I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the republic for which it stands, one nation, one God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

So the roll call, I see everybody present except for Peter Eichel at this point.

I have not heard from him, so I don't know if he's planning to be here or not.

I don't think we have any announcements.

Actually, I'll just remind people, if you haven't, I was one of those that had to go through the ethics training.

And it did take a full two hours plus.

So if somebody hasn't done it yet, they're coming up on the deadline, plan for it.

It does take that.

It took me two hours, 16 minutes.

I had to do the extra because I wasn't.

And you can't go less than two hours.

I know.

Anyway, so just so you know.

So I'm not pleasing this.

The city clerk's office will be those.

What's the deadline?

You would have received an email.

With a different date for everybody.

Yeah, depending on when you last did.

My deadline I think was the 10th of December.

Mine was yesterday.

Okay, alright, so that's the only announcement we have for the moment.

Next is the minutes for the October 15th meeting.

I hope you've had a chance to look at that.

Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?

Seeing none, can I have a motion to accept the minutes?

Okay, that's...

I'll second it.

Okay, so Keith and Jenny seconds.

So all those in favor of accepting the minutes?

Aye.

Okay, all those opposed?

So that should be passed 6-0 with one absence.

Okay.

so now we have various reports the first is the police departments report and

before you start assistant chief can you maybe not everybody's aware of it can you

let people know what the chief status is at the moment in terms of I could just

said she's she's out okay well for those who don't know the chief was to be part of our

presentation with Jeff and I at the National Naval Conference it was unable to join us in

part because she had some health issues so that's the reason I raised her I was just kind of hoping

have some news on her health but if you don't have any that's fine. We just have to tread carefully because we don't want to get it

vertically disclosed for some information. Right, not worry about HIPAA just to know she's okay would be good news. Okay so never mind.

Please take it away.

Assistant Chief.

Thank you, Chair Bailey.

I have three updates for the board of the community.

The first one is, I believe we spoke about this last time, is we have our annual event,

the Cookies with the Cops, on December 2nd.

It'll be from 5.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. in front of the police department.

There we'll also be collecting addition to having members of the community

decorate their own cookies. We're also going to be doing a toy drive as well.

So it'd be great to see members of the board there or if you can pass this along to other members

within the community as well. Second is I just want to give an update on status with the hiring of

police officers. We have four police recruits in the academy. Three are projected to graduate

next month and at that time they will begin a roughly 18 week field training

program and then the fourth was in the Academy not to graduate until next year

and then we will also next month this board will begin the Academy as well so

as you can tell we're actively hiring folks and hopefully we'll will bring our

staffing on to a higher level so that we can get away from our emergency schedule

we've been on for the last four plus years and the last piece is an update on

the virtual reality training the use of force that we spoke about last last

meeting I do have three dates for the board to attend I'll send this out an

email but I'll talk about it early is the first date we have is Monday

December 1st. The second date is Thursday, December 4th. And the third date is, I put

Thursday the 10th. I think that's the first date. Should be the 11th. I'll confirm that

that Thursday there. And I will send this in an email. And last time I believe it was

two board members at a time that went through the training oh sorry from 6 p.m.

to 8 p.m. yeah it'll be yeah it'll be night one it'll be here at the police

department yes I'm not sure if it'll be this room or classroom and I just don't

know if the city attorney can help you hear what's the maximum number of board

members can we have together?

Without agendizing?

It should be three.

Three, yeah, I just didn't win that.

Okay, so we can have up to three members at a time.

Attend the training.

So I'll send it out to chair via email,

and I'll get that clarification on that third day.

I appreciate it, thank you.

And that concludes my report.

Thank you.

the IPA's report.

Jeff and...

And while you're jumping on, it's going to be Wednesday,

Wednesday the 10th.

Jeff, can you unmute?

Hello, everybody.

Can you see me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Great.

Am I up?

You are.

Sorry, I didn't hear.

Good.

Okay, so firstly we have continued our regular bi-weekly meeting, which we review our ongoing incidents.

Second, Bob and I were in Minneapolis and I think I will defer to the chair to give a full report on that.

but we I think our presentation which we gave was well received and I think very

informative with a group that we were speaking to which were the

commissioners and committee members as opposed to the general membership of

of nicole third we have submitted our alpr audit to the police department

and they are reviewing that i expect that there will be some

items that they will respond to in terms of fixes that they have made since we

We undertook the audit and we will include that in the final report and bring it before this body when that is concluded, which I would expect would either be December or January.

Our annual report, which we had hoped to present tonight, unfortunately we couldn't get it on the agenda because it hadn't been fully reviewed by the chief,

who had just returned to work.

So presumably that will be on the December agenda.

Lastly, for me, there was a question with regard to the spikes and the use of force.

We worked with the department in order to understand whether this was simply an anomaly

or whether there was some other explanation.

Lieutenant John Robertson did a deep dive

into both the month with the high number

and some prior months.

Actually, in the month with the high number,

it had shown as 17.

In fact, it was 15 uses of force

because two of those uses of force were stopstick deployments in pursuits.

All of those 15 were low level.

All were calls for service.

And other than that, we couldn't find anything which would have engendered a higher reporting.

higher reporting of uses of force like a training that was held in which one type of use of force

or another were piled up and indicated that there hadn't been reporting previously.

That did not happen.

So we will chalk this up to being simply an anomaly.

The good news, again, is that all of them were low level.

and then we have reviewed each of those uses of force as well so i can stop there if there are

any questions i can try to answer them and then denise will give the monthly numbers i think would

you ask the questions yeah can you can you identify or give us a description of what low level is in

15 if there is similar or if there is any differences because

Have you seen there was two months where there was a spike? I don't I wouldn't consider that as an anomaly

So all the uses of force

Let me just read what

Said they

They were to overcome minimal resistance.

So handcuffing of subjects

where there was minimal resistance,

control holds, physical force,

and takedown.

So no use of a weapon.

And then one incident involved a taser, which I think that was displayed and not utilized.

And I'm sorry, the second part, the question that you asked was whether this was an anomaly.

I'm classifying it as an anomaly because we can't explain what the increase in the use of force was.

And Denise will indicate to you in the numbers for this month whether or not that continued or dropped down to the prior level.

So before I jump into the October numbers, I just want to make sure that was, did Jeff answer your question?

I guess I'm still trying to understand the distinction of what low level is because, I mean, you say takedown to the ground, but was it aggressive?

was it necessary? I mean, I know if you're taking somebody into custody, you're going to handcuff them.

So I don't know if I necessarily see that as a use of force as opposed to bending somebody's arm back

if they're resisting or not resisting because it's just the way you have a business.

So I'm not understanding that.

No, that's absolutely right. Handcuffing itself without any resistance does not constitute a use of force.

handcuffing with resistance where you have to use a hold or a takedown would

be a use of course again we have reviewed all of those incidents and found them

all to be within policy and which means that they were necessary in order to

overcome the resistance.

Can I ask a follow-up question? You did say that all of these use of force incidents,

the spike we were talking about was June, and that's why I appreciate the explanation

so far. But you also said that all those were a result of a response to a call for service

service as opposed to some officer initiated stop or other activity is

there anything in the nature of the calls for service that might explain

why more of those resulted in some level of use of force no I don't think there

was anything out of the ordinary those calls for service but maybe deputy chief

has something to assist in chief.

