So I'll call the order of 601 and the first pledge of allegiance.

I don't remember doing that.

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

the United States of America, the United States of America,

for which it stands, one nation, under God,

indivisible, and liberty to justice.

Thank you.

So we've got two absences so far.

I know Peter is going to be absent today,

and I have an announcement to make in that regard.

And we'll see if Tim makes it.

So the first thing is that Peter has resigned,

and he sent a letter to the mayor

to that effect last week and they asked me to share that with you so let me just read it to you.

Dear Mayor, please accept this letter as formal notification of my resignation from my position as a member of the San Leandro Community

Community Community Review Board. My resignation will be effective January 1. This decision is due to the increasing demands for my job

to build up critical healthcare manufacturing facilities required to improve patient lives, which prevents me from being able to

dedicate the required time and commitment to the board's important work.

I am thankful for the opportunity to observe the city of San Leandro and its residents

in this crucial capacity since June 2024.

I fully support the mission of the CPRE and the work it does in cooperation with the independent

police auditor to increase public trust and accountability.

I will complete any bridge impending matters and I am available to assist with the smooth

transition of information to the board and my success during my final weeks.

Sincerely, Peter Franco. And we do thank Peter for his service and appreciate that

he's taken this step. And now let's see, hopefully we'll have somebody on board.

We're not too distant, I'm sure.

We've got to organize here, we've got too much stuff to do.

Chair, what does Peter represent?

Excuse me?

Distant?

I'm sorry, he's the mayor at large.

So another announcement I'd like to make at this time is given the fact that the death of Stephen Taylor five and a half years ago, the criminal case was just dismissed this past Friday, actually after our agenda came out,

And the Stephen Taylor dance was obviously an important impetus for the creation of this very body.

So I think it's important to acknowledge kind of what happened Friday and try to think about, well, how do we go forward as a community and from that.

So I've written up a statement I'd like to share with you all.

It's a personal statement.

I don't expect that, you know, I'm not asking for your endorsement or any action, but let me just read it to you.

The dismissalist pass variety of all criminal charges against former police officer Jason Fletcher for the killing of Steven Taylor after five and a half years

is cause for great relief for the officer and his family. The opposite is true for the Taylor family who feel that justice has been denied.

And so we faced the prospect of reopening the deep wounds in the community that resulted

from that tragic incident.

Unfortunately, the St. Leandro POA, Leisure Union, corroded that this decision was, quote

unquote, vindication.

It was not.

Rather, the third DA with responsibility for the case concluded she could not win the case

if it went to trial, in part by blaming the previous DA for mishandling the case.

It also should not be that surprising.

Over 1,000 people per year are killed in this country by police.

In fact, a slight rise in that number since George Floyd.

Studies show that while over 12,000 were killed from 2005 to 2017, only 82 resulted in criminal

charges against the police.

So where do we go from here?

In my view, a few things need to happen.

Number one, the police need to acknowledge that the loss of Stephen Taylor's life was

as the independent investigation by the OIR group concluded, and to reaffirm its commitment

to avoid recurrence of such incidents through training and compliance with the revised police

de-escalation and use of force policies, which include more restrictive use of deadly force

standards, which were successfully advocated for by both the Community Police Review Board

and the Independent Police Department.

Number two, the city and the community should celebrate and embrace the positive legacy that this tragedy produced

thanks to the Taylor family and their many supporters.

That includes the establishment of the Community Police Review Board to increase police accountability and transparency,

the Alternative Response Unit to respond to mental health-related incidents and rule of police,

the Llewellyn Interim Housing and Drop-In Center, sometimes referred to as the Navigation Center,

to improve services for the unhoused,

and the sanctity of life

at the marina

to not forget.

While this is no doubt a small consolation

for the Tamer family at this moment,

it all deserves to be recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you for

indulging me.

I felt it's important to acknowledge the moment.

And

next item

is the approval of the minutes of our November 19th 2025 meeting.

I hope you had a chance to read it.

Does anybody have any additions or corrections?

Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the...

So moved.

So moved, okay.

I'll second that.

Okay, that's...

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Gibbs makes a motion and seconded by Kim Scheng.

All those in favor?

If we could just confirm the public comment.

On the minutes?

Yeah, technically.

Do you have any public comment on the minutes?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And...

Comment on the what?

On our minutes.

On our minutes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And...

Comment on the what?

On our minutes.

So, with that, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, so that's 5-0 with two absences.

Alright, moving along, the next item is the Police Department's report and we're pleased

to see that we have the Chief with us again back from her painful experience, which has

nothing to do with us.

But anyway.

She was fine.

Don't ask questions that you don't know.

Anyway, with that, see, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone.

I wanted to share a few really quick updates with you about the police department.

Tomorrow, we have three recruits that are graduating from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department's Police Academy.

So that's exciting news.

we have another recruit that graduates from the Contra Costa Sheriff's Offices Academy in January.

We also have four recruit trainees that start the academy in January.

So we're making progress in trying to backfill some of our vacant positions.

We also currently have two lateral applicants in the background process who are near completion.

and we are continuing to hold interviews bi-weekly for entry-level academy graduates and lateral police officers.

In addition to our sworn hiring, we have one candidate in the background process for our vacant records position.

I also wanted to give a very brief statement on the dismissal of the charges against former San Leandro PD officer Jason Fletcher.

I am aware of the court's recent decision regarding the motion to dismiss criminal charges against former San Leandro PD officer Fletcher,

related to the officer-involved shooting, which resulted in the death of Stephen Taylor.

I recognize that this decision may bring a range of emotions, and I encourage continued respectful dialogue as we move forward together as a community.

That incident was and remains deeply tragic for all involved.

The court's ruling brings a legal conclusion to the criminal case, but it does not erase the human loss, the impact on Stephen Taylor's family, the impact on the involved officers, or the difficult conversations that have followed since that incident.

Our department respects the judicial process and the roles of the district attorney and the courts in their review of this case.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Assistant Chief Torres.

Thank you, Chief. Earlier this week, I sent over some RIPA forms to the board. This is a request that I forgot which board member. I also want to give a couple of just extra details regarding RIPA.

