Um I just wonder what if city council even brought up, what if they even talked about it if you didn't bring it up?

I don't know.

Maybe I don't know.

I don't know either.

Well, I don't know, so that's my whole point.

I don't think that they would have brought it up if if you hadn't if you hadn't asked them to but having said that, I mean I think we're done.

I I appreciate you being willing to send something to city council and clarifying that that that you spoke on behalf of yourself and not on behalf of the commission, that it was a 2022 recommendation, but moving forward, and if you and if this is something you want to move forward with, then something I'll say about this is that I was elected to be the vice chair.

Uh Commissioner Martinez was selected to be the chair.

When we go up to city council, we're asked for our opinion sometimes.

We cannot go to this body and approve our script of everything we're gonna say before we go to that body.

So I feel like the environment that is being created here is not an environment where we can express ourselves.

Now, this is appropriate where if we say something that uh somebody disagrees with or we you think that we overstepped or balance, that's appropriate for us to have the conversation.

But for us to check everything that we say, and we get a media inquiry.

We we're speaking as when I speak, I speak as a vice chair of this commission, who happens to be Manuel Bonrostro.

When Commissioner uh Martinez speaks, she speaks as a chair.

And sometimes people ask us for our opinion on things, and it's hard for us to, you know, we we try to express what this body has done in the past and where we are now, and I really don't think I I the more I think about it, I do not think I I misinterpreted what this body had done in the past.

And I'm sticking to that.

If you don't want me to be the vice chair, then that's fine.

It's up to this body to make that decision.

But I don't think I don't think I I don't think I misspoke, I don't think I lied.

I just didn't clarify something, and I do apologize for that.

Commissioner Coleman, the second.

Uh my apologies, that's new guy.

You take them to the council, and then they they get dissimated out to the the police department.

And those recommendations are simply that recommendations.

They can they can act on it however they see fit.

And then say we make a recommendation today, months pass or year passes, we get statistical feedback, correct?

And so we can either choose to rework that recommendation or choose to like, hey, that didn't work at all.

Let's try something different, or hey, that's working, keep going.

Am I understanding correctly?

Okay.

So are was the the prior vote was that to say we're not gonna utilize previous recommendations that weren't working specifically, or just like if we worked on it back last year, we need to start over, start a new and re-regroup.

I think I could help you, Commissioner.

Please thank you.

So there is there you're you're almost factually correct to some of it.

The recommendations are coming to the police department prior to going to council.

And then we make a response to the recommendations.

And I'll be happy to show you where you can locate all the ones we responded to in the past.

But uh what they're referring to is there's a backlog of recommendations that we didn't have staff time to complete.

So they're working, hey, these ones have not been responded to by the police department.

So do we want to do we want to use these?

That was the the the backlog of recommendations they're talking about.

The council thinks a totally different conversation, but yes, on your on your recommendations, I think that is that is more factually correct.

Like we were we were working on responding.

We had biweekly meetings with the chair and the vice chair to talk about our response, and then if we they agreed with our response or not, that we they were either marked uh partially implemented implemented, implemented, denied.

There's like six or eight boxes up there that that actually are on the forum that we that we created together as the commission and the department.

So that helped.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That does clarify a lot.

Sorry.

Sorry if I wasted everybody's time.

No, that's I pre that's great to have that clarification, especially as we think about the process.

Um I don't see any more um commissioners on the queue, so I'll open it.

I'm sorry, you're not seeing it.

Yeah.

So do we have any public comments?

Yes, we do.

Uh I have one.

I have one speaker, uh, Keon Bliss.

I want to appreciate uh the vice chair and uh other members uh of this body who have served for longer than six months uh uh before 2025 uh for supporting and standing behind the work that uh their predecessors have done, that your predecessors have done.

Um just to note this information and the discussion are related to our past recommendations, is all incorporated within our final annual report, which is comprehensive and it's clear, which as of at the as of 2024, there were over seven 178 recommendations uh before the ones that were approved in December.

And the there is on page 12 uh mention of at how at the end of of that of last year, commissioners expressed a strong desire for the commission to review and identify which recommendations from 2018 to 2023 remain relevant and should be prioritized for city council consideration implementation.

There was no vote to remove or like to uh discontinue or uh mothball the previous work that was done by your predecessors, and there certainly wasn't any vote to um say that any of the past recommendations, especially from uh around military equipment use policy, uh, are now null and void.

And I think members of this body knows that, including the commissioner from District 4.

It's quite disingenuous that you would think that like that you would try to obfuscate the conversation when there's clear and it's clearly in the public record, and I'm not gonna mince words here.

There's a clear conflict of interest with that.

You have a son that's in the police department right now.

You also have a close relationship with the Sacramento Police Officers Association, members of their executive leadership, including their president.

So it's not surprising to me that you would try and obfuscate and claim that this like that our previous work is null and void, but I think it's an important uh moment in transparency to actually name that.

And I'm going to bring up too the recommendation as it like as it partails in 2022.

That was under uh military equipment use uh recommendation number four, which states amending uh the general order to require PD to seek city council approval before any public or private funding may be spent to procure, acquire, or purchase military equipment under AB 481.

It also requires all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases to be submitted separately from SPD's annual report or policy updates for consideration by the budget and audit committee.

That was discussed in 2022 and approved in March 2023.

And it was received by PD no later than uh October 2023.

And in their response, which included both informal and formal responses, uh, it noted that uh the exit circumstances protocol was removed by like to uh prior to approval the last MEU period and is not contained in this pro year's proposed policy.

And seeking consideration of the budget and audit committee for departmental purchases of approved department military equipment would be a practice that needs approval from the city manager as a governing body request from September 2023, approved military equipment is listed and submitted to the governing body 30 days prior to procurement.

That was their official response that was submitted to us late after our conversation and approval of last year's MEU uh recommendations.

Um in the report the council that council had requested.

There are 30 recommendations around military equipment use that still largely apply, but the point of the conversation from last year was to go through, have an ad hoc go through each one of the previously discover the previously approved recommendations to see which ones were still current to the like current moment and which ones were not.

There is a mountain of archival footage there.

Everybody should have access to the annual report, and I encourage everybody to review and make sure that you're familiar with these reports as well as the detailed rationale recommendations, which came from years worth was years worth in the making.

There are literally 300 pages over 370 pages in our 2024 annual report with all of the recommendations listed there.

It was intentionally designed to be easy for this body and their like and my predecessors to continue reviewing this in historical context as well as members of the public.

So I encourage us.