I'm sorry.

We need.

Try this one.

I don't know.

You have to keep pushing.

No.

No, just to kind of reiterate what Jeff mentioned.

There was nothing per se out of the ordinary.

During this time

Lieutenant Robertson who is our professional standards

professional standards and training lieutenant looked into each of the individual

uses of force and

They were all classified as

What he saw as low level force 14 incidents involved control holes of physical force

And then one what involved a taser

There were no serious injuries involved in any of those

the punt to you assistant chief was in part to say from the analysis that

will turn over the chair we will keep an eye on this and obviously track it and

see whether or not the spike continues from the prior periods

and each month as we did I appreciate that but then again if you would include

some effort to look at the nature of the calls for service because that seems to

be an important variable here so and so I'm sorry go ahead that Denise you have

of the annual numbers and there's no any other questions?

Yes, so as you know we report out monthly, so this is November, but I'm reporting last month, so October numbers.

So for the use of fours, which is timely, there were four in October.

And just to kind of give a, if you're not looking at the chart directly to you right now,

There were four the month before, eight, seven, and then we get to that 14.

So if we're backing up, you can see that the numbers kind of vary in there,

but that was definitely a spike.

So it was good for us to notice it, to look at it, analyze it,

and see if there were anything that we should take action on or keep an eye on.

And as Jeff said, we will see that going forward.

With regard to how many were reviewed by the department and the IPA, there were seven incidents that were reviewed by the department and seven reviewed by the IPA.

We're keeping up with their reviews, the number of.

There was one ACA, so the agreed upon course of action, related to the uses of force that we reviewed.

and there were 46 are in the queue so if they are under review but they have

gotten reviewed to a point where they're ready for a model review. The one op-app, I'll just

discuss that now, what we said is is that they should discuss with and remediate

an officer with regard to some she was lacking tactical communication skills

had used Jem'o-Matter.

So they'd use that.

But it was a tactical communication.

That was our

issue that we agreed upon.

So I'm going to move over to pursuits.

There were five pursuits in October.

There were 15 reviewed by the department

and those 15 were reviewed by us as well.

There were 12 authors,

and you'll see that's a much bigger number.

We have, because there were quite a few pursuits that we were reviewing and that were occurring

and we were reviewing, the ACA's are actually very similar to the month I reported.

We recorded last month and the month before.

So in other words, the incidents and the issues that we were seeing are very similar.

That's partly because it was a backlog, so these are kind of incidents that were occurring

occurring and the problems that will re-occurring each month continue to result in the same agreed

upon course of action. Reading those off, we agreed that remedial action should be taken

for unsafe driving. Again, we were talking about, you might recall that last month we talked about

the fact that supervisors needed to identify and document each of any kind of policy violation.

Sorry small, small so I'm looking at my writing. Oh and there was some report writing terminology

and consistency for clarification so that along the right we see areas where the reports needed

clarification and better wording for consistency.

The backlog in the pursuits, there are 34 cases that are waiting for, that are in the queue,

waiting for review. Those are coming to us, we're making progress.

Moving on to complaints, there were two new complaints this month,

four reviewed by the department and four of those reviewed by us.

There were two AUCA's related to the complaints.

They actually related to the same case,

and it was just a remedial action regarding the misconduct.

We're very careful not to give too much detail in that,

so that's as much as I can say on that one.

There are 19 cases, complaint investigations,

that are in the queue waiting to come to us.

or we do and that is our report

happy to answer any questions

I have a couple

so I don't want to get in specifics as it relates to officers but

are you having repeat offenders

yes there is

yes okay

And then what's the process when you're dealing with that? Or should I ask, is the department following your suggested recommendations?

They are, and just generally, what we believe in and what the department believes in is progressive remediation.

So, what that would be, and I'm not applying this to any particular case, but starts with

coaching and mentoring and retraining and then progresses to the next step, a oral admonition

then the next step and again the assistant chief can describe those steps to you better than I can

but the takeaway I think is or the major point is that there is progressive remediation

which is really the standard in not only policing but throughout industry.

Thank you.

Did you want to add anything to you?

So the remediation piece could be one-on-one coaching with the individual employee and

and then oftentimes followed up with a more general discussion amongst the team members of that particular shift.

And then obviously it's all documented either through a training point,

overrides the level of a documented counseling, or written reprimand or further discipline of the chain.

Any other questions about that?

Zaidia has a question.

Go ahead. Zaidia.

Thank you.

my question is about moving through the backlog and I was curious what accounts

for the difference in being able to move through the pursuits versus the

complaints backlog just like one looks like yes yeah thank you just to be

clear the the backlog is not with us backlog is if you want to call it a

backlog is with the police department moving through those so I'll defer to

the assistant chief you know some of the complaints can be that there's still

active complaints that are being investigated by majority of them are

done by an outside investigator so that can account for you know for that piece

of it so there may be a complaint that's opened up for an internal investigation

and they're just time it takes place with the interview of witnesses of

subject officers and just the coordination of that piece.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Judy.

I don't know if this works.

Yeah, it's a geo.

Okay.

Okay.

Can you read?

So this is for Assistant Chief Doors.

So before that, you mentioned counseling for the officers, right?

So that's different from coaching, right?

Like coaching.

It could be one of the same.

Yeah, counseling, coaching.

It could be additional training.

Okay.

so I don't know if you can go into this but my other concern is that how are they

given a certain certain period of time that they have to do that you know like

before it so most of the times it does occur almost as the supervisors

reviewing those incidents other types could be that it reaches the next level

in the review process and he gets pushed down to the supervisor or it could reach

level pushed down or all the way to the IPA it gets gets pushed down.

So that's after the training and everything right basically?

I may have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking when does that coaching take place?

Yeah coaching and so like how long after you guys coach and count so so like so at that point I'm sorry by that point the IPA will get it too right?

right there were you know we yeah so if we've already provided you have to push

the plug yeah but it could occur if it's sorry that's my training pop if an

incident gets reviewed and either the lieutenant who's the next line just to

review the incident or the captain myself or IPA we see that something

wasn't done that should have been done in terms of coaching counseling some

type of discipline that will push it back down for that to be to be done in

most cases because we do review every every supports their pursuit with the

IPA after they review it you know we come to the agreed upon course of

actions and if something wasn't done that we make sure that gets done and it

gets closed out at our next meeting with the IPA.

Tim?

So, worst case scenario, I guess the end of this process, then you come to separation.

And has that happened?

As far as termination of employees, we've terminated employees, yes.

Did I see it earlier?

Just a follow up kind of related to Jenny's question I think.

Is, you know, I have an HR background and there's a common term in HR that's called a PIP,

which is a performance improvement plan.

And at least in my experience often when there's a decision made to put somebody on a PIP,

there's an expectation that they have to improve because they're not meeting current standards.

standards coaching might be what you agreed to in a PIP but you also lay out

some timeline we expect within X amount of time we're going to review your

performance and you know if there's not improvement there could be further

consequences do you use that process or not yes we've used performance improvement

with employees.

Thank you.

Folks, just so you know, we didn't hear what Bob said that mics are cutting in and out.

We utilize PIPS in the department.

before it's approved with points.

So the answer was yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions before we move on?