So one of the biggest questions is what triggers a form to be filled out by an officer.

And what triggers it is any detention or contact.

So if an officer detains anyone, even briefly for a vehicle stop, pedestrian stop, or investigation, data must be collected.

This can be a result of an officer-initiated stop.

For example, they see somebody blow out the stop sign.

Or it can be for a call for service.

So we get a call of something that occurred and the other scripts with you and the officer makes a stop on it.

The data points that are collected, as what I shared with the board, is the time of day, location, reason,

the actions taken by the officer, and perceived characteristics, such as age, race, gender, disability, etc.

of the person being stopped.

As I mentioned previously, is our department, in addition to the state-mandated requirements,

we do collect additional information and that is whether or not the stop was intelligence-led.

So for example, the example I gave of a crime that occurred and a description of the vehicle was given

based off the vehicle or as you're aware we have LPR cameras both inside vehicles and

throughout the city. So if we get an alert of a stolen vehicle or a wanted vehicle,

the officer stops the result of that. So that's one of the data points we collect additionally.

Also, the resident city, the person that stalked.

And the last one is whether or not the officer was able to, whether the person's race or

ethnicity was perceived prior to the stalking made by an officer.

And with that, Chair, that's my update on the river.

So there was a question I had that I forwarded to you.

So there's a very long state form, and then there's an example that you gave of the, I think it's just a two-page San Leandro Police Department form.

And it's only the state form that, as I saw it, asked the questions about use of force and whatnot, and I guess also about searches, which I didn't see in the San Leandro form.

So what are officers expected to do? Are they supposed to do both forms?

No, so they only do the one form. Had there been force, they would have checked that box and would have opened up additional data fields.

So the exam brigade was without that?

Correct, yeah. And I should have clarified that piece.

So as I mentioned previously, we use an app on the phone or on the computer where they fill out those boxes.

so if force was used it would open up additional data fields for officers to fill out.

If there was no force that was used or if a search did not occur

it would not open up those additional data fields

but what is transmitted to the state is all the required information

and our information is transmitted as soon as a supervisor reviews the forms

which could be the same day or the same week

and it goes directly to the state

and then the state would kick it back

if there were some fields that were not filled out.

And this is what the new system

that we currently utilize.

The old system we had,

we wouldn't be able to transmit stuff

until the end of the year.

And as you can imagine,

if we started getting errors

trying to correct something that happened,

you know, 12 months prior is

challenging to do.

here it's as close to real-time as possible to correct any errors or

missing data field that wasn't filled out. Thank you for the explanation. I think the

new system you're talking about is also referred to in the IRAs report. It's the

LEFTA? Correct. Yes. System just so for the benefit of the rest of your... Can you spell that?

It's an acronym but it's L-E-F-T-A. What does it stand for? I don't know.

You don't either?

We'll add that to the Jeopardy questions for the next meeting.

Sorry, we don't have an answer.

Somebody can look it up, maybe.

Okay.

Anything else?

Is that it?

That's it.

Did that address the questions any of you folks had about the forms from last meeting?

Okay.

Sorry, the additional update is, my apologies,

is on the virtual reality training.

And I do note with Member Trujillo,

there was an error on our part as far scheduling-wise,

but it's still available.

And ideally, if we need another member to attend

with Member Trujillo, it would make for a better...

I actually hadn't had a chance to sign up for it at the time,

just my own fault,

so I'd be happy to hear up if that makes the answer.

Okay, what I'll do is I'll email both of you

and then figure out another day

until we convene for everybody.

Great, thank you.

So next item on the agenda is

the independent police honors report.

Are we all not connected?

Denise, are you...

Yeah, can everybody hear me okay?

Yes.

You might want to dial it down a little bit.

It's too loud.

You woke everybody up and there's complaints.

Let's see if I...

Maybe I can whisper a second.

No, we hear our students a little bit.

It's better.

It's okay.

It's hard not seeing you all, so I apologize.

just please interrupt me Bob I'll listen for your voice or whoever just interrupt me because I won't

be able to see you raising your hand or or nodding or anything okay everybody following us please

okay okay so I'm going to refer you to the um the stats report that you should have in front of you

and I'm just going to go through these numbers first but then I'll come back to the use of course

members specifically.

So again, it's December, so we're recording November's numbers.

In November, there were 13 uses of force.

11 reviewed by the department, and 11 were also reviewed by us.

There were no ACCA related to those uses of force.

The ACCA, as a reminder, is an agreed-upon course of action.

So as we're discussing with the department, we come up with any action that needs to be

taken, talk it through, come up with an agreed upon course election, but there were none

including the use of force.

Pursuits, there were four new pursuits this, in November.

The department reviewed five, and we reviewed those five.

Going back to use of force, I skipped the incidents pending, that first column, which

is the, those that are in the queue, I hate to call them backlog, because they're not

all really backlogged. They're just those that haven't made it through the full review of the

department in order to then get pushed to us for review. So there were 42 uses of force that were

in the queue going on to pursuits. Again, there were four new pursuits in November, 21 in the queue.

There were five reviews by the department and five reviews by the IPA. Again, no ACAs for those.

pursuits that were reviewed.

Going on to complaints, there are 30 in the queue.

There were five new complaints.

One reviewed by the department and pushed to us, and we reviewed that complaint, and there

were no office.

A couple of things to note in the big picture of this, I'll stop for questions in just a

second, is that we reviewed 17 incidents altogether, IPA, use of force pursuit, and

complain and there were no office this time and that's great news really and what that means is

not necessarily that there were no issues with any of these it's not like the incident went

perfectly but that that means that there were fewer issues for sure and that the department

the supervisors and the executive team have already taken the appropriate action when we see it

so there was no additional agreed upon course of action necessary.

That's really good news.

To Trent, we want to see you for sure.

We also noticed that the...

Sorry, go ahead.

Yes.

So I'm curious about the ones that recommendations were made by the police department

because I was about to cheer that everything had been done perfectly, but can we, if there's

corrections that are being made before they get to you, should there be another category?

In other words, so I hear what you're saying. I think I hear that what you would want to see is

how many incidents weren't perfect?