Which these which went into all these recommendations before we just discuss and throw an entire like half a decade worth of work by your predecessors, by volunteers, just your time is complete.

Something that I need to clarify is that um, and I don't know if I should have interrupted during during uh the speaker, um, but I I just need to clarify that um when comments are being provided to this commission, they should be directed to the commission, uh, and we should try to not direct them specifically to a commissioner.

Uh and something else that I'll say is that um I still believe that commissioner I I still I don't think it's appropriate to assume intentions from commissioners.

Um, and I still believe that Commissioner Corps, whether I know we we have a disagreement here, I still believe that she brings that an important perspective to this commission and and solving those disagreements, going through them, uh stretching stretching ourselves a little bit is how we improve as a commission.

So I just want to clarify that.

So I appreciate the comments, but I want to make sure that we understand that we should direct comments to the full commission.

And also try not to assume intentions for commissioners.

We we can just talk about um the feedback that we want to provide okay.

Uh yeah, no more.

Okay.

Uh well, with that, um, I just want to again this was uh a good conversation.

Um if I'm being honest, I was you know, it it raised tensions a little bit, but uh like I tell folks that are in in legislative bodies uh is that if you are not having tough conversations or having disagreements in a legislative body, then you might not be doing the work.

So it's good that we're having these conversations now so that we can clarify and and maybe try to improve how we do work uh in the future and make sure that we speak with one voice um moving forward.

So I appreciate that.

Okay.

We'll we'll go ahead and move on to uh item three discussion on proposed topics um and schedule for a work plan for 2026.

The purpose of this item is to discuss and provide feedback uh to the chair and vice chair for potential topics and schedule and for the Sacramento Community Police Review Shift's 2026 work plan.

So one a few things that we want to hope that we hope to get here is get clarity on what the timeline should be for us developing that work plan, uh determine what should be the main focus areas for that work plan, what should we be focused on?

Um also determine who might want to uh start working on that.

Um so with that uh do we have any public comments on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for item three.

Okay.

And as we start this item, could we first um kind of discuss when the work plan needs to be finalized?

Um, just so that we can work backwards map from from uh what it should look like uh from us.

So uh what which meeting should we be bringing this up?

I know that this usually meeting where we discuss it before the final approval.

So, what is the timeline that we should be looking at for this?

And this is regarding the 2026 work plan as well as the annual report, correct?

That's correct.

So typically uh I commissions will start working on it um some as early as September, but typically around October, November, they'll start to discuss um and draft their annual reports uh for the previous year and work plans for the upcoming year.

Um, and then either by uh early in in 2026, we we um it's kind of the expectation for um that being heard for final approval um and forwarded to the personnel and public employees committee.

So we should expect to approve this in November 2026.

Oh no, uh well, November 2025.

Sorry, 2025, or January 2026, correct.

Uh November 2026 will be the 2027 work plan.

That's right.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yes.

That's what I meant.

Do we have any feedback, comments uh from the commission?

Uh we're looking for direction on the 2026 work plan, what what it should be focused on.

Uh my assumption here is that it's it's gonna be uh Chair Carter Martinez and and myself who are gonna be taking on the initial steps of outlining it.

Uh but uh we need your direction as we develop this work plan.

Well, one thing that I'll that I'll share is that as we develop the work plan, one thing that we want to do is is pull in uh the chairs of the different ad hoc committees uh because we want to make sure that that in the report and in the work plan, we include uh the work of the ad hocs.

Uh we want to get your feedback on what should be in that hocks for next year if we still want to have ad hoc ad hocs for next year.

Uh part of the work too is also uh elevating any recommendations that we want to um approve for 2026.

Uh the assumption is any recommendations again that we put forward in 2026 would need to be voted for by this body.

So um just want to elevate that as something that we need to incorporate in within the timeline, how we work with ad hoc to make sure that we incorporate your work within the the report and 2026 work plan.

Commissioner Lewis.

Um I'm not sure if this actually goes as part of our work plan, but I because I know it's something that's in progress, but the whole fixing of the calendar with the MEU.

Um if that's is that something that needs to be a recommendation for us, or is that something that's being handled between the SAC PD and whatever department on that crunching of the calendar?

Yeah, I I have uh a quick overview for you, but I don't know if it's this is the appropriate time.

Maybe it's when we do the report back on the city council, the MEU City Council.

So I will have it.

Um we do have a plan, and we want to go forward, and part of that plan was to first brief you guys on it to see if you guys had any input.

So that's what I'm gonna try to do tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Sample.

Uh just one suggesting maybe something around uh youth engagement and youth outreach.

That would just be one of my suggestions.

Can you say more about that?

Yeah, um, I mean, I think Commissioner Brookins has brought to light a very unique nuance area of our community that we have not really dug into much.

And when I talk about youth, uh coming from the K-12 side of the world, I'm actually talking about younger youth.

I know we have a lot of young adults that are definitely involved, but I would like to see how we also engage and get input from our uh K 12 kids, particularly our ninth through 12th graders in terms of uh their input and so their outreach and engagement.

And again, that's something that uh Commissioner Brookins definitely brought to light for us, but it's something that I also personally uh hold near and dear.

Thank you for that feedback.

Commissioner Griggs.

I'd just like to add to Commissioner Sapple.

Uh, if we could uh market this for lack of a better word with the police department, their police athletic league.

Uh do you still have the PL?

Police Athletic League.

Uh, and then also the uh community services for the police department uh would help us tremendously if we could get children involved with these organizations.

Okay.

Commissioner Sample.

Oh, sorry.

Something else that I would request from the commission is is I don't just want this to be something that is drafted by the chair and vice chair.

So um I would request if there's any volunteers that would be willing to review the work plan and annual report.

We would appreciate that.

Um obviously there will be a meeting where we can review it before it is voted on.

It's typically something that we do, but uh it would be great if we can have um one or two commissioners that are willing to take a look at it and be responsible for for having a closer eye on the report before it even goes to this body uh um as an agenda item.

I'm wondering if there's anybody that would like to volunteer for that.

Commissioner.

I'll volunteer.

Yeah, so we have Commissioner Sample.

I'm I'm more than willing to volunteer as well.

However, limited experience, I will be leaning on whoever volunteers with me.

Did Commissioner Lewis volunteer as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Vice Chair, I'd just like to make uh offer on that.

Um when the you guys do start working on the the the um the work plan.

If you guys need any information, maybe we could roll it into our um instead of having a meeting with you and the chair, we could maybe have a meeting with them that week or have one right after.

So we're willing to meet with you guys and take a teams call or or however that works to help you guys if you have questions to answer those.

Thank you.

And I I this reminds me last year there was great, we had conversations uh with the work plan, and we got a lot of good feedback on it.

So we want to make sure that we also include you as a partner in and giving us feedback and making sure that it's something that that is useful and clear in terms of what we want to do for next year.

Okay, seeing no more speakers on the queue, uh, and seeing that this item is for discussion, we can move to item number four.

So, item number four is discussion on ideas for commissioner outreach methods, including responding to public inquiries in a public meeting.

Uh, the purpose of this is to discuss the rules, processes, and methods that are available to the commission and as individual commission members to engage members of the public's questions and concerns.

Um, and I'm glad that this is something that we have agendized and that we're discussing.

It has come up before in that a few times uh during these meetings we've had public comment uh where folks might share information to the commission or they might ask something of us.

Uh and I I get the sense that we have not been completely sure as to how we can respond to those requests or those comments in real time or what the right process is for that.

Uh it's also good for us to communicate with the public how they can engage with this commission, how they can give us feedback so that they understand how they can engage with us and and and and inform our work as well.

So glad that this is something that we have on the agenda and glad that this is something that we can discuss.

Um before we start the discussion uh amongst the commissioners, do we have um do we have any public comment from members of the public?

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speaker slips on this item.

Our first speaker is Henry Harry.

I think this is a result of the uh comments I made here on August 11th.

This is the position I'm in.

Uh until I hear the comments from you guys.

Um I have nowhere to go.

So if you're not gonna let me speak after you guys, I'll just go sit down.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Keon Bliss.

So this is uh a worthwhile conversation to have that I think does definitely deserve our time and discussion.

Um it's not this commission's fault uh of our inability or just lack of capacity when it comes to being able to respond to uh public inquiries as well as uh engage in our own outreach with our community members.

It's frankly because City Council has denied uh like denied this body um adequate staffing resources for years on end.

It's something that we have noted as far back as uh 2020 um or 2019, technically in discussion, but uh 2020 recommendations uh that we need that.

And in fact, we like the closest we came uh to actually addressing uh the lack of staffing resources was uh in 2023, when uh then city council uh then city council member uh uh Katie Valenzuela, uh current council members Rick Jennings, as well as uh former mayor Daryl Steinberg uh proposed a joint workshop between uh this full body and members uh uh the appointing members of city council.

Um we followed up uh over the years when I was chair, uh we provided like we uh provided verbal feedback, we provided written feedback based on the conversations that we had uh over the course of last year, and we did the work that we were asked to do.

Unfortunately, uh uh the last council just didn't follow through.

I don't think it was anything had anything to do with our fault, but because we didn't follow through, because we didn't have uh that discussion, it led to that what uh to the 2024 recommendation under civilian oversight engagement and function, which was to schedule a joint workshop to address the city auditors 2021 audit of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission between the full city council and uh CR uh CPRC commissioners within the first quarter of 2025 to provide guidance and direction to the commission.

That still hasn't happened.

We haven't gotten a response from it, unfortunately, and I don't anticipate that the current council has any interest or appetite to actually do that, uh regardless of who is currently on the commission.

Um it's a lost opportunity, but it's something that uh according to the city like the city clerk's office is something that we have to advocate for.

We were told this as far back as uh that December 2023 when we sat down and uh talked with the uh city clerk's office.

And we've continued to advocate for that, like for this conversation since, but it's honestly gonna require y'all to uh to reach out and advocate for yourselves.

You need staffing support, you need a dedicated uh contact info uh for the city, like so many other commissions and boards, not just in Sacramento, but in the like Sacramento, like Sacramento City, but in Sacramento County, um in other cities across the country, as well as within California.

We simply aren't doing that.

And we could.

We've done it before.

Uh we used to be staffed by the Office of Public Safety Accountability, but because of the way that the city manager's office at the time, as well as uh PD leadership, uh refused to engage with us directly and um even before I was on the commission and uh and then proceeded to use OPSA as a third body when they had limited staff capacity.

That was what led to the city clerk taking over uh staffing uh of this body.

And so far they have been very clear that they do cannot and will not provide any additional staffing support beyond the minimum of facilitating these meetings and taking notes.

You have to advocate for these staffing resources, unfortunately.

And the public members of the public are going to be right behind you 100%, because that's something that we've been hearing from for years in uh like in our military equipment use conversations as well as ad hoc conversations with community groups.

You have the support needed, but until they hear from y'all that you need this staffing support uh and continue like and continuously ab asking for these for things like this joint workshop, nothing's really going to change.

And I think that's exactly the point, unfortunately.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you.

We'll move on to discussion uh for the commission.

We'll start with Commissioner Lewis.

Okay, so there's two sides to this.

One to me seems to be a technical issue.

So on the SCPRC website, there is no like you can't email the chair, you can't email the commission, there's nothing there in order to get a concern or anything directed to the commission.

That's correct, right?

That that's what I'm understanding.

I don't see anything on there.

So what is the my question then be well, what would be the steps beyond the staffing issue, which is a separate issue.

What are the steps to whatever department is that manages such things to at the very least allow for there to be at least an email that if members of the public have a question or have a concern that they can at least do that that the chair and the vice chair can have access to beyond the whole staffing issue, because I I there is a staffing issue.

I found that discovered that trying to do the MEU forum, we do not have the capacity, and I'm not because I'm not here long enough, I'm not sure what the issues are, why not?

But it just seems to me that's just at the bare minimum, that's a technical issue.

That's somebody set up an email account, add it to the website, and allowed the chair and the vice chair to be able to manage it.

I'm not sure what the process is for that or why that's an issue to begin with.

So the the question that that this raises is you know, does this need to be a recommendation?

Do we put it on the work plan, or is it just a request that we have staff look at um and they come back to us and let us know uh whether that's feasible or what it would look like to have an email account set up for the commission?

It's just like a but I mean I'm I'm assuming there may be a formal procedure that we must go through, but I guess I I could start the conversation for you just on that side with IT, just ask.

I mean, that's it won't be a formal I'll report back to you guys, but it's not I'll just say hey, what is the process if they wanted to do this?

So you guys have more information, pass it on to the chair and vice chair in our bi-weekly meetings.

So at least we're not sitting here waiting for an answer.

I could actually start a conversation on the city side just to see.

Because I don't really know the answer, I'd like to give you one, but I don't know.

So I appreciate that.

And I mean, I mean that's that's a good next step for this, right?

Can we have an email?

Uh the other question that I think was brought up last time is is what if somebody wants to contact um commissioners?

Is it appropriate for them to do that?

Um, you know, I I know that there's an might be an issue with us sharing or personal emails, but is there an option to having an email uh that is set up for us as commissioners to to receive feedback, or is it up or is it enough to just have uh one email for the whole commission that where we can get comments from the public?

Commissioner Corps.

Uh so I sat on a commission before this one, and it was the same way.

There was no emails, there was no way to contact us.

So that's just another one other commission.

I don't I it was my understanding that I believe only the parks is the one.

I have I think it's crazy that they don't have an email available for someone to reach out, and it goes back to that when someone is up here making comments, you know, we are not allowed to respond, whether we like it or not, we're just not allowed to, and it's very difficult.

And but I have I think it would be great, not saying we should have phone numbers or anything, but an actual email.

Why not commissioner Coleman?

New guy moment, sorry.

Um the City of Sacramento page when you click on the community police review commission agenda, it has that.

I guess it's it would be the second paragraph now on how to submit written comments.

Is that a method for contacting us, or is that a method for contacting what is on our agenda or speaking on it?

And so we're not reading those that's just for us then.

Okay, I was wondering if there was if that's what that was, because I'm like, how do they know who to address or what?

Okay.

Uh office of the city clerk.

I believe that leads to the e-comment portal, uh, which is just another way for folks to make uh public comments instead of uh coming to chambers uh to the uh to the lectern to to speak to you.

Um there's a um there's a whole area that you can access through the um upcoming meetings page that shows um electronic comments that folks have uh folks have posted um commissioner corps and I don't I don't know how often people make e-comments for our commission, but I know like for city council, there's always a slew of e-comments on there for if someone happens to be out of town, they can't make the meetings and so forth.

Um but I I'll be honest, I haven't even looked at it, see if there's any e-comments for tonight.

Have you looked?

I I haven't.

It's the same guy who posts on everybody.

Oh, is it about the QRs and that's just I don't know.

So that was the only one.

Yeah, there is there is one today, but it's for a later item, but that's actually a real comment, but the rest is just okay.

So I have looked in the past, but I just didn't have time to look today.

But it might be something that we should probably try to do is look at the e-comments, and you can do that just right through the portal.

Okay, perfect.

And and just to be it's a good practice for us to take a look at whatever is submitted by the public uh before the agenda and even during the agenda, folks can still submit comments if I'm correct.

So when they close office of the city clerk, they close at the end of the meeting.

So we can keep getting comments if if you know it's it's always a good practice to be aware of where we might be getting comments, where we might be getting feedback.

Um the other the other thing I just want to emphasize again is that if if we get public comment, um I know that we can't might not be able to respond directly, but if it if it sparks an idea for a future agenda item, uh this is a good example of that.

We had public comment, it sparked an idea for a discussion item, and we put it on the agenda.

So we always have that option of proposing additional agenda items.

Um later in the agenda when we have when we have um staffing commissioner comments, ideas, and questions.

That's a place for us to share ideas and questions.

We can give that's a place for us to give direction to the chair and vice chair on on what we might want to request be placed on the agenda for future meetings.

So again, as we get public comments, we might not respond in real time, but if if it if something resonates with you and it creates an idea for something uh for the future, it can be brought up there as an idea for a future agenda item.

What we cannot do, if I'm correct, is discuss that topic in detail.

We can only propose an idea for a future item, and then we can discuss it and go into detail for uh once it's an agendized item for a future meeting.

Any other commissioner comments, clarifications?

I think just to summarize, I don't see any more comments, but I think just summarize the discussion um to the best of my ability is is uh number one there's we're gonna explore what it's like to get an email for the commission.

I think that's a good idea um to set something like that up for us to get comments and feedback.

Um the second part is just clarifying that um we in a way we can't respond directly, but there's a way for us to put agenda items for the future.

Um and we can bring that up uh and propose that when um later in the agenda when we have um staff and commissioner comments.

Uh and that's also why we have the follow-up log.

That's a place for us to put future agenda items um to follow up on.

Okay.

Seeing as this is a discussion item, uh, there's no action required for this one.

With that, we're gonna move on to uh item number five.

Report back on the city council meeting uh on the military equipment use policy.

Uh the purpose of this item is to review and comment um on the city council's approval of the 2025 uh ordinance related to and adoption of the Sacramento Police Department's renewed military equipment use policy and the city's council's August 12, 2025 meeting.

I know we discussed that a little bit already, which is great, it was relevant to that previous item.

Uh but we also want to make sure that we share what happened in that that meeting and and the discussion that the city council had so that we all have the same information uh and so that we can report back to folks here.

Um so uh you know, if I can if I can just share, you know, folks know what happened, what put what I said in my I I did bring up the 2022 recommendation related to decoupling uh at the MEU um policy approval from uh approval of the um of the um actual purchases of military equipment.

Um I do appreciate uh having the opportunity to speak to council members.

Uh I it was uh me and and Commissioner Corps that were able to address the council during that time.

So I appreciate that opportunity uh and that invitation to uh answer questions from the from the council.

Um I think uh if I can just summarize the discussion.

There was a lot of appreciation uh for the process that we have had this year, and that we were able to provide feedback review the MEU report before it went to the council.

Uh that is something that several council members asked.

Has the commission had a chance to review and and provide feedback?

Uh I don't think there was any disagreement on approval of the report.

Uh there was a conversation about the timeline um and how that can be improved, and I those conversations will continue to move forward.

Um I didn't I didn't see any concerns in terms of the equipment that was on the list for this upcoming year.

Uh having said that, one council member did bring up the the recommendation that I had brought up uh for 2022.

Uh my understanding is that that is going to be something that um is looked at for the next year, but it's gonna be something that staff uh review and see what how that might be feasible.

Um something else that I want to clarify um is appreciation for the department on having the forum.

Um, and I think it it just um exemplifies how important it is for the public to understand what is in the definition of military equipment and understanding the nuances of that definition uh because understanding that definition helps the the public identify and hopefully encourages them to go deeper into what the Sacramento City Police Department is actually purchasing, right?

Are they purchasing uh robots, for example, um to help uh with possible um explosive devices, right?

That's very different than having um you know other types of military equipment.

So having that nuanced conversation, I think is important.

The other thing too that I think reflects the view of this commission is that I don't think that this commission or any commissioner that I offered um is proposing to get rid of all military equipment purchases from the police department.

I think we understand that it's a complicated topic, it's a nuanced topic, and I think what we want to continue to have is a conversation about the types of equipment uh that might be required to keep our resident safe and to uh keep our police officers safe again.

Um so with that uh commissioner corps, do you have anything to add since you were at that meeting?

I know.

Thank you.

No, I just will say that uh thank you to the Sacramento Police Department for allowing us to use their time instead of having to do uh speak during public comment where you just get your two minutes.

And I would highly encourage whoever is free at city council meetings to come and speak there because you're speaking to the city council and they get to hear everything that you would say.

Um so it's just a great opportunity.

So thank you very much for that.

And before we I think the way we're gonna do is before we move into commission, thank you so much for for your for your um take on on the meeting and and adding those words.

Um we're gonna ask uh or or staff of the police department if they have anything they want to add to this item before we go into public comment, and then we can move into commissioner uh discussion.

No, I think you covered the go over to the council, but one of the one of the follow-up items that we did get tasked with was to uh work on the timeline, which I know we all have been wanting to do.

So um we do have a plan to move forward, but before we move forward, I you know to the city attorney's office.

I wanted to see what you guys thought of it because that's gonna be a question.

Did the commission get the did they have any what was their thoughts about it, their concerns?

So um we're gonna keep the same reporting period, right?

Which is the uh May 1st to the end last day of April of every year.

Then um we're gonna add some hard some dates in there that will codify when each port we each function has to be done.

Say, like the you know, the by the third end of the third week of June, and I'm just going here because that's it hasn't been vetted.

We'll have the the report um online and available on our transparency page and policy.

And then by this date, uh we'll have the community meeting.

By this date, we'll go to law and ledge, and and you know, by this date it'll be approved by council.

That is kind of our our our process.

Our request is going to be to do a new new ordinance to push out the due date to the last day of the year, so the December 31st annually.

So that'll give us from May 1st of every year once the reporting period is done to create the report, get online, and essentially it gives us three more months to get community input to get changes from council to get to whatever to whatever needs to be changed to change.

And it's we're not in this crush in this this rush uh deadline to have.

So that's what we have to go back to.

So before that could be done, I have to go back to council to law and ledge with the um the plan that we want to do.

Then I'll have to go to uh council and get it approved.

And my question to you guys is any commissioners have a concern with making the deadline basically the the due date December 31st of the of the year, every year.

Or or any comments on what I just talked about Commissioner Lewis Um No, thank you.

And as someone who had to plan the MEU in like three weeks.

Thank you.

Um I think that definitely gives us time from end of year reporting, get the report out, and that allows us to have more than one forum, definitely get a better, better um and greater community involvement.

And so I think that December 31st is is great.

Yeah, and I'll be fully transparent.

My goal is to have it to council at the beginning of November.

That way we have changes also, right?

So that we still have till the December 31st, but I don't want to be crut like crunched on time with the remote.

Right, right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh this is something that will come come back up for this commission to review uh or to provide feedback on.

So we we appreciate that as it's being developed.

And I think we we all agree that the timeline needed to be re reworked, and we need to clarify uh that within the processes.

So thank you for that.

Um something else, if if I may add, that was that did come up in the council meeting, and I want to thank the police department for this, is that they did cite improvements to the report from previous years.

Uh somebody that write that does reports and writing and for work.

I understand that nothing is ever perfect, especially when you're writing something.

It's just as good as you can do it based on the information that you have.

So it does seem like there continues to be progress uh and more clarity within the report, and the the department is taking all recommendations that we have issued in the past to improve the report.

Um again, it's not perfect.

We can always read it and find things that we wish were more clear or or clarified.

That's always gonna happen happen in any report.

But um we we did get several council members that did appreciate some improvements from what they saw in previous years, and they also cited previous feedback and recommendations from this commission.

So I just want to thank the department again for continuing to work and for their work on on being on continuously improving um on the processes and the work that they're doing.

Uh with that, do we have any uh comments from the public?

Thank you, Chair.

I have one speaker slip for item five, Mr.

Keon Bliss.

First of all, uh just wanted to uh appreciate the vice chair um and members of the commission for uh hosting the community conversation and continuing this conversation forward, as well as um representing uh the course of our work that has been done uh since 2022 uh when AB 41 first came into effect.

Um just to note uh there were a number of things that were that did improve with the report.

Um, particularly the comparative use reporting was um something that we had long been advocating since uh the uh since we first provided recommendations to that.

Um, and really appreciate it uh having that, and hopefully that is something that continues on each year and is not something that changed.

Personally, I don't have much faith that uh the some like some change in leadership uh or policy is going to make a difference, but I'm more than willing to be proven wrong.

Uh and would invite like and hope that I am.

Um but some of the things I uh tried to note to city council um which necessitated our uh recommendation from 2022 uh military equipment use policy number four uh was the amount of money that is approved any time the annual use report is is approved, which this year it was uh the police department was approved to purchase more than 555,000 dollars in new equipment, which is a five-fold increase from 2024, uh, which among the most expensive items being 29 new drones uh valued at over 229,000, including two extremely expensive DGA DGAI uh uh three drones uh priced at over 47,000 dollars each, as well as more than 600,000 new assault rifle rounds uh for valued at 232,000 dollars, despite the fact that there was only three shots fired from rifles since reporting began in 2022.

And they acknowledge that and this uh SACP acknowledged that in its response to uh our questions in 2024 that rifles were not used in military equipment deployments and was primarily depleted during training, uh and it still has over $500,000, $500,000 rifle rounds left in its existing inventory.

Uh and there was also a request for 10,000 new beam bag rounds valued over $64,000 uh for less lethal shotguns, despite their current inventory exceeding more than 4,700 rounds.

The council, with approval of that uh annual use reports and policy changes, approved that uh purchase outside of this uh calendar year, and I don't think the vast majority of us uh realize just how much that money is.

But just to point out California's state law uh uh government code section 771, um which is was approved under Assembly Bill 481, uh, requires that the governing body only approve a military equipment use purchase if it meets four minimum requirements.

That includes the military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

The approach, the proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Three, purchasing the equipment is reasonably cost effective uh compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives, and four prior military uh equipment use complied with military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time.

Now, the equipment it's required like that the department requested and that it was ultimately approved for is neither necessary nor appropriate, especially given that we're entering our third uh fiscal deficit that's going to exceed at least 70 million dollars this year.

Um, and based on just two of those requirements, council didn't like didn't follow state law when it approved uh these military equipment use purchases.

In fact, um the in the staff report itself, the department named that this equipment was neither necessary, like was not necessary or time sensitive to that, uh, which uh to me is a glaring uh violation of assembly bill 481.

Um, but it was approved all the same, and barring some lawsuit from a community organization, which could cost the city a lot of money, uh, that's what how it's going to stand.

Um I would also just note that given uh SAC PD's chosen independent oversight entity uh being the Sacramento City Council member uh city council, somebody rubber stamping five over half a million dollars worth of military equipment requests buried in a 208-page reports, not only defeats the purpose of the transparency intended with AB 481, but even violates the MEU policy itself under the General Order 410.06's section C that names this law verbatim.

I think that's something that's worth considering.

We've approved more than we've approved 30 recommendations since 2022, which is confused on the police department's website, but 30 recommendations uh with only 22 receiving direct responses from the police department.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you for your comments.

Commission continue to have a question.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

We have no more speakers on item five.

Do we have any commissioner comments?

Seeing no commissioner comments and seeing as this is um item is for discussion.

Um we uh can move on to the next discussion item.

There's no action required for this item.

Um, I do want to clarify something.

At the beginning of the meeting, I said that the that item six, the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission follow-up log was in the consent calendar.

It wasn't on the consent calendar, it's actually item six on the discussion calendar.

Um, so I'm just making sure that I clarify that um since it wasn't on the agenda.

Can we make sure that I just want to clarify that?

Can we move on to item six?

Uh this yes, I don't recall you stating that the follow-up logs in there, but I might have missed that.

Um it was agenda, yeah.

It was it was not agendized to be on the consent calendar.

A lot of the time it is.

It was in the past, it was of today.

So uh okay, so the next item uh is item six, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission follow-up log.

Um, and I just want to say that this item is typically on the consent calendar.

It's supposed to be a log of topics that commissioners propose to be on future agendas, and it's a way for us to not lose track of those topics and to figure out the timeline in which they might be able to be placed.

Um, something that you'll notice if you look at the follow-up log is that uh a lot of those items, if not most, are from previous years and also from previous commissioners that might no longer be on this body.

Uh so uh one of the the discussions that we hope to have here is uh number one, uh making sure that we all understand the follow-up log.

Uh, and number two, uh, what can we do to maybe refresh it uh and make sure that it's updated so that it's useful for this commission.

Uh is there anything that staff might want to add or clarify that I might not have mentioned?

Okay.

So uh do we have any public comments on this item?

I have no speaker status for item six.

Okay.

Any uh commissioner comments.

Commissioner Lewis.

Okay, so how I'm reading this are these are things that we have as a body decided that we wanted to bring up at some point, and for whatever reason, these were never made it into agenda items.

That's what they are.

So the point of our discussion now is to decide what we want to make an agenda item, or add more to the log.

That was a question.

I believe that's what we want to do.

So the I mean the the recommendation that we have on the agenda is to um review the follow-up log, discuss it, um, and every year, I mean every meeting, it's in the consent calendar, we pass a motion approving the follow-up log.

Uh the reason that I believe we decided to pull it out of the consent calendar this time around and discuss it is to make sure that we look at it and figure out if there's additional recommendations that we might want to make about how to uh like if we want to move something off of the follow-up log, yeah, or is there something that we want to do to re refresh it or or make it useful?

Um so you know, I I think we want to make sure, since it's it's if you look at the items, a lot of them are from previous years, previous commissions.

Uh my guess is a lot of our commissioners here uh might not know exactly everything that would that is in there or the history of why something was proposed.

Uh so we want to make sure, just like we did with the backlog of recommendations is figure out how we can make refresh this and make it more useful for the commission as we move forward.

At the same time, we want to respect the topics that came up in the past.

Um you know, something that um that I think one of the ways that this log works is nothing really gets taken off the log unless the commission requests it to be taken off.

So if if an agenda item that is proposed in previous years it's not discussed, and this body never takes action to take them off the log, then it's gonna remain there, and that's what we have seen here with this log.

Okay, Office of the City Clerk, with the exception of if a request uh was not uh part of the commission's powers and duties, um, it would be notated on there and then that it's not part of the powers and duties and then removed um the subsequent time it comes forward.

Can you clarify that again?

So if uh commissioner makes a request uh that's not part of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission's powers and duties per the city code, um it'll be notated on the follow-up log that it doesn't, it's it's not part of your powers and duties, it's not under the jurisdiction of the body.

Um and then on the next time it comes the follow-up log comes to you, it won't it won't be on there.

So for example, if I if I say I want us to discuss tree removal in this commission, um it's not gonna make it in the follow-up log because it's not an agenda item, but it will be noted that I requested this topic and it wasn't relevant to the work of the commission.

Correct, and it should be notated, you know, it doesn't meet the or it's not part of uh yeah, powers and duties of the commission, and then when it comes back at the the following time, it won't even it shouldn't even be on the the follow-up log.

Thank you.

Commissioner Corps So why would it's my understanding that we leave this meeting if we want to have something on the agenda for next time, we email chair the chair and say we'd like to have this on the agenda?

Is that correct?

Why why wouldn't why wouldn't have some of these things been on the agenda in the past if someone is requesting it?

Uh part of that is uh office of the city clerk, part of that again has to do with uh if it is part of the powers and duties of the commission.

Uh sometimes it has to do with um staff availability if it requires um staff from other departments uh to make a presentation um on those items, and there's there's other factors as well.

Can staff clarify how does something end up on the follow-up log again?

Um per council rules of procedure, members may submit items under purview of the advisory body for inclusion on future agendas by orally making the request under the commissioner comment ideas, comments, and questions section of the meeting.

Great.

So just to give an example of the the last item, a previous item that we discussed, we discussed um in item number just to be accurate.

Uh item number four, uh ideas for commissioner outreach methods, etc.

Right?

So item number four is something that came up from a request.

Um that did not end up on the follow-up log because we were able to put it on the next agenda item.

Uh but let's say, for example, that it was an item that really couldn't be put on on the next week agenda, then that would have ended up on the follow-up log.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Coleman.

Yes, the you kind of hit it on it on at the end of your first comments, so opening comments on this, but it seems like I'm just looking at item number one.

Does SAC PD screen their equipment vendors following Fed state laws in light of article, blah blah.

Like it's a it sounds like a question, and if it's been answered, can we just like scrap it?

Or if we have a have an answer to it, it's it actually seems like a yes or no question too.

That's the worst.

But it feels like it feels like something that's easily scrappable.

And I'm looking through so a lot of these are questions that look like yes or no questions.

Can we just like make this list smaller?

Make it more workable, or is that something that we do as commissioners?

Can we just be like, yeah, let me Google this, or you know, go to the powers that be and ask the question?

Like I like how I'm trying to see how the like item no item number one, how would that be workable for us as as a as commissioners on this commission?

Please help.

Commissioner Lewis?

So my understanding is that this used to be updated by OPSA when they were staffing us, um, and the city clerk took it over in whatever year.

Um, but I agree with you.

I feel like we should just be able to go down the list and say, like that was a question, like Captain Buchanan is right here.

Can we ask him the question?

Or does that have to be a formal, we have to put it on the agenda for next time so we can ask him a question.

I think that's that's what I'm not understanding is which ones of these things that we can just in this body talk about and say, hey, um, like an older one is having assembly member David Chudy present on AB481.

Is that even necessary anymore?

Because of where we're at.

But are these things that in this time frame, this discussion period, that we can go down this one by one and discuss and say, hey, we don't need to do this.

The first one is a question for SAG PD.

Can we just ask him?

Or do we have to put it on the agenda to ask him?

I think it's if if we're gonna discuss it, it needs to be on the agenda.

So that's my understanding.

Over you can discuss whether you want this item to remain on the follow-up log and then uh make a motion to do it all in one go if you wanted to say, you know, I don't want item one, but keep all the rest, so you can make a motion as this is this item is requires a motion to approve the follow-up log, however, discussed here tonight.

Okay.

Commissioner Coleman.

Sorry, that was from the previous.

Thank you.

I you know, it seems to me like this item in terms of us making a more concrete recommendation might not be completely baked right now.

Um I'm thinking that maybe the direction that we can give uh moving for this item is is to kick this to the chair and the vice chair for us to take a look at all the items.

Uh maybe come back to you at the next meeting with a recommendation for each.

So, for example, item one, you know, I'm I'm not you know, not not so so it would look something like item one recommendation, uh take off, or item two, keep and agendize, right?

So maybe maybe I I think there's a little bit more work that needs to be done for this item, unless we want to go one by one in this meeting, and I don't know if that's a good use of our time.

Uh so I think I think we need to have a smaller subset, uh, take a look at them and come back with our recommendation for each.

Uh and then we can we can you know vote on that at the next meeting and refresh it.

Um I'm proposing that as a chair and vice chair.

I'm not saying that it needs to just be us.

So again, there's always that invitation that if somebody wants to be part of the discussion for this conversation, you can raise your hand and we can include you in those conversations as well.

But I I get the sense that that might be the best way to move forward.

Uh you know, if if that's what we do, do we need a motion?

Uh so any the motion made tonight would be to approve as as it stands now as it as it is in your uh staff report.

Got it.

So the guidance is the discussion, and and we can make an so if we can agenda if we do the work before now in the next meeting, this can be a new motion.

Um, this is gonna we bring the follow-up log.

The follow-up log is gonna be on every meeting, whether it be on the consent calendar or typically or lately it's been on the discussion calendar.

Um so it will it will be at the next meeting.

Um and in that time, um if yes, if you'd like to review and and make uh or propose substantive changes um to approve at the next meeting, um then that then that is your prerogative.

Okay.

And uh add to again during the comments ideas and questions portion of the uh of the meeting, commissioners may add to that follow-up log with new items that they've they might want to hear, and it will be reviewed by um uh staff to see if those things can be brought forward.

Thank you.

So there's no motion that we're passing, but uh it looks like that what we're gonna do is bring this up again with recommendations for each item so that we can take a look at at each and figure out if we're gonna take them off or not, and have and you know have a more baked item um at the next meeting.

Uh my ask to the commissioners between now and then.

Oh, Commissioner Sample.

Yes, uh just one question maybe uh to lend to this.

So I noticed there was a number of items that actually seem to have been fulfilled.

So you know, there's one that says this was presented at the October commission meeting.

The letter's been agendized and approved.

Um is there uh a reason why those still remain and if they've been, I don't want to use the term checked off, but if they've been checked off, do they have to remain on the log?

Um I don't believe so, but I'll go back to the city clerk's office to see if we can um consolidate this a little more.

I mean the other question is are we missing a step here, right?

Like when we cover check-ins with staff, should this be part of the discussion so that we can figure out if anything needs to be taken out.

And my assumption is that wouldn't require a motion or a vote if it was already discussed.

I'd have to get back to you on that.

Um, any any commissioner can make a request on um the comments ideas in questions portion, and everyone is uh the item comes forward to be approved by the entire uh commission, and having a subset remove items, I don't think would be appropriate.

I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting.

Um but I'd have to um I'd have to get back to you on that.

So then Mr.

Vice Row, I'd like to make the motion that we go ahead and approve the follow-up log as presented here uh with the request that the chair and vice chair uh follow up uh and maybe bring a recommendation back to the next meeting in terms of these items.

Second Commissioner Sample made the motion, Commissioner Lewis made the second I think we can I'll now do the roll call vote.

Please unmute your microphones.

Member sample.

Aye.

Member Johnson?

Aye.

Member Coleman.

Aye.

Member Corbes?

Aye.

Member Griggs?

Aye.

Member Lewis?

Aye.

Member Brookens is absent.

Member Espinoza Salazar.

Aye.

Uh Chair Carter Martinez is absent.

And Vice Chair Buen Rostro.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And uh before we move on to the next item, um, the time is 724.

And per council rules of procedure, uh, the commission must pass a motion to extend the uh meeting uh for no more than an additional hour.

Uh so is there a motion and a second to extend the meeting past 730?

Uh we might not need it, but motion to extend to 745.

Uh it would be so the motion would just be a blanket additional hour max, but if it takes you less than motion to extend the meeting for an additional hour max.

All right.

Thank you.

I have a motion by Vice Chairman Rostro.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

No.

Sample.

I have a no from Commissioner Sample.

And a no from Griggs.

No from Griggs.

The motion narrowly passes.

Uh so the meeting will be extended uh for an additional hour maximum.

Great.

Um so that was the last discussion item.

With that, we can move on to staff and commissioner comments, ideas and questions.

Okay, I don't see any staff and commissioner comments.

Uh next, we can move on to public comments.

Matters not on the agenda.

Do we have any speakers from the public?

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speaker slips.

Thank you guys for being here.

I'm sure there might be some other places you guys might want to see, so I really appreciate the work that you're doing.

You guys just uh I guess bypassed your opportunity to make comments and ideas, which goes back to what I had previously stated before is that if a citizen has a comment and it sparks an idea, if you've already had your ideas and comment section, I'm guessing then you won't be able to do anything about it until the next meeting.

So just as a matter of procedure, maybe you ought to hold off on your ideas and comments until after a speaker maybe says something that resonates with you.

Okay.

So I have a real concern about the independence of this commission because you work for a city council that is influenced by the police officers association through donations.

And so I think every organization from uh police department to a banking institution has to sometimes evaluate itself.

So if you guys were to evaluate yourself and perhaps pass a survey around amongst yourself to to ask the question, do I feel comfortable recommending something or speaking on something that I know my city council member might not like, that I know might not resonate well with the uh police department, and therefore I don't speak on it.

Well, you guys won't know that until you take a survey of yourself, and I recommend that you take a survey of yourself to make sure that you feel fully independent because as a citizen, I deserve that from you.

Okay, that's one.

Try this quickly here.

So uh again, some of the discussions you had earlier on item number four, I think was were as a result of uh something I said to you guys about what do you do when a citizen makes a comment and you have to go right or left on the comment.

So here is a comment that I hope turns into some type of decision by you guys, maybe putting it on the agenda for further discussion.

Policy-wise, I would like to see the Sacramento Police Department have a policy where it does not issue serious disciplinary action on matters until the mayor of the city has had an opportunity to look at that proposed disciplinary action for the sufficiency of the disciplinary action, because the goal of this is to make sure that there is no opportunity for the police department to do a slap on the wrist for some serious egregious behavior.

And the way that might be achieved is if a person did something that's really horrible, but they received, let's say a two-week suspension and had to go through to uh uh I don't want to call it therapy, but some type of counseling session.

Once that discipline is finalized, and then someone outside of the agency, let's say the city manager and or the uh mayor finds out that hey, you know, we've got a guy over here that's still around, but he did something egregious.

But we can't take another bite at the apple because he's already received a light discipline.

And so I think at some point I would like to see a policy that just says that serious discipline, maybe even termination, let's say a serious disciplinary uh problem uh ought to also be reviewed by the mayor before it's finalized.

And we'll leave we'll leave that one alone there.

I'll just conclude by saying uh I hope what I said made sense about the um your your process of ideas and comments.

If you have that before my comments, I think it's gonna be uh uh another full council meeting before you can take action on something uh that I might have said tonight that you might you know you might want to deal with.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our final speaker is Keon Bliss couldn't agree more with the previous speaker uh that was up here.

And uh some of us have been coming to these meetings uh for years on end, free about like you know, free and volunteer because we care about this work.

And this body, I know cares about this work.

You don't just volunteer here just on a whim.

It requires a lot of hard work and data analysis, and unfortunately, um for years, long before uh all of us in this room have served on this body, uh city council has not has not taken it seriously, the work that has been conducted by this commission among other commissions.

And I asked publicly how much does it cost to ignore the data-driven analysis and hard work that this commission has put forward?

The answer is less than $91,000.

That's how much seven out of nine elected council members that have appointed you have received just from the Sacramento Police Officers Association.

That doesn't even begin to get into the other public safety sector unions, including the exempt employees association, um, to look the other way when it comes to critical analysis of the police department or recommendations from this commission.

That's $8,000 from uh for the District 1 uh council member.

That is $6,800 for the District 2 council member, and that is uh $12,000 for the District 3 council member, as well as $6,800 for the District 4 and District 6 council members, as well as 10,000 uh over 10,900 for the district seven council member, as well as $38,000 uh for our recently elected mayor just since October.

And that's a huge return on investment, uh particularly when it comes to budget time.

Over 120 million dollars uh of investment uh from this consecutive budget increases uh that the Sacramento Police Department has received in this.

And it shows in recent decisions such as uh last week's approval of uh the shot spider gun violence uh gunfire detection system, which is a proven uh costly and ineffective tool for addressing gun violence that overwhelms dispatch systems with thousands of false alerts.

It sends for our first responders uh on wild goose changes that not only uh do not improve public safety, but also prevent first responders from responding to other calls for service in a timely or efficient manner.

And even at a time when we are facing our third year of projected budget deficits, we're renewed like our council members moved to renew this contract for over 2.6 million dollars just in maintenance freeze for the next five years through June uh 2030.

Dozens of even despite the fact that dozens of cities uh with a similar need for smart public safety investments from Atlanta to San Antonio to Chicago, even to San Diego, have rejected this.

We chose like our council members chose to reject this works like this commission's body of work that recommended that we terminate this contract uh since 2022.

Our surveillance ad hoc uh went through and looked at uh seven years worth of city staff reports from the police department applying for grants to fund uh this system that showed that the police like that the efficiency rate uh for this uh detection was 70 like was less than uh 25 percent.

If we found uh when we looked at the report, 73% of shot spotter alerts resulted in no reports from June 2015 to May 2022.

And from the reports directly attributed to the shot spotter, only four percent resulted in arrests and eight and a half percent resulted in firearms seized.

That came out uh according to their own reports, uh in just 70 uh 67 firearms sees and 58 arrests over a three-year average, which amounts to an average cost of about 22,000 dollars per firearm seized and 26,000 per arrest for city uh taxpayers, without including the labor cost, which we estimated as high as 2.9 million per year.

And this argument apparently won through with uh the police department's Captain Bails uh claiming that uh sound thinking shot spotter is 97% accurate, which unfortunately, according to forensic analysis shows that there's no actual way to establish ground truth evidence for shot spotter.

In fact, there was uh a pub, there was public video of sound thinking admitting uh to the uh Chicago Public Safety Commission that the 97 accuracy rate is a lie um with uh after it admitted that they have no false positive data for Chicago because Chicago PD literally do not track uh spot or false uh positives.

Um, with uh after it admitted that they have no false positive data for Chicago because Chicago PD literally do not track uh spotter false uh positives.

And the contract that uh the city just approved doesn't contain any language that requires PD to track false positives or any other data.

Uh, but we're gonna continue this on for at least another five years uh with the hopes that PD reports more accurately on this data.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Chair, I have no more speaker slips for matters not on the agenda.

Thank you.

Um and I should have thank you for the comments.

Um, and I should have done this at the beginning, but I'll do it now before we end the meeting.

Um, I just I want to thank Deputy City Attorney Um Itar Ita uh Stephen Itagaki for joining us today.

Uh apologize that I didn't mention that at the beginning, but uh thank you for joining us at today's uh meeting.

We appreciate your presence here.

Um and this with that this concludes today's agenda.

Uh thank you everyone for your participation.

The meeting is now adjourned.