As for a city attorney,

let me get this straight.

Last meeting, we weren't able to disclose

what the complaints were

without mentioning any officers' names.

Is that true?

That's correct.

Okay.

Now we're just trying to get a list of complaints,

what the complaints were,

but we were told we couldn't get them.

We can't get the complaints or we don't want the names to do.

Well, the names are different than the complaints, right?

Well, yeah, because I understand the name for it because to protect.

But you could have one without the other.

Yeah.

Right?

Were we asking for like a copy or something?

Could you have one without the other is the question.

Sorry, it should be.

Could you have one without the other?

I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand the question about one without the other.

Could we be able to see the complaints without the names of the officers in the complaints?

Oh, I see.

So generally speaking, the complaints and the names of the officers are confidential.

That's considered part of the personnel records.

I will state, though, that there's always an exception.

It depends on the nature of the claim.

And there are certain findings depending on those types of claims.

So Penal Code 832.7 really lays out the type of events or incidents.

It's so strange.

I don't think they were asked enough enough.

The California law states clearly what type of incidents must be disclosed

and which are subject to pitches, motions, and certain types of requests

in order to disclose the information.

The general rule is the complaints are confidential.

As with the name of the officers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, not being here last month, I don't think we're interested in, like, who the complaint was,

just like the type that we're seeing, right?

Right.

And I do know it can lead to discovery.

Like, I think one of the IPA was, they may have been Denise, and she was explaining something,

and she said she, and so I knew it was a female officer, so I kind of understand that.

but you'd be interested in just seeing the complaints

or type of complaints.

The city can provide a general overview

of types of complaints received and actions taken

that wouldn't specifically identify the officers

or verbatim complaints.

There is a way to provide that in summary.

That would be great.

Did we have to formally request that information?

Go ahead.

We're going down the rabbit hole.

This mic is the best one, so we can pass the mic.

Yeah, in the context here for the, any member of the public that wants information can make

a request through the City of Public Records Request Act and that would be subject to whatever

statutory exemptions or laws apply.

Obviously here for the board in this context, if you're having discussions with the IPA

and want to make certain requests, that's well within your authority here to make a request to the IPA.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

certainly what the Erica has just described is my understanding there's no

part of us getting aggregate information is just not being able to either have a

name or enough specifics about a particular incident that we could

identify the officer I think we should seriously consider honestly requesting

a regular report on the overview of the complaints what types of complaints with

what outcomes and perhaps even some indication of how many of those

complaints involved but does it also have more than one more than three

some way of breaking out those I don't really give you a sense of what's going

on even if we don't know the particular officer involved I don't know whether

this is the time to make that request and look to the rest of the board to see

if you have a point of view on that.

Do you think we should formally make a request tonight?

Yes.

I mean, just so that we can work on it.

Whoever is responsible, we've got the IPA's job to...

Well, we get some of that information, I'll say,

in the report that we are going to see from the IPA.

So there will be some information there.

If the board really wants to make a formal request tonight,

I would suggest that we ask for a report in January for a summary of the 2025 complaints

that were received.

And maybe that puts some finite bounds around it.

Then we can talk later about whether we want that to be regularly provided or just annually.

But as a starting point, are people comfortable with that as a request, a summary, an overview

with the complaints received in 2025.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want to wait until next year.

It's like they could start on an ingest of stuff that we don't have

because it's still going to be in the process of being investigated,

so we're going to be into March before we get it.

I guess what I'm suggesting at this point is we would tend to know

how many complaints are received.

We would know the types of complaints,

and we'd know how many of those were disposed of,

as of the end of the year. Yes, there'll be some that are still pending, but we'll have a ton more information than we have now.

And we can still follow up with further, you know, requests for updates.

But that's my point of view.

And the plan is to have that in January, correct?

The plan would be to get at least the overview that I've outlined in January, knowing that some of those will still be pending investigations.

And then we can ask for updates from the department, you know, month to month if we need to.

Does that satisfy your concerns, Keith?

No, I mean, I would just want the information now.

If they can't have it by next month, then we just won't have December's.

Because they're already backlogged on a bunch of stuff that hasn't been reviewed.

So it's like, let's just take the stuff that we have now and look at it and see if we can have a trend of what's going on as it relates to the complaints,

what type of complaints, how many repeat offenders that we have, as opposed to waiting

to January and still probably not get it until March or April.

The information that we have now, it can go back 12 months from the request.

Other thoughts?

I think we could ask them if they could have a report by December next meeting.

And then get an update in January.

I think there's value in having all of 2025.

Let's say yeah, let's get it now and then update.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is a request to formally have this overview of the complaints

for the complaints received in 2025 for our next meeting.

Correct.

And then we'll go to monthly.

And then we can follow up as needed.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

Yeah, we're entering into the discussion.

No formal motions required.

You can make a request to the board.

But since there has been some discussion,

you may want to open it up to public comments.

That's fair enough.

I will do that.

But I just want to make sure I'm clear on the intent of the board,

which is for the next meeting,

we'd like to have an overview of all complaints received in 25

with their outcomes and some basic breakdowns

about the type of complaints

and whether there are quote-unquote repeat offenders.

I'll try not to use that word, but go ahead.

Sorry.

Can we have it ahead of the next meeting

so that there's a chance for us to review it,

even in a couple days?

So I just meant not like at the meeting,

but ahead of the next meeting.

That's fair.

So normally we'll meet an agenda item.

If there's a relevant document,

we expect that to be attached to the agenda.

the department you're just getting a problem with having something available

a week before our next meeting in December I would say we would more likely

have it ready for publication time yes I think yeah okay good okay I think we

happen so but I will since we've been talking about this a bit take any public

comment if we have any on this one issue of reporting out of the status of

complaints

I don't need a mic.

I don't think we're doing mic.

In the street we say, can I get a mic check?

Then you all say, mic check.

I want to go back a little bit.

Two things.

One is sometimes an anomaly turns out not to be an anomaly when you consider potential bias.

And so the question I would be interested in is, you know, demographics of the individuals for whom the force was used.

Is there anything racially, age-wise, you know, is the school of social justice marching through the street and so like a bunch of kids got rounded up?

Is it because ICE came to town and people got out and opposed them?

I think it's worth a little deeper dive, especially given the racial disparities in our pre-textual stops.

I think it's important to always look at that.

And then the other question that came up later, you were talking about how to remediate when there seem to be issues with particular officers.

I'm just curious to know, when is the threshold met that you say, look, it's not working out?

I'm well aware that you've let officers go, and I appreciate that you have, because I think it's

ended some of the cowboy cop stuff that's gone into our city. Thank you.

Okay, is that for public comment? Is that it? All right, thank you.

so if I understand the city attorney's advice we don't need a formal motion we

have just made our request that it's clear to everybody in the room I think

what that request is and the department has agreed that they would provide us a

report for in time to be published with our agenda for the next meeting okay

it's so much for that all right board secretary's report next I'll make this

Just brief, I just want to thank the board for understanding my absence at last month's board meeting.

It's about we're going to be out of town on the city of business.

I want to thank my colleague, Dustin Austin, for attending instead.

Also, I wish to introduce our Celia Gonzalez from our Public Works Department,

who's been helping us this evening as our clerk for the evening.

I just want to thank her for her support and assistance as our deputy clerk is on the hall this evening.

Okay.

So now we get to the public comments for items that are not on the agenda.

Do we have any cards for that?

We do, Douglas.

Mike is over.

All right, I will shout.

Last Friday I was in court with the city attorney, I don't know if any others were you, in the

procedural matter whether to dismiss the manslaughter case against former officer Jason Fletcher.

And this is an interesting and important matter.

You may have heard Judge Reardon rule that no, the case is not dismissed, it's going to

go forward to trial in January.

And I appreciate that Mr. Fletcher has excellent representation.

Michael Reins was arguing for dismissal, as he has for 45 years in defense of police everywhere.

But the judge said, look, I want to see this go before a jury.

It's not prejudicing what the outcome will be.

But this is interesting because it's among the first cases that arose after Senate Bill 2,

the one that curtailed qualify immunity for police officers for just doing their

job and also decertified officers in certain circumstances I think you know

perhaps the greatest consequence for officer former officer Fletcher is he's

not going to be a police officer again but we are at this reflection point are

we going to go back to the you know old-school way of you know you're just

doing your job because that's what reigns is arguing and what the expert

witnesses who are called who said it's not criminal have said and what the

with the district attorney offices be suggesting and indeed what judge clay

said either I told people that are gonna then I get a rule against it well you

know I'd like to see what happens I think that it's important in terms of

finding justice for the family that at least the matters try again I'm not

you know predestine whether he would be found guilty or not but I also think you

It does take a $350 an hour expert to look at the body cam footage and see that Mr. Fletcher violated Steven Taylor's human rights.

Okay, so an important question for this body to consider.

Why are we sharing flock data with the California State Police Agency that is violating California

state law?

On October 3rd, 2025, the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the city of

El Cajon over its refusal to comply with state law prohibiting the sharing of license plate

data with federal out-of-state agencies. Note that that law went into effect in 2016. It's been a few years.

In 2023, the California Attorney General, just to clarify things, issued a legal bulletin letting police agencies know that you can't do that.

Two years later, El Cajon continues to share its data with 700 agencies, including 400, about 400, outside the state of California.

A good question for FLOC, why do they allow agencies to share data in violation of applicable

state law?

Now, we know that law enforcement agencies are not big fans of oversight or complying

with written policies, but come on, state law?

San Leandro, I'm sure this will shock you, shares our FLOC data with El Cajon.

We should probably stop that.

Now, recent news reports have documented how data from FLOC cameras have been used for

immigration enforcement, either by FLOC providing access to immigration agencies unbeknownst

to participating agencies, or by local law enforcement personnel searching FLOC data

on behalf of immigration agencies.

In addition, technical research on the FLOC devices themselves have revealed that they

run on software that has not been supported for years and has tons of vulnerabilities.

In addition, access to the FLOC system only requires a username and password, allowing

hackers to access Flock data using compromised credentials. For these reasons, cities around

the nation have been rejecting these systems and canceling their contracts with Flock.

These cities include the crime-ridden cities like Austin, Denver, Eugene, Eureka, Redmond,

and Sedona. In Evanston, after the city removed Flock canvas, Flock reinstalled them without

the city's permission. It required a cease and desist letter from the city. For these

many reasons, we should cancel the Flock contract and remove those license plate readers.

Thank you.

Do we have any other cards?

Thank you for that.

A reminder, I did support to all of you

an article that was about the same issue regarding

San Jose and so just it's relevant to the what's just been brought up here and

we may need to we should think about what we need to do next but that's not for

tonight so the next item is this long-awaited presentation by somebody

I think me on the NACOL regional conference is it possible to pull up that document

I'll try to make this...

Okay, so I'll try to keep this brief. This is carried over for a couple meetings. It feels

stale now, although what we were exposed to and saw and participated in at that meeting

was very useful. Tim and Jenny attended the meeting as well, and Eric did for the second

day and this was held in San Francisco in August thank you so let's next slide please

so as well attended it virtually all of the oversight agencies in the northern California

and there's a number of them so it was a good networking opportunity for us the first full

day of the conference was devoted to AI use in law enforcement. We've already

identified that as an issue that we want to track. Clearly it's a huge issue

in the whole field of oversight. Interesting to see the various ways in

which AI applications and whatnot are being used by different departments,

labeling the video footage, which sounds like a small item, but what I'm told is

that is very kind of time to swing it. Also redaction of public records. One

figure I heard thrown out was takes 40 hours of an individual to be doing

redacting versus one hour using AI. So it gives you some idea of why this is

attractive. Certainly it helps coordinate and scan across multiple databases.

you know the issue of using generative AI chatbots and whatnot for report

writing was a hot issue. It's even being used in some court systems, DA's offices

for preparing search for us. So the basic lessons that we heard from the

various sessions were the importance of transparency and that really however you

put AI into your process that you need to have regular checkpoints for human

reviewing of what's produced through AI and for accuracy also to check for

bias and things like that. Interesting that the city of San Francisco actually

did a pilot there. Their hope was that using AI assisted report writing was

going to free up a lot of officers time to do other more important work and they

found that it didn't produce the savings that they'd hoped. The amount of time it

took to actually check for the accuracy of the AI generated documents ate up

whatever efficiencies they thought they would realize.

Okay, okay.

And next slide, please.

So clearly there was some interest in how AI might be helpful to people who have investigative

responsibilities in the oversight field, and there are for sure.

Body-worn camera video and now dash cams and whatnot, reviewing of those is very time-consuming,

and so this can be a help to oversight investigators, especially when they're

looking for outliers and ways to kind of do early warning on officers who may be

showing up as a problem. I've already kind of touched on the AI use and report

writing, a lot of concerns about it, not the least of which is that when you use a

a long language model, I think that's the right term, chat technology, it learns by what you enter into over time.

And one of the examples that was brought up was furtive movement.

That could show up as a rationale for use of force, for any of the other things in the options report.

and the question is, does AI in its current form

actually fill in the blank for the officer on things like that,

which would be problematic.

So it's kind of a concern, I'll say, at this point.

I guess I'll remind folks, too,

we raised this issue in a meeting probably way back in,

it may have been July,

but the chief at the time told us

that our department in fact is taking a go slow approach on the use of AI

and because the technology is changing so fast,

because there are some obvious issues with it,

and I commend the department for being cautious about this,

but we still need to understand this as does the department going forward.

Another important development which I think impacts the department right away

is that fourth bullet there about referring to SB 524.

That law, that is now law. It was passed and signed by the governor just last month.

And that requires all departments who use AI and report writing to have a policy that assures transparency,

that includes things like what the source of any of the information that's entered into the AI app.

and most importantly it requires that if the first draft of an officer report is done through AI,

that has to be preserved and included with any final report.

It has to be signed off by the officer who used it to confirm or verify that that was for the audit trail.

So there's some basic information in there.

I've got a copy of the bill, I can share that later if people are interested,

but I do think it's something the department's going to have to prepare for at some point in the not-so-distant future.

Can we go to the next slide, please?

The keynote speaker was a professor from Stanford, social psychologist Jennifer Everhart,

and she's an expert in implicit bias,

one of her things, and in particular,

she focuses on that in law enforcement.

So this is just some of the kind of takeaways

that I got from that session.

The thing that struck me most was her saying

what we see and where we look impacts

law enforcement practices.

And she's quoted Martin Luther King Jr.

in saying, it's the shadow cast by that that we do not see

that affects our actions, our beliefs, and whatnot.

There were some recommendations for where

there would be what were considered really good

implicit bias training.

SFPD uses something called sojourner as the training.

and she also mentioned that even Nextdoor, which we know is, I'm not a big fan of Nextdoor,

and there's a lot of inappropriate things that seem to get posted there, but she pointed out that even there,

they were so concerned about racial profiling in the way that people were using Nextdoor that they've,

I don't know if this is in fact having any impact, but trying to really compel people

to post things next door to be very specific.

Her basic idea is the more you slow down the process and you get people to think through

instead of just reacting to what their implicit bias might be, the bad.

So she calls it, refers to it as friction, adding friction, things that slow down the process.

It's not unlike how we think about, in my mind, de-escalation.

So it was useful, and I'd encourage anybody to check out her work.

She's pretty impressive.

One other thing I'll just throw out, there's a she.

She's a black woman, black children, talked about being on the airplane with her six-year-old son.

And there was a black man walking around or something on the plane.

and the son turned over and said,

I sure hope he doesn't rob us.

And she said, here I am.

Here's my life's work.

This is my child.

I have no idea where that came from.

And that's her point.

But none of us do.

So I'm leaving at that.

But it was pretty compelling.

Next slide, please.

Implementation of responsible AI policies.

A character that you may know from the past, Chief Manheimer, who was our answering chief for us briefly.

Do you think we have liftoff? We'll see.

She was part of a panel there, and largely what they shared is that the International Association of Chiefs of Police is developing a model policy.

Nothing in it is very surprising.

for the elements that are pretty much laid out here.

It needs to be transparent,

it needs to know what the resources are.

But everybody, every police department is going to need

to have policies that really articulate

when and how they're using AI and with what guidelines.

So, I think that's all I want to say on this for the moment.

moment can you go to the next one so then there was a general discussion about

communications and community engagement every oversight body has this challenge

of how can we do a better job and reaching out to community there was a

particular problem in the Oakland where there are four different agencies that

might touch on something that you might consider a law enforcement complaint

it's everything from the community police review agency to the officer

inspector general, to the auditor, and to the ethics commission. And so they wound up kind of coordinating their efforts. They created a card that I have that shows basically what each of those agencies does and how to reach them and for what kinds of action.

But they do things that I think we should think about, but listening to our

in the community, bigger cities have a data where they can actually map where

the complaints arising from, and can actually use that to help target their outreach efforts.

I think we're probably a long way from that here, especially if you have such tiny numbers

that we do, but it's interesting to see that that's really being applied in a lot of places.

and they also just talked about the practicalities of how to even make the contact with organizations

you think you need to reach out and they just really encouraged you know research Facebook

and Instagram and see what community organizations are online and then use that where appropriate

to kind of help forge a connection or post information about what you're doing in those

places so worth us thinking about beyond the kind of stuff we do now. They did talk about the importance of onboarding of new members and they also thought that the more you can make relevant your own website the better. So for example our website gives good information about what we do and what the IPA does and how to file a complaint but we don't include any links for example to important information from the police department.

and we could. I think most people are probably confused by the transparency

portal for example and the various reports that are available there. Maybe we can do

something to actually make that more transparent and accessible to people.

And so those are just some ideas that came out of that. The idea of us conducting our own surveys or focus groups.

I've often thought that that's something we ought to consider down the road.

I'll leave it at that for now, but next slide, please.

A hot topic, not surprisingly, was ICE and how local police interface with that.

It was a strong panel with an immigration lawyer, a representative from the Sheriff's Office, and a federal prosecutor.

I think what most folks already know is that we've got strong state laws and local ordinances

around sanctuary city status and non-cooperation with immigration enforcement.

The oversight role then becomes really to ensure that our local police are following

those legal parameters.

There is some practical problems that we're already seeing.

We're, and I can see it here in some

online social media posts,

people are really confused by if somebody shows up and

they're not in uniform and maybe they're masked,

well are they ICE or are they border patrol or are they our local police undercover?

And so it's the kind of thing that I think the police

really can help reduce some of the fears related to that where they can to be able to give

people better information about who's actually out on the street and involved in law enforcement

activities.

You know there certainly was concern about what happens when the ICE provokes community

response in terms of demonstrations or what not and the sense that it's really important

to educate the public about how to avoid putting themselves

in harm's way when the feds are on the scene.

And I would argue that it becomes a responsibility

of our local police to help preserve safety

of those demonstrators in that instance.

We encourage more direct communication

between immigrant rights advocates and whatnot

with local police so they can coordinate police for planned events to be able to

plan for that to ensure and raise safety.

One of the particular challenges that came up was

our local police are still subject to our policies, but one of them is on the duty to intervene.

What do you do if you're a police officer and you're observing

a ICE or a Border Patrol person

using what, by our standards, would obviously be improper use of force.

Should they intervene or not?

This was raised as an issue.

I don't know if the department would be able to respond to that at some point,

but I think it's a real challenge to be sure.

Lastly, I think it's last, almost last.

Next slide, please.

There was a lot of discussion about RIPA data.

We've obviously struggled about it, with it.

The San Francisco Department of Police Accountability

did a major review of RIPA data and found

a lot of incomplete reports, officers

misidentifying drivers as whites,

and anomalies, to use the word, like, gee, on some days,

no stops were reported.

How did that happen?

So there are obviously some flaws that they found.

trying to get a handle on RIPAA data and how it, what it shows about your local enforcement activity and how that might relate to, you know, the national picture, you know, what's happening in the DOJ and the withdrawal data, it compromises that.

So that's a problem.

But I think this is mostly relevant for Jeff and the IPA's office.

Internal audits become really critical.

And they can and should be looking for outliers in the data.

They also could be looking to help clean the data by cross-checking with other databases.

If there are incomplete reports, that's a possibility.

And aside, we've looked to ourselves and we've shared it before, the State Commission on

RIPA, Racial and Identity Profiling Act, that State Commission issues an annual report.

They for years have been advocating for reducing the criteria for pretextual traffic stocks,

for example, because they're setting the disparities in the data, racial disparities,

to justify that.

What came out here was that PORAC, which is the police union's research arm at the state

level has actively been working to try to challenge the statisticians used by the

Commission and the whole issue is around to what extent can you really

attribute discriminatory intent to an officer in a stop and that's you know

we've had our own training session with the professor from South Florida or

whatever that sort of reinforce how difficult it is to make that cause and

effect conclusion. That said, at this session there was a lot of discussion and

questions about that. So lastly, the next slide is just the

We kind of know oversight's really come under attack post George Floyd and I think more

so now with the new Trump administration and the dismantling of DOJ's responsibility for

oversight.

But for context, what was brought out here is these pendulum swings on public safety

and how that impacts oversight are not new.

This has been going on for decades.

And so part of that was to say, okay, it's a bad situation now, but don't throw out your

hands.

We've been there before, we need to persevere.

That's kind of the message.

The importance of really the quality of it, communications with the public about what

you're doing.

You know, really a sense that local oversight is kind of all the more important now with

the MTA out of the picture and that's not going to change in the next three

years probably so and you know I was gonna be snide about this with this

last bullet was other people worried about their budget and that you know

fortunately we don't have one so we don't have to worry about it I guess

but also say this whole this whole issue is subject you know how to respond to

the current political environment in terms of oversight was a major theme at

the national conference, not surprising. And there's a very large expectations that

they call as the only national organization supporting oversight really

needs to step up in terms of being more political where necessary, not just being

a source of technical assistance and so there's real energy within the

NACOL board and membership to move in that direction. So that's all I have. I don't

have any quick questions or comments. Is there something we need to public comment or two?

Okay. Any comments, questions? Tim? I'm meant to ask. And also Tim and Jenny in particular since you were there,

there if you've got something you think you want to add please do oh well just

in particular about the RIPA information yeah you talked about where there were

there were actually I remember 191 times out of a calendar year in the

system's made for Bayview district there just were none but there was a whole

bunch of inaccuracies or omissions that would make the data very questionable.

I asked Mr. Torres about our form because I can't find a universal form that

Wilson fills out. I've searched but anyway I haven't found it. The ones that they were

discussing in san francisco for instance had seven where the uh seven choices where the police officer

tries to fill out what the ethnicity is for example there were many instances where it was

just left blank or some officers just filled it check marked all of them and

Of course, that was just for San Francisco, but if Jeff or Mr. Torres have any comments about this,

it just makes me wonder at what point when you're examining the data do you just discount them

or not include them in the data pool?

Enough said.

um did you what yeah ken's what if you'd like yeah um so we in 2025 we did not do an audit

of repo we expect once the ripa data is in completely for 220 in 2025 we will do an audit

that compares 24 to 25 and when we do that audit we are looking for those

kind of anomalies and so we will be looking for that we have in the past

with prior data been looking for that as well so we will continue to do that so

So far we haven't seen anything that approaches some of what you've described, but certainly

are on the lookout for it.

Okay.

Again, I guess this would be directed to the Assistant Chief Torres to get back to Tim's

request.

form that the officers fill out now that you can make available to this line?

So as I mentioned to Board of Members of the AFL, we use an application on the phone to fill out the form.

I just did a quick Google on it and I was able to find the state form that has the minimum requirements

of the check boxes or the box that can be filled out.

We do have additional data fields that we do capture on the form on top of what is required.

of RIPA and it's I'm trying to think what they what I think is there's four of them one is you

know whether the officer was able to identify the person before they stopped them like I you know

could they tell who they're stopping for they actually stopped them others whether it was a

high discretionary search or a low discretionary search for example a low discretionary search

would be if the individual was arrested you know possibly we searched it before

they put in the police vehicle or if it's a high discretionary search where

you know the officer asked for consent so not necessarily they have a legal

right to search them but they'll ask for consent and I believe we also this may

have been added to the most recent updated form by the state but then we

we're also asking for city of residence.

Can you make that available to us simply as a screenshot?

Something that would make it easy for us to...

I appreciate that you're actually trying to gather more information than the state minimum,

so I think it would be useful to see what we are doing.

Yeah, I'll see if we can do screenshots, but I believe it's basically you hit a

inner data field and it goes to the next screen, and next screen, and next screen.

So I'll see what we can, what we were able to come up with.

point I appreciate it anything else on this just before we wanted we are running out of time so we

already know we're gonna have to carry over some stuff the the question that kind of raised about

the from the the regional conference on the duty to intervene you know what are your instructions

now to officers if they're on the scene, ICE is actively engaged in their work and you

see a use of force.

So we actually, we talked about this last meeting.

Yeah, there was kind of the hypothetical scenario questions that kind of came up.

So there's a lot of, if the officer's there the entire time in the interaction, it can

definitively say that whoever's, whether it's one of our employees, one of our officers,

or an officer from a different agency if you know they're able to discern based

on the fact that they have and there was a we'll call it unlawful use of force

but you know our policy you know this dude there is a duty to intervene and

that includes recording right absolutely yes and so who would it go to so it

would be up our chain and if it's involving you know sheriff's office it

go to the Sheriff's Office involving CHB to go there and then whatever the equivalent is for the

you know whether it's FBI, DEA, ICE, whatever alphabet we want to talk about.

Of course my fear is that ICE doesn't care. That aside, all right thank you for that. We're way

behind but this is I'm told we do need to take public comment on this as a

presentation so do we have any public comment pardon no public

okay we're not able to make public comment and I didn't put it on the card

I think I'm saying there's no cards okay okay card would be preferable but go

I think I find AI rather scary.

In my own personal experience, I realized that if I want to get over a paragraph, that

I'm liable to be edited by AI, which apparently finds I'm a little acerbic and verbose for

some reason.

And my own observation is reflected by professional writers, like my friend Rueca Solnit, same

thing.

The moment you're in a public forum, how is this happening, but AI is really taking over.

So I appreciate the cautious approach and I hope that it's very mindful and being reviewed

every step of the way.

But I just wanted to follow up with what Chairman Bailey just asked about involvement of ICE

because now there's a lot of stories coming out of people who are being pursued by in my cars or being run at by

individuals in uniforms or masks but no name and no identification.

And so they call 9-1-1 and often now the advice is get yourself to the local police station.

So I would like, you know, I probably am not going to be profiled. I kind of have the, you know, get out of ice attack free melanin card.

But if someone were to follow the advice and drive into the delivery space and run into

the department, are you going to protect them?

Are you going to stop by the door and say, where is your judicial warrant and protect

the citizen of the city or really any citizen for that matter?

I appreciate what you said before about being protective of people.

I think that's really, that's fantastic.

That's really good to hear.

But in the case, you know,

where you're not just on the scene or whatever,

and we're running to you for help,

are you going to help us?

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

We've only got 10, 15 minutes left.

I'm gonna suggest that we carry over the training topic.

We'll carry that over to the December meeting.

If some of us do the ones with the PD, we can put that.

Pardon?

The training with the PD, that would be the coverage for the next one.

Well, we've already, I'm assuming that when we get the email from Assistant Chief Torres

confirming the dates and times, that it's up to each of you to nominate yourselves if you want

to go to any of those sessions if we have more than three for anyone we'll

deal with it but I would encourage everybody to do it and so yes but it

includes that so the next that is the action item on the policies for first

amendment assemblies and formation of an ad hoc committee we provided a lot of

material at the last meeting about the policy the attachments are listed here on

the agenda I also had pointed out at the last meeting that the policy of first

moment of assembly assemblies is woefully inadequate regarding the

requirements of AB 48 and which is the Penal Code Section 13652 and so I

actually wanted to propose a motion to have the current policy amended to

include the specific requirements for when you can use kinetic energy

projectiles, what are called plastic bullets, and chemical agents in crowd control situations.

And so I'd like to pass this out now. And after this I'd like us to see if there's a will to

create an Amphak Committee to further look into crowd control policies.

so the motion is pretty straightforward and it says

proposed to amend the current SLPD policy number 413 of First Amendment

assemblies, specifically section 431-13 entitled use of kinetic energy

projectiles and chemical agents for crowd control to include the specific

statutory requirements governing use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical

agents for crowd control that the lexical policy template omits, specifically at

sections under 13652 section B subsections 1 through 11 and you'll see

that's attached and put in brackets the specific sections that I'm asking to be

suggesting be amended to the current policy to be clear if you go to the top

of the policy where it starts with section B, it starts with Connecticut energy projectiles,

that is, that whole thing down to the bracket that I've given you is already in the policy.

That's the only thing that's in the policy. So what Lexapro omitted was that only can

happen if the following requirements are made. And to the extent that policy presumably

what's used to train our officers. It seems critical that those requirements be

included in the policy. They are everything from, I won't read them all

here, I did go over to them last meeting, you have them in front of you, and it's

the law. This is not discretionary. So I would like to make a motion to amend

the policy for 13 as indicated here do I have a second

I was making it I think I can make a motion from the best chair

Can't make a motion?

We'll do comments.

We'll do comments.

Yeah.

So,

is there an objection

to me making a motion?

If there is, then I'll see if somebody else

is willing to make the motion.

I'm not sure,

Robert's rule of order, if the person chairing

the meeting could make a motion.

Yes, you can allow

it to happen. You can invite the

motion first so with that I think we had a motion in a second but we need to

have a discussion about this any questions or comments about this

including I'd like certainly to give the police department a chance to come in if

they wish board members first questions comments just for clarification we're

asking that one through 11 be added to the current policy yeah and rate at the

place if you look at it only in accordance with yeah it's just a

continuation of the paragraph there now inserted great other questions or

comments please Joseph I think it was last meeting we talked about we asked

assistant chief tours about how often the officers were trained on their equipment

seemed like it was in Lewis and Torres like once every couple every three years or so

it also depends on you know what we're specifically talking about when it comes

to the fire for example our scheduled quarterly qualifications and then we'll

do that as a matter of fact we just went through a full day long training for for

that for the taser I believe it's every every two years but it is done you know

depending on what what it is our beam back shotguns I'm trying to think of a

last time so we just did that as well so these are done either annually or

by anyway.

Other questions?

The question was, do you think that's enough training?

Pardon?

Do you think there should be more training?

Is that a question directed to me?

Yeah.

As the training expert for the police department, no, I don't have an answer to that.

I think the first step here is to make sure the policy reflects the law so that the department

can train to that policy.

So that's my approach here.

Let's get it in the policy first and then we can address the issues of how frequently trained,

you know, how effective is the training, etc.

But the policy is a starting point for us.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Assistant Chief, do you want to say anything about this?

Do you have any problem with what's being proposed, for example, from your perspective?

Yeah, for the proposition, absolutely, absolutely.

You know, no issues with it.

I believe you know we do have some time for a response to it but I do want to

point out that this particular penal section is referenced in our policy

under policy 431 which is the first amendment assemblies and it specifically

refers to the use of kinetic energy projectiles chemical agents for the use

of crop control it goes on to say the kinetic energy projectiles and chemical

agents for crowd control purposes shall only be deployed by officers who have

received post training for crowd control if the use is objectively reasonable to

defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual

including an officer or to bring an objectively dangerous and awful

situation safely and effectively under control per Penal Code section 13652

Thank you for that. I mean, as I try to point out, maybe you missed it, though, what you just cited is the language that is verbatim from the penal code section that is referenced, but it omits what follows, and that's the concern.

So, but yes, I appreciate it.

But this is, honestly I don't lay this on the doorstep of the department as much as I do on Lexapol.

And it's just another example of when we rely on Lexapol, and if we don't do our own homework to make sure that these things are really up to snuff legally and what not, we're vulnerable.

And so part of our role here I think is to help the department be in compliance.

and so that's what we're trying to do here.

So that's what ended my speech.

Other comments?

I just wanted to say I think the specificity is really good and important

and that there's something to refer to in total agreement.

Thank you for that.

We will vote after we hear any public comment.

I did fill out a comment card for this one.

Well, I appreciate the attention to detail, and I didn't realize I would be saying this

before this afternoon, but I want to draw your attention to a little story from this

afternoon.

For several months, I and a group of other citizens have been bantering on the Williams

the William Street overpass adjacent to John Muir Middle School and down the street from

Haukeen Elementary with, you know, generally progressive messages, yes on 50, fun, snap,

healthcare now, si ves la migra, ya man, don't test me on my numbers in Spanish.

And today a patrol car went by at least four times, had the nice effect of calming traffic,

but I didn't realize that we were taking it all down that the officer stopped to ask,

was everything okay and that to me indicates okay well somebody made a

complaint about us exercising our First Amendment stuff so that's all cool but

then I think it's important for you know the officer said well are you sure that

your message is appropriate and that's really not the officer's call that's the

Supreme Court of the United States call and we could put fire on that banner as

long as we're not holding up in a theater and it is constitutionally

protected. So I think this policy also to take into account kind of low level

First Amendment, bannering, signage at city functions at a city council meeting,

window and yard signs people put in the yards. I'm very appreciative of the

San Leandro Police Department for kind of the hands-off approach for the

rallies we've had even when the youth get out and march to a former mayor's

house it's all good but you know like do we have a policy about unpermitted

marches you know fine when I when I lock myself down with chains in a you know

PVC pipe in the middle of town and East 14th all right I expect to get arrested

for that but there's a whole lot of stuff that you know you don't really need to

crack down on people and I'm grateful that you haven't but it's kind of

chilling if you think about it like are you sure your sign is appropriate you

probably figure out who was patrolling 130 to 3 on Williams Street over past

today.

Any more public comment?

Yes please.

I appreciate the updates that are being made to this part of the policy.

One question I have is when Lexiple makes its regular updates, which it does with some

on the regular frequency, if those updates are compared

to what the San Lando Police Department currently has

as its policy.

So as we go through and we make really specific updates

to sections of SLPD's policy, I want to make sure

that the next time the LexPol has its general policy update,

that it doesn't override all of the really thoughtful changes

that are being made, and that we're checking that

before the new policies are taken as the self-indeed policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think I should just point out, in this particular instance,

this law we're talking about went into effect in 2022.

So we'll explore a fair amount of time to get it right.

So we're at time.

Can I get a motion to extend the meeting for 10 to 15 minutes,

and no more than that, just so we can be clear

about our next meeting and whatnot?

Can we get 15 minutes to just go over what we've got coming?

Well, we still have, and the issue of trying

to create an AHA committee on crowd control.

There hasn't been a vote actually on the motion.

Well, the motion was specifically, yes, and that's it.

I'm sorry.

But I was just trying to extend the meeting time before we took a vote.

I would wrap up that part just to close that item.

Okay.

So we have comments.

We've heard from the department and the public.

Do I need to read the motion again?

All those in favor say aye.

Okay, so all those in favor of the motion as presented.

Aye.

Wait a minute, I think, right?

You did already.

Sorry, this is the vote.

All those in favor?

All those opposed?

Okay, so 601 absent.

Thank you for that.

I think it's important to get this done.

So now, can we agree to meet for the next 10 minutes or so?

I'll obviously get you up.

Do you need someone to make a motion for that?

Well, if there's no objection, we can do it.

If there's so many objects, then that's different.

I don't think we need to take a vote unless there's an objection.

So let's try to wrap this up in 10 minutes.

So the other part of this action item

was to create an ad hoc committee on crop control.

And even though we addressed one aspect

of the crop control policy tonight,

but through this motion, there is other work

to be done to evaluate current policies

around crowd control.

You know, again, in the agenda we've listed several different policies that relate.

But for example, you know, there is no, I've not seen anything in the policies that specifically

address, let's say, use of pain compliance techniques when dealing with passive resistance,

example and you know so when people are engaged in the civil disobedience and

it's lawful and it's not posing a safety threat but they're sitting down on the

street and their arms are locked are there any ground rules for you know what

force can be used against those persons and you know the current policy is

pretty good about following the law in terms of the notice requirements

announcements you have to disperse etc etc that's all there but there isn't

anything right now that says what should happen you what can the officers do that

if their people are still resisting but they're not all right so so I guess my

question for that would be I'll raise my hand and recognize it addresses persons are given

an objectively reasonable opportunity to disperse and leave the scene, then sitting down with

your arms crossed is not following directions, so then it says that you have the opportunity

to use kinetic energy.

Well actually it doesn't, but what the law says is that if you go on to the...

It says, kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents shall not be used by any law enforcement

agency solely due to any of the following, violation of an imposed curfew, a verbal threat,

or non-compliance with law enforcement directly.

So we can argue about what that means, but it suggests to me that it's not clear that

they can, this law suggests they can't use at least chemical agents and kinetic energy

devices to move those people who aren't resisting.

That's why I'm saying, okay, well, we have some understanding of the guidelines there,

but what about the next step?

because if you're going to use something less forceful but still painful,

paying compliance holds, etc. What are the guidelines for that?

We don't know, I think is the answer.

I just want to raise this, by the way, not to say I don't have a predisposition about what are some of the things that policy-wise

or holes that need to be addressed.

I don't have a particular point of view of what the language or rule should be.

And I bring this up as an example of just what I think could be within the purview of a crowd control ad hoc committee.

You can be looking at not just what's in the policy, but what maybe isn't there that we think ought to be.

We can learn about more of that from seeing what other partners do, etc.

So that's just an example.

there there is I don't want to I mean I understand the concept but if what it

says here is only in accordance with all of the following requirements right if

there's not a crowd control or people albums you know somebody's asking to get

out of the road what's the police policy on that like hey get up move on well

that that's the question right if they get to a point where they've given in a

lawful order to disperse the crowd doesn't but they're still peaceful

they're not throwing work you know and what can the officers do then to clear

them away and what level of force does this city authorize them to use and

And honestly, I don't see an answer to that question in the policy.

It may be well covered in training, I don't know that.

But it's not obvious from the policies what guidance, if any, the officers would have

in that kind of a situation.

And it's, you know, unfortunately, I think that this is, we're not,

in the current political environment, this is not just a hypothetical conversation.

Right, and I'm not saying that.

I'm just saying that as we address adding these 11 elements in here under kinetic energy projectiles,

why are we looking beyond that?

You can't do kinetic energy projectiles in chemical agencies

if you don't follow these 11 things that we just added.

So that's the part that I'm not understanding.

Like, we're talking about kinetic energy projectiles.

If there's another subject that we should be discussing, then what is that under?

It's crowd control policies. It's agendered that way. This particular item that we voted on already is only about one piece of crowd control, right?

Where there was a seeming to be a glarial mission in the existing policy on chemical agents and kinetic energy projectiles.

What I'm suggesting here is that,

I'm trying to get a sense of the will of this body,

is are you interested in creating an ad hoc committee

to explore ground control policies more broadly?

Not just this, but more broadly.

Got it. All right.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, that's fine.

So, is there any more comment on that?

I was going to try to be helpful, but I think you got it.

Yeah, no, once he said that's fine.

Yeah, I got it.

Okay, crowd control, not kinetic energy.

Yeah, and so the question is who would be willing to serve on a committee to start to explore those issues?

And no timeline right now, just starting the process of doing our homework or not.

Do you anticipate being on I-pop?

I'm going to see if I can get three without me. How's that?

Does that mean no, unless I'm on it?

Okay, that's almost one.

Anybody else interested?

There's two. You and Tim.

And then whoever else volunteers.

Seriously, is there nobody else interested in doing this work?

Initially it's just research. It's like, what are other departments doing?

Are there policies that maybe we can take a look at that would help us here if we think by

you know some holes that are possible.

Three. Yeah.

That's three.

Who's the three?

You, Bob Bailey.

Nothing like dominating me.

And you and Joseph?

I will do it if it takes me to get to.

Thanks for nominating me.

I second him.

Needs him and

Joseph will start this work

and

go from there.

Then I'll wrap this up.

So this last item is just, you know, the board reports and announcements.

So I'll just go around.

Do you have anything, Sayida, that you'd like to report or comment on before we close?

I feel like I'm supposed to say something.

You don't have to.

Just thank you.

That's allowed.

Justin?

I just thank the police department for the Nixle alarms I've been getting permissive.

missing persons and stuff. Hopefully I'm not one of those next little. You guys know what I look like?

Okay, Tim, do you have any? No.

I don't have any. That's fine.

Keith. Question to the assistant chief. Is there an opportunity to get the ring cameras still?

Yeah, you can just shoot an email and I'll thank you with Jennifer Crosby.

Okay, thank you and happy holidays everybody. Happy Thanksgiving.

Okay, so I think I already reminded people about ethics training. The assistant chief reminded you of the cookies with coffee.

event on December 2nd.

The next agenda then, what I've got is the IPA's end of the report, and possibly if it's

ready where they are, their recommendations on pursuits that they have to work on with

the department.

and now the carryover of the training right and we had tentatively budgeted

budgeted the gendered December for review the SLP budget changes you're

having to face would you be ready to do that in December I'm going to say no

because we still we have more internal meetings that we're still kind of going

through so that's there for January yeah we can have been in January January I

mean if you're not aware every city department has to make cuts and so this

is a chance for us to kind of set some of what's the effects on the police

department okay and do you want to say anything about that actually on the budget I do want to clarify

but we are actually mid-cycle right now because the city operates on a bi-annual budget

and so there is no real budget development process happening right now directly for

26-27 because that budget was already adopted.

But for 25-26 systems adjustments. So anyway we're looking into this and just

we'll share that with you.

Budget adjustments are classified as budget baseline.

Okay, so I won't use the word budget.

I will just...

Well, like I said, we'll have to look into that and we'll report back as to...

Okay, well I'm going to say we don't expect that we will change.

Okay?

I am correct.

Okay.

You know, the...

Jeff alluded to the presentation that he and I made that we were hoping would also be with the chief.

At the National Conference, it was on the seas, I won't go into the details about that, but at some future meeting, maybe January,

I probably should do some kind of a summary for you of that conference, not unlike what I just did for the regional one.

There is a ton of material that is available to all of us from all those sessions, including ones I didn't attend.

And those are going to be available to us for like five or six months.

So I'd like to kind of give people a sense of what those topics were.

So if there's anything that you're particularly interested in, I'll make sure that those documents get to you.

Because they might be things we want to take up in the future ourselves.

So just know that. So I try to give a

general overview of that in January, I think.

So it leaves for this next meeting really just the training

issues for ourselves and the IPA's annual report. Unless I've missed something that's

always in and maybe any committee updates. So I don't know where we are for example on

the information card that you guys are working on for outreach. So the next meeting if you could

bring us up to speed. And I think that's it. This meeting is adjourned.