And I'm kind of, that's in jest.

But what I mean to say by that is

there is no perfect incident, right?

It doesn't, it almost never happens.

So whenever there's a dynamic situation

like these use of force pursuit or complaint happens,

there's going to be things that could have been done better.

That's the IPA's whole philosophy

is the continuous improvement.

We can always find a morning quarterback

and always find things that could have been done better.

We try to do that with mentoring, coaching, remediation,

and obviously if it's bad enough, we have to go to discipline.

The department decides that.

But the picture here is that the fact that we are,

when we, the IPA, gets it, what we're seeing,

because in left of that system by the way it's law enforcement field i just looked it up for you

law enforcement field training application that's what left stands for so that system

um documents what the department saw what the supervisor saw and did and i don't know if you

remember that in the last month or two's reporting we specifically said that we were noticing where

our recommendation on that on the aka agreed upon is that the supervisors needed to take action

when they saw that there's a small policy violation or tactics that could have been better

we all agreed that the supervisors needed to to remediate that at their level first

and that message got across because what we're seeing now is that that's what's happening so

So I don't think there should be another category, to answer your question, because that could go on forever.

We could Monday morning quarterback each of these incidents to too much of a detailed review for this forum.

I think that would be my opinion anyway.

Okay, I respectfully agree or disagree because there's intimate details that probably happens, and I'm going to applaud the police for making those recommendations and trying to correct.

But there could be instances where it's the same thing happening, the same thing for the same officer, but we wouldn't know that.

And when we look at it, if the recommendations are coming for the same officers for the same thing, then it's almost as if you guys, it could be your recommendation, but it's just getting kind of pawned off, in my opinion.

I'm not sure I understand that last part.

Can I try to see if I understand what DACA is and what your question is?

So, first of all, it sounds like ACA is only going to come up if by the time it gets to

the IPA for review, there's some additional action that you think is appropriate and then

that produces a discussion with the command staff to get an agreement to do this additional

step.

If when the IPA first sees it, there was an incident, but they're satisfied with how the

department handle it, how the supervisor handle it, and they don't think they need to be proposing

any further action.

It doesn't mean there wasn't any action.

And maybe the Chief's the better one to answer the question.

And if there's somebody that shows up, even if there's not an ACCA, with that was kind

of a repeat violations of policy, that decision rests then with the Chief on whether there's

disciplinary action, and this form won't capture that.

Chief, do you want to comment on that at all?

And do I have it right, first of all?

So, excuse me.

This is why we have a very robust review process.

So an incident happens, the sergeant, the shift sergeant prepares, let's say it's a pursuit.

The shift sergeant prepares the pursuit form and the evaluation.

It then goes to the Washington commander or lieutenant, and then it goes through another layer of either the captain or the assistant chief.

I'm sorry.

And also our professional standards unit takes a look at the incident as well.

So there are many checks and balances along the way in our review process internally.

When we, or if we see an officer who is having the same issue, and it may not be a policy violation, it could be a training issue, right?

We address it.

We don't wait until the 15th time and go, okay, now we're going to do something about it, right?

We work in an environment of continuous improvement, and we want to make sure that we give our officers the tools that they need so that they're not having the same issue, but also that they're operating within our policies and procedures, and within the law, more importantly.

without giving details

there was an officer

who was having a certain issue

we identified it

we sent the officer to remedial

training and then

after we noticed that the

officer continued having the same issue

then we instituted

progressive discipline

and that was

effective at correcting

the issue

and I understand what you're saying

Mr. Gibbs about should there be another category but what I can tell you is there is no

hiding of the football so to speak right we try to address things up front the best that we can

and sometimes we miss things sometimes our supervisors may not catch something which is

why we have that process but I think we are doing maybe a better job at trying to catch things early

on so that we can provide the officers with training or with discipline sometimes if it

warrants that.

Okay, so if I can go back.

So last month of the month before, right, and I'll just use an arbitrary number.

We had 17 incidents and then we had eight recommendations, right, for ARCA, right?

So now it's 11 and we have no recommendations, but there was issues that got taken care of

in the process before it got to us.

So out of those 11, how many were needed?

Some recommendation, but the IPA was satisfied

with that recommendation.

So that's kind of why I'm asking for a different category

because it looks like that everything went perfect,

but if you say, well, we had 11 incidents

and the police department corrected,

only need correction for five or six of them and then that left five that you

know we were satisfied that it performed with you know minor things

that's the number I'm trying to get right just trying to see how much is

that there the IPA is accepting but it was there whether really

recommendations not even to the severity of what it is it's just it just seems

like you guys were perfect and I was getting ready to flood but the numbers were kind of

well if I could just say one more thing um I want to kind of mimic what Denise just said that

there is never going to be an incident that's perfect right and and I can say it's easy for

me as the chief to Monday morning quarterback right and say well you drove too fast down this

street or you did this or you did that right um we can always probably find something with everything

I think that what we really are looking for, A, is was this within policy, right?

That's the most important thing.

And then B, even if it was within policy, could we have done things better?

Could we have, you know, taken a left turn instead of a right turn?

So, and this is why I'm saying, like, it's not like it's major policy violations that

we are correcting.

because if there were major policy violations that would lead to an

internal affairs investigation that's a whole different path

so what one second is Denise so with that being said right it's like how will we

know which policy to that might that may need changing because you correct it and

and they're on record saying that they accept the correction, and if it happens more down the road,

we won't even know that there's a policy that we need to take a look at and effectuate change.

That's kind of where I'm going.

Yeah, and I hear what you're saying, if I can, because we're kind of talking in circles,

but I do get your point.

And we could maybe think about how to incorporate that into the stats chart.

But, like, in other words, there are incidents that we review,

and there was no remedial action necessary.

The supervisor didn't need to do anything.

In effect, it was perfect, in quotes, right?

It was a good incident, known action.

So that's one.

The next one we review, well, there was some remediation, some coaching that was needed, but the supervisor took care of it.

That's another one.

And then there's another one where the supervisor needed to be, there was an incident, there was remediation necessary, but the department didn't do it.

And then the IPA sees it, and now we have to agree upon some course of action because they didn't take care of it.

That's another one.

So those are three different scenarios, right?

And basically what you're saying, sir, is that we're only showing you the two.

We're showing you when the department, or when we saw it, and it was, the department took care of it.

And you can't tell which is which.

So I hear what you're saying, and I think we should table that.

Let me talk to Jeff about it, talk to the partner, and come back to it maybe,

because that might be something that's legitimate.

However, hold that for a second, because as I finish this report, I haven't gotten through what I want to talk about on the rest of the use of course, and the annual report, which is also on our agenda site, you actually get the information in those reports that you're asking for, which is when are there policies that needed to be addressed.

when there's a policy discussion that comes out of an incident or multiple incidents,

those always get pushed up to you all and in our report.

So from the IPA's perspective, we're going to tell you when there was a policy impact.

And on this report, when there is that kind of recommendation,

you're going to see it right under the chart of the numbers there, the chart.

says agreed upon course of action for November summarized.

In the last few months, we've had those in the use of force, pursuit, and complaint.

They happen to say none this time, which is why I wanted the applause.

But there are, when there's a policy implication, for example, we've been talking for the last few months

about the pursuit policy.

There has been implication in our review of pursuit incidents that the pursuit policy needed addressing

and needs updating, and that that's being worked on.

That's also in our annual report. So I think the information you're asking for is available and is coming to you.

Just not necessarily on this chart.

If I can follow up, I think there's a couple things here.

There's a related request that was made at the last meeting that I think we've been advised by the department that it should be covered by the review of your annual IPA report.

But the request that had been made, I think it was last meeting, was that it would be helpful for us to see on an annual basis how many complaints were received and investigated, but more importantly, for what types of offenses and with what outcomes.

This chart, this monthly chart from you folks, the IPA, gives us some indication of the activity

going on there, but we don't have this general sense of, in one place, what kind of complaints

we're getting for what and what outcomes that is.

If there's flat complaints of use of force and three of them are found to be unsustained,

but two were sustained and one involved further training but one involved

progressive discipline.

Basically aggregate information of that type would give us a better picture of what to

make of these numbers among other things.

So kind of a question I have even looking at your current report is there were only

five complaints, well there were five complaints in the last month, new complaints,

And I wonder how many of those, if any, overlap with the use of force incidents that are cited

or the pursuit incidents that are cited.

We don't have a sense of whether those are any of that.

So that's what we're struggling with is how to get, and maybe some very brief narrative

along with your report would give us a better feel for it than what just these raw numbers

do.

And again, none of it gives us a flavor for what kinds of things beyond use of force and pursuits are coming at those complaints that are being addressed.

And to Keith's point, and that is the kind of information that is helpful for us to prioritize from a community perspective which things we ought to be reviewing.

and as detailed and I appreciate the detail of your annual report, if we have to wait

to the end of the year each time to get that information, you know, something could have

happened nine months ago and we're not hearing it, at least in a form that we can kind of

assess for ourselves. I don't know if that helps you Denise, but that's what we're struggling

with here. I mean I still want to give you credit for taking the step of doing the monthly

report and it's provoking I think the right questions from the board and now we just need

to how do we make it more useful and for the purpose of helping reform us where our attention

should be placed. So I hope that helps and I hope that can be communicated to Jeff.

Absolutely.

I know there was someone else, but just for agenda purposes, because I'm talking through

this report, if it's okay, I have a few more things I wanted to say about this report.

Go ahead.

Okay.

That's okay.

No, it might actually answer some of what you're talking through.

So, the big picture, I wanted to say that we already discussed how many incidents reviewed

and how many ACCA's worked there.

I also wanted to note that the pursuits in general, if you look at new pursuits, they're

kind of trending downwards.

And I think that's probably a result of the Chief's directive that we talked about, that

put out as a result of the reviews that we were seeing and the incidents that were causing

some concern.

She may have had a directive in the interim between, you know, when the pursuit policy,

because it's under review.

The IPA has now reviewed it.

It's back in the equipment's hand, and it's coming to you all next.

I think we all, we said estimate, in February, you will have a draft of the pursuit policy.

so that that's that information flow it does come to you it just may not come to you on a

monthly basis as it's happening like it's not real time necessarily

the other thing i wanted to talk through was the use of force i wanted to come back to

the um spike use that word but there's in june there was the 16 that you all asked about and

And then if you look in November, it's trending upward again from 4 in September, 4 in October,

and then 13 in November.

So I wanted to give you some details.

They're verbal.

I'm just going to orally give you some of the details that you were asking for.

And again, this is some of what I think you're wanting now, which is to kind of talk through

what this looks like.

What does it mean, right?

What are the numbers mean?

So the first thing I want to say is that this is what you're looking at, a trend analysis or an uptick.

But what's important to note is that every one of those are being addressed or reviewed by the IPA.

So even though you're seeing these big numbers like, ooh, what happened there?

We're looking at each one of those.

So if there was something that was glaringly obvious with regard to trends, because we see them as they're happening or shortly after they happen, we, the IPA, would be noticing that, you know, hey, there's this officer or this type of horse or this situation or scenario that's causing this.

We would see that, or at least we would hope to see that.

The other thing is that with these two spikes, June and November, the Chief actually had a fundamental look at last year at the same time to see if there was any similar.

It wasn't.

We also want to make sure that each one of these are within policy, the law, and were reasonable for the circumstances.

So, of course, each one of those are assessed that way, and they all were.

So even though there was this uptick, they were all within policy.

So for the June specifically, I'm just going to talk through those numbers.

And again, Bob, please just interrupt me because I can't tell if someone wants to ask a question.

The June numbers, there were 17, that was the number that one thought was pricked, sorry, 16.

two of those were stop sticks so they're they're in the category as a use of force but it wasn't

actually a hands-on officer using force it's stopped state deployment so that that actually

means there were 14 um uses of force of those 14 all but one were calls for service and i think

we've covered some of this but you wanted a little more detail on um you asked a few more questions

like what kind of calls.

I went through each of them, and just to give you a favor,

I'm not going to try to say how many,

but there was public intoxication.

These were the calls for service.

Arson, assault with a deadly weapon, stolen vehicle, theft, burglary.

There were three incidents of domestic violence.

There was a vehicle burglary.

There was a fight and a road rage.

So I just rattled them off real quick.

Those are the kinds of calls for service.

So really the only duplicates were domestic violence.

The number of employees you asked about that, like were there officers that had multiple uses of force in that time period, right?

There were 25 total employees involved.

Seven of them had two of those uses of force.

In other words, they had more than one, two.

And one person had three uses of force during that time period.

So there wasn't a lot of duplicate.

And again, of the one officer that had three, they were all appropriate in policy and reasonable.

I'll move on to the category.

You asked about what does low-level abuse of force mean?

Because they were on low level.

But what does that mean?

So I looked at specifically what they were.

There were five takedowns, three control holds, excuse me, six control holds,

seven incidents of push or restraining, two tackles, two pain compliance, a hand strike,

and they had to use the rack once and the taser once.

So that's a lot of information I just rattled off.

Oh, you did use the rack too?

The hands rack?

No rack.

I didn't know you used the rack.

I didn't know it was the hands rack.

So that's the June scenario or briefing of that particular spike.

Go ahead, I'll hesitate.

I appreciate that level of detail and that does demystify the number a little bit.

I honestly don't know whether to be concerned about the same officer showing up three times

a month and use of force is a problem or not.

We're not the experts on that.

We rely on you to kind of help us understand those numbers.

But when we see kind of outliers, I mean, so to get to November, for example,

so we have another spike, we'll call it.

And my takeaway from, as we talk about June, is that, well, these are all calls for service.

And you've given us the longer list of what kinds of services are producing,

use of force. I think the domestic violence one is certainly both not surprising that

that happens, but also I would be concerned if, I don't know what happens in this spike

in November, for example, is that again? Is it just a serendipity of the calls from

servers to determine when, you know, how much use of force may be needed?

I definitely should have a question.

Or not, but go ahead.

Well, I have several then.

Let me stop and there's a lot of questions.

Saida?

I do have the same information for November, by the way.

If you want me to do that, I just didn't want to jump right into it because that's a lot of good problems.

But let me, before you do, I would like it, but can I at least get the questions from Saida and then Jenny and Eric had his hands up from a long time ago as well.

So, Saida?

Okay, thank you, Chair.

I'll be really brief.

I did want to say when you mentioned having a narrative, that made a lot of sense.

And I thought, well, if this report each month along with your report out, even if it's brief,

if there was some sort of narrative, I think we would find that really helpful.

Just your explanation I found really, really helpful and informative.

So if there's a possibility to get that along with the report from the IPA, I think that

would be really, I would appreciate that.

And when you mentioned any duplicates in officers with the use of force, and then you said that

a certain number wasn't a lot, that really triggered with me, well, what is the threshold?

And I would be curious to know what that is so that we have a really good idea of what

is a noteworthy number and what isn't.

So wherever that sort of information, as applicable,

we could get, that would be helpful for me too.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I just heard Denise say a lot of stuff like what the incident's

like, what was that?

I had something about slapping.

That, I need clarification on that one.

Hand strike, I think.

So does that mean that actually officer

hit somebody in the face?

Or I mean, I'm.

No, hand strike means that they used their hands.

It doesn't mean that they hit them in the face.

I didn't, the face and the head was not mentioned at all.

So they did slap somebody, basically, you could say that.

No, I was not, no, I did not say slap.

I said they used their hand to strike.

Okay, all right.

It could have been in the arm, it could have been in the foot.

I actually don't know.

I don't have that information in front of me, but definitely not a slap.

Okay, thank you.

Sure, I was just wanting to first of all thank you board members and Chair Reale and others and Denise for all your work and all the dialogue.

I just want to echo the comments earlier that we understand the feedback you all are providing and the desire for, I guess, maybe we could classify as greater granularity, greater granular details as part of these monthly reports.

reports and I want to assure you that we take this feedback seriously. We have ongoing

dialogue as part of our monthly check-ins with the IPA team and our internal staff on

all of these issues that are raised at these board meetings. We're also, as we're evaluating

those requests for modifications to our kind of, what I would say is our standard practices

and then the reports they're all providing to. We also have to balance that as well with

ensuring that we obviously have finite resources, finite budget for our annual budget allocation

allocation for the police auditor and just being mindful also producing some of these

amendments in some cases can generate additional labor hours.

So we have to kind of balance all these things and just sharing that from a strategic level

on that.

Just sharing that for some contextualization and also being mindful that in some cases

when these numbers get so small, in some instances we have to be mindful that this information

doesn't inadvertently divulge all the specific officer identities

or other personal identity, a lot of all things,

despite the nature of just the numbers being so small.

So I'm just sharing that kind of contextualizing,

acknowledging we hear you, we hear the feedback,

the desire for greater granularity,

but just there are some of these balancing factors

that we have to, through which we have to evaluate

some of these requests.

I'm just sharing that.

That's all of it.

You know, we'll have additional dialogue,

and we've heard your feedback today as well.

So just a couple.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I think I appreciate that and the same way that the level of reporting by the IPA has improved.

I think that's in the spirit of continuous improvement, which seems to be the mantra.

That's what we're looking for in terms of reporting to the board as well.

And so I appreciate that our requests are being heard.

They're going to be evaluated in terms of both these confidentiality concerns, but also the resources.

I will also just say, for the record, that if this board makes a number of reasonable

requests for information that we think of the public or the community's interests, and

the answer is, sir, we don't have enough IPA hours, I'm going to be saying now we'll be

advocating for more IPA hours.

There needs to be a way to identify our needs that are genuine and then see what we can

do with the resources available but also not forego, okay maybe there's a need to adjust

the resources available.

We don't, unlike most oversight agencies that I'm aware of, most have their own staff.

We don't.

We're relying on your time, Eric, we're relying on the chief and the command staff's time,

and we're relying on the IPA.

So that's it.

I appreciate that you've heard us and that this will be taking some further consideration.

Denise, did you want to finish up your, because we still need the annual report for time's

running here.

for november do you want to share us some of the detail quickly yes and i i got uh audio all of a

sudden i mean uh video all of a sudden and so i see you all i'm not sure if you can see me

i'll just we'll just try and see if that works um so yes i can i can rather this off again

There were 13 uses of force in November.

One of them was a stop stick, so that really is 12 uses of force.

Is everybody hearing me okay before I continue?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Of those 12 uses of force, nine were calls for service and four were officer-initiated.

there were 16 employees involved in those so that so that that number is important so of the 12

incidents of use of horse there were 16 employees so you can see that obviously there's there's more

than one person at a scene at one incident so more than one person is going to so they're not

a one-to-one correlation that's just something to keep in mind as you are looking at numbers

one

again had

three uses of course

and three had two

three of the sixteen people

were involved in

two uses of course and one person

was again involved in three uses of course

and just to go back and clarify

I think somebody said that

that I had said

three was not a lot

I didn't say that

what I said is that

that one person who had three incidents of use of force

were all within policy and reasonable under the circumstances.

So when we're looking at an incident, a use of force incident,

I could be the primary person who needs to take force,

and I could have a partner who ends up just grabbing a leg.

But they're involved in that use of force,

so they also are one of those ticks, right?

They're one of the 16 people.

So the level, just because someone had one officer had three uses of force, doesn't mean they used force three times.

It could have been that they were just one of the guys that ground the leg three times.

So keep that in mind as you're looking at the numbers.

They used to call it a bowl of jello.

It is a bowl of jello.

It is not hard and fast.

Of those 12 uses of force, again, they were all low level, one taser incident.

I will again rattle off the types of calls.

Welfare check, a hit and run that was involved intoxication, so driving an influence.

Two were bicycle related, so in other words, the person was on a bicycle.

there was an exposing

a lewd conduct, exposing themselves

stolen motorcycle

violation of restraining order

unlicensed driver who refused to stop

and then took off

burglary, stolen vehicle, assault with a deadly

weapon and again domestic violence

I think the only repeat

was the

stolen vehicle

there were two stolen vehicles

that's the

scenario for

the November spike. So as you can see because I think one of the things Bob you were asking about

was whether or not there were calls for service that might indicate this raise, this rise right?

Where yeah there was a rise and then there was a rise right? Right, it was really a question right was

is there a correlation between certain types of calls for service and the likelihood that that

might involve use of force. Domestic violence was one of the things I was thinking about in that

regard, but go ahead. What were you wanting to say? Is that? Just that there was one in November and

two, right, or three in the June spike. So domestic violence is always a high risk of needing to use

force. That's a law enforcement fact. It's just something that is an unfortunate fact.

But oftentimes, in fact, they become quite violent. Anyway, so, but one of the things

I saw in looking at the calls for services is there wasn't a lot of the same kind of

call, other than maybe domestic violence. Yeah.

Okay. I think we've exhausted this subject unless you have any final comment on it.

At the end of the report is more important at this point.

So I'm going to move on if that's okay, if there's no questions or further comments.

So moving on to now...

Jamie, there is a public comment that they wanted to speak in regards to this comment.

Okay.

Okay, Ms. Evans, you can come up.

You have two minutes.

Two minutes.

Sister retired and died at 78.

She was a police dispatcher.

I can't hear you.

Ah, so it's great.

There you go.

My sister was a police dispatcher.

She retired from it, but died when she was 78.

I had an incident about George Pavilion, John George Pavilion.

It's a state psychiatric hospital.

I used to live in a neighborhood for 30 years when I owned a duplex.

I would like to know how the John George Pavilion, since it's a state capacity, figures in with your annual report.

I have two minutes, but here's an example.

Someone relates, and it's called swatting.

It's false reporting.

they intact the report they black it out so I can't find out who called 9-1-1 or

why I am given a shot in my butt that puts me to sleep for 18 hours this is I

don't know how long ago this was 10 years 15 years ago I also had children

coming to my property when I was not there and I had a friend come in and

watch my property this review board is needed the homeless people who were down

doing destruction at San Leandro veterinary hospital they're downtown I

have called the police department several times it doesn't seem as though

your police department can get in touch with the ownership they have on-site

patrols and an 18 and 19 year old girls are sitting in the car for six hours

they show me a little card that says this is the company they're hired for

what's odd is because I get on the bus stop to go to a place where I have lived

for seven years is that I find a lock that's been cut that's a secure space

Thank you.

So next item actually is the Board of Secretaries.

Do you have anything further?

So you can't ask if the John George is in this report at all?

Well, the short answer is that it is not the John George facility

in whatever incidents happened there.

They are not the jurisdiction of this body.

They're not the jurisdiction of the IPA, so there'd be no direct way that that would show up in either.

So in other words, the public doesn't know who's the jurisdiction for John George?

I don't know the answer to that offhand, but I know there are oversight mechanisms within the mental health system.

I can't tell you what they are because I don't know them offhand, but it's a reasonable question.

It's just not our jurisdiction and I don't have the answers for you that you need.

But you use the San Leandro Police Department?

I don't know what else to tell you.

I mean if there's something involving San Leandro Police at the George facility and that resulted in something that we could review,

then it would come to us in that way, especially if it came in the form of a complaint.

That hasn't happened to date, that's all I can say.

Yeah, okay, and we need to move on.

But thank you. Eric, you have me.

I'll make this very quick, just wanted to wish you all a happy holiday season.

Also, one of those lines, the city offices, this is just a frame of mind, will be closed,

being on December 24th, and then they remain.

They don't reopen until June 2nd,

so just for public awareness.

Oh, sorry, did I say June 19th?

Friday, January 2nd.

I don't know.

I know it's January.

I don't know.

I don't know.

December 24th.

We're opening Friday, January 2nd.

I'm going to miss being the government.

Let's check that.

We don't have that.

We don't have that in June.

So yeah, the offices will be closed,

and of course, police and public safety

fire services will continue on their offer during that period of time.

And then also just following on Chair Bailey's announcement regarding Board Member Franco

will of course work with the Clerk's Office as well as the Mayor to work to line up a

new successor to Mr. Franco on the board.

So thank you.

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So we're now to item six.

And the first one was carried over from last meeting.

I think we skipped public comment. There were two public comments not on the agenda.

Okay, sorry I missed that. Public comments on non-agenda items.

Douglas, stand up.

I do like the way you think, Eric, and it's good to see you back, Chief.

Thanks for being here.

Tuesday, a week ago, I sat in a conference room at the district attorney's office with

Addie Kitchin, of course, DA Ursula J. Dixon was there and a host of other people and we

heard for the first time the DA's decision to not move forward with the prosecution of

former officer, Jason Fletcher.

It was rather shocking to hear.

Of course, there was a quick hearing last Friday.

The motion did not go before the presiding judge, Thomas

Reardon, who was away on vacation.

So they found a different, more conservative judge, Clifford

Blakely, who dismissed the charges without credit.

My understanding is that maybe under different circumstances

different DA, a different charge given statute of limitations, it could come back.

But it's time to move on.

There will be some lawsuits.

I'm fairly confident the family is going to file a wrongful death suit.

Jason Fletcher might file for, you know,

whatever that's called, unwarranted termination,

so probably it will come back up.

But what I wanted to, oh, I'm running out of time.

What I wanted to make clear to everybody is that

on Saturday, January 24th,

the Stephen Taylor Sanctuary of Life Park will open.

There'll be a ribbon cutting at 10 a.m.

And I want to invite everybody to come.

I think it's an important moment for our community

to come together and heal.

And that's it.

Thank you very much.

January 24th.

January 24th.

We have one more comment.

Dr. Evans, you have two minutes, please.

We're citizens of San Leandro.

They have taken lots that they don't in the building department have more or less a vital

continuum on.

They want to do things with that.

They want to do things with commerce and so on and so forth.

I went in front and there is a report on homelessness.

and for years, seven years, after selling my duplex, I lived in an apartment building.

We had things come in from the high school.

We had kids that I saw jump over fencing.

We had fire there.

Well, we actually had two fires there and such like that.

And in all this time, the homeless people that were near the San Lando Hospital now come downtown.

It had broken lights in the parking area of the where McDonald's and such is.

I forgot what that's called, Washington or something.

And I don't know what the police department's doing.

He said something the other day of what the situation was that they could go to.

But when I think it was $194,000 added to less than $1.5 million,

Samley and Retire's building is being sold.

It hasn't been sold yet.

Who are we going to count on for giving this news?

Thank you.

I believe that's the end of public comment on non-agenda items.

So now we're at presentations and we're down to 25 minutes.

We need to hear from the IPA on the annual report.

I'm going to suggest, or I'm hesitant to, that we carry over yet again the discussion of further training for board members.

And my pitch to you all is before our next meeting, take a look again at that list of

the kind of syllabus that the IPA has developed and see if there are any of those topics that

you think would really be worth us setting aside a full meeting or part of a meeting

to be kind of a training that you want to hear more about, whether it's constitutional

or policing, or what Fourth Amendment rights,

whatever it is that's important to you.

And then we can actually schedule that.

And it can be more than one session,

but some effort to kind of prioritize

the things on that list that you really

think would be a benefit for all of us

to go through together.

And then the other ask is, are there anything besides,

for example, the virtual reality training scenarios,

other kinds of training that you think we should be doing

that isn't on that list or hasn't been part of our training

to date.

So with no objection, I'd like to carry that over.

And the other item that I'd like to dispense with

before we get to the IPA report is the ad hoc committee

reports.

Joseph, Tim, and I met on the crowd control.

We had our first meeting, we kind of divvied up, we did some preliminary research, divvied

up kind of tasks for ourselves about who's going to do what research further.

We're meeting again on January 9th, I think it is.

So we should have a little more detail about where we're at by then.

But that's, I think, less is anything you want to add, Joseph, that was pretty much

it, right?

Right.

But we're, you know, we're making progress.

So Denise, you're back up again.

Now is the time to get the presentation

on your annual report.

And is it going to be up on the screen?

Yes.

Yes.

I don't know if you're seeing me or you're seeing the presentation.

We can see both, actually.

OK, wonderful.

That's great.

OK.

I will just begin.

We only show the presentation.

The annual report covers a period of October 2024 until the end of September.

So we've completed the report.

It's a 25-page report, and if you haven't seen one of ours before, or if you have,

we changed the format just a little bit just to rearrange for it.

It was a little bit repetitive the way it was laid out, so we just laid it out a little different.

all the same information as in the report.

The executive summary on the first page does give you some key highlights,

but I will just start going through the presentation now.

And I'm going to kind of skip some of the overview.

I'll just really quickly go through each one.

I can't see the screen, so I'm on slide two.

Is somebody scrolling for me through the slides?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, wonderful.

I'll just say the slide number I'm on.

So as you are all aware, it was in March 2022 when they created the IPA,

and we started that work in September of 2022, so this is our third year.

Hence the reason for this time period being in our annual report.

We are charged with participating in the internal affairs and reviewing the complaints for the most part,

but we've added the city manager actually added the use of force and pursuits along the way with

complaints which is why we have the scope of work we have now as you've heard several times tonight

but our philosophy is always continuous improvement through reviewing those incidents and mentoring

coaching and discipline when necessary slide three obviously the goals of our ipa and of your group

is include increase public trust ensure accountability ensure that the police

operations reflect the community not only the community values but best practices

slide four how do we fulfill this role well the contract and the ordinance really dictates our

scope but we receive those cases from the police department we review them and we can also receive

the complaints directly from the community on the public. When we review those we then meet

with the stakeholders with the police department to discuss those and then report out to you all.

Slide five. We've kind of covered this process of our 360 degree review but it's also I'll just

note that there is an attachment it's an addendum to this to our annual report that goes into quite

a lot of detail on what our 360 degree review entails and as you can imagine it

just means that we're looking at each incident from all angles professionalism

legal is it within policy was it appropriate so we're not just looking at

whether whether it was within the law or within the policy in a singular

action. We're looking at the whole incident.

Slide six. So this goes into how many we actually reviewed and I think if

anybody's read the report yet, you will have noticed that there's

quite an increase from last year to this year and the

number of incidents that we were able to review.

And that's mainly because the department switched from Blue Team,

which was the name of the system they used, to that lunchtime system, and we are now able to review remotely, which greatly increased.

We had people in San Leandro to go to the police department to review incidents, but even that was very cumbersome to try to schedule it.

So it obviously increased the ability to review a lot more and all of the incidents that are occurring.

So I'm going to skip over the overview.

You have the numbers there because I'm going to go into each one of these categories through

the next slides.

So slide seven, these were the complaints that we reviewed.

We reviewed a total of 18 complaints within the period.

There were no disagreements with those findings.

So the complaint investigation occurred.

we talked about the fact that you want more detail but we're not going to go

into the details now because I'm just presenting the report. If you want more

of the detail you're going to look at this report but we're going to come back to it on a monthly basis.

But there were three recommendations with regard to our review of these

incidents. The three bullets you see there are the three recommendations that

came out of those reviews. We actually talked about the department considering kind of a short form

for smaller complaints that are internal and like there's a way to decrease where

internal affairs investigation is a lengthy process not every complaint requires that kind

of review so we were helping them kind of try to manage time a little bit better at resources

um we're still talking about that we talked about providing remedial training to an officer in the

handling of property and modification of the timekeeping system for accountability

so those are summarized recommendations next slide is uses of course again you're going to

to get a lot more detail in in the 26 page report but i'm just kind of giving you the big broad

picture so we reviewed 73 uses of course in this 12-month period we made 18 recommendations

in connection with 12 of those incidents so in other words we made 18 recommendations several of

them had multiple recommendations these bullets here are summarizing again and the report goes

into a little bit more detail and we give you a little bit more detail actually during the monthly

reports but you have updated policy to encourage we read this is recommendations from the ipa

to update the use of force policy to encourage the use of transparency statements when making

arrests review and remediate through training the tactics leading up to the use of force

The review of the supervisor's report for clarification and provide remedial training

to supervisors.

Some of this should be sounding familiar because you've already heard it on a monthly basis,

right?

Each of these things should...

Interrupt me if you need to.

I can see you now, so you can raise a hand.

Review and discuss tactics with involved officers, body-worn camera footage with involved officers

to provide remediation when there's conflicting verbal statements and this would during uses of

force provide remedial training to supervisor on ensuring the completeness of their reviews

revise the policy to prohibit supervisors who used force from completing the corresponding use

of course review to avoid any kind of conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest

provide counseling to involve officers regarding their use of profanity during arrest, and

enhance supervisory review processes to ensure completeness and consistency. So that should

give you kind of a flavor, the high-level summary of the kind of recommendations we're

making. I'm going to hesitate for a second. I'm giving you a lot of information.

I'm going to add to two things. Let me just interrupt. We need to, unfortunately, I think

we need to move this along. Everybody has access to this, so you can bring certain things to our

attention but I wouldn't do it word for word but I do have a question on this

particular slide which what is a transparency statement?

It's actually a kind of coined term and in short what it is talking about is

when officers go to make an arrest advising the person that you're about

to arrest that you're going to arrest them. Okay. So you're being transparent

with the fact that you're about to arrest them.

And there's a lot of, that's a whole discussion

that we can get into, but just make note of it

and we can come back to it if you want more information on that.

Thank you.

Okay, so I won't go over these bullets.

I'll just go to slide nine, which is there was one critical incident.

I think you were all aware of that, that we reviewed.

There were no disagreements or recommendations that came out of that investigation.

Slide 10 and 11 are the pursuits that we reviewed.

We reviewed a lot of pursuits, 147.

The two that you see that disagreed with findings, that means that the department said it was in policy, we said it was out of policy, and again, we came to an agreement with that.

that it's not like we ended in a disagreement but those we did in fact discuss the the policy aspect

whether or not it was in or out of policy with regards to those 147 pursuits we made 66 recommendations

that's a lot and that is why the pursuit policy is under review and coming to you soon

i'll skip to slide 12. one of the things we added in this report which we haven't done before

is compliments and commendations by the IPA.

So as we're reviewing these on a regular basis,

we meet with the department every other week about,

we often will see exemplary behavior by officers and sergeants,

and we want to bring that to the attention of the department.

And we realize that you all should also be hearing the good stuff.

We have a lot of recommendations,

and obviously our job is to find all the problems,

but we also find a lot of good stuff. So we added in the report and we've added a slide here

to show you that we are seeing a lot of good stuff. And we often ask the department to,

because it's not our job to commend the officers, but we ask them to share our comments so they know

they're doing the right thing and they can repeat that behavior. Positive reinforcement rate.

Let's see, slide 13.

A lot of what we also do along these ways is recommend that some of these incidents

or examples that we see, whether it's good, what they did right, or what they did wrong,

that they should use that information for training, department-wide training.

So not just remediation of the incident by the specific officer,

but to share that information among all the officers so that they can learn from each other.

so we have a whole slide on that you can get that information there

cooking review of policies and training again there's a lot of detail in our

report we actually had because we overlapped there were policies that we

reviewed in the last period that were now finalized during this period and then

the pursuit policy which is being reviewed which will be finalized in the

next period but again we've laid that out for you in slide 14 and in the report

slide 16 and is if if there are times where they um the city manager can direct us for a specific

thing uh investigation or or task there were none of those slide 17 and ripa data we did not do a

full analysis during this one last last year we had that in this report we do not but we expect

that we'll be comparing 2024 and 2025 data and we'll have that in early 2026 that'll be a separate

uh report to you but will also be in our annual report next year let me interrupt for just a second

this is something we're definitely going to want to be able to schedule for a future meeting can

Can you give us some idea of what month we could be talking about, where we might need to anticipate this?

My guess is March-ish.

Okay.

I wouldn't say January.

Yep, yep, I would say March.

Fair enough, and we'll work with that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Subject matter expertise to you all, obviously.

We don't really need to go into that for training.

same with the subject matter expert for you all on anything else that you want information on,

and their contact information.

Thank you for the presentation of