Joint Meeting of Measure U Community Advisory Committee and Sacramento Community Police Review Commission - July 19, 2021

On July 19, 2021, the Measure U Community Advisory Committee and the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission held a joint teleconference meeting starting at 6:00 p.m. The meeting focused on key findings from a UC Davis public deliberation study on police reforms, the Sacramento Police Department’s FY2021/22 budget, and potential collaboration between the two commissions. The police department did not attend, drawing criticism from commissioners and the public. The meeting concluded with agreements to hold another joint meeting in the fall and to explore joint ad hoc committees.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1: Police Department Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget Update – This item was originally on the consent calendar but was pulled for discussion by Member Bliss. The committee voted to receive and file after discussion. No formal vote was needed as it was a receive-and-file item, but the discussion highlighted concerns about lack of police department attendance and insufficient detail in the budget documents.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jeffrey Tardagia (Item 2) – Questioned the sample size of the UC Davis study (42 participants in Sacramento) and sought clarification on the 16% statistic.
• Dr. Corinne Macintosh Sako (Item 2) – Expressed strong support for incorporating the study’s findings and called for more substantial police reform, noting that increased police funding has not reduced violence.
• Brian Powers (Item 2) – Raised concerns about the study’s scientific validity, sample size, and lack of crime statistics provided to participants. He also asked who commissioned the study.
• Maria Elena (Items 1 and 3) – Criticized Measure U funding going to police rather than youth, and accused the police department of using youth as scapegoats. She also cited a problematic event hosted by a community group that photoshopped a gun into a child’s hand.
• Evan Minton (Item 2) – Thanked the commissions for their work, expressed fear for his biracial nephew’s safety, and criticized the city council for ignoring the police commission’s recommendations.
• Corinne Macintosh Sako (Item 1) – Detailed the police budget ($165,871,667 total, with Measure U making up only 3% or $45-47 million) and argued that law enforcement does not keep communities safe. She criticized the chief’s narrative linking gun violence to summer heat and black youth.
• Ramon Rodriguez (Non-agenda) – Called for less funding for police and more for social services, citing systemic racism and the police department’s handling of protests.

Discussion Items

• Item 2: Key Findings from a Public Deliberation Study on Police Reforms – Pat Powers and Dr. Shawnee Bugs from UC Davis presented findings from a study of 126 participants across three communities (42 in Sacramento). The study asked participants to choose among four reform options: (1) increase transparency/accountability, (2) enhance training, (3) reduce policing by shifting nonviolent responses, (4) replace and reimagine policing. In Sacramento, 38% chose option 3 and 38% chose option 4; 12% each for options 1 and 2. Over 80% said the session expanded their views, and 1 in 10 changed their preferred option after deliberation. Participants favoring a smaller police presence increased by 16 percentage points. The researchers recommended making police budget information more transparent and using deliberation to inform policy. Commissioners discussed the study’s limitations, the need for larger local samples, and the importance of engaging communities not typically at commission meetings.
• Item 1: Police Department FY2021/22 Budget Update – Commissioners expressed disappointment that no police department representatives attended. Member Bliss criticized the lack of meaningful responses to questions about program outcomes and metrics. Member Lujan noted that crime rates are 70% above the national average, questioning the budget’s effectiveness. Dawn Holm, Director of Finance, answered questions about budget breakdowns, explaining that the city does not do programmatic budgeting but can provide more detail for Measure U funds. The Measure U budget is being realigned to remove most public safety funding, and a presentation will be given in August.
• Item 3: Open Discussion Regarding Potential Collaboration – Commissioners discussed ways to work together, including holding another joint meeting in the fall, forming a joint ad hoc committee (though the deputy city attorney advised each commission to create its own ad hoc), increasing transparency and metrics for police spending, and possibly hosting a public conversation with the city council. Member Kivel suggested using Measure U funds for public deliberations on police reform. Member Sala advocated for a 2% annual reduction in police funding. Member Bliss proposed a joint budget ad hoc to examine overtime and other expenditures. The vice chair, Williams, summarized the consensus: continue collaboration, establish a joint ad hoc (to be discussed at each commission’s next meeting), request police attendance at the next joint meeting, and review the city survey on public safety.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 was received and filed after discussion, with the understanding that more detailed budget information will be presented at the August 16, 2021 Measure U committee meeting.
• Item 2 was received and filed; the slide deck will be shared with commissioners.
• Item 3 resulted in an agreement to:
  • Hold another joint meeting in the fall (targeting before the end of 2021) with the police department present to answer questions.
  • Each commission will consider forming a budget/public safety ad hoc committee at their respective August meetings, and those ad hocs could coordinate.
  • Continue exploring ways to increase budget transparency and outcome metrics for police spending.
  • Possibly organize a public community conversation with the city council.
• The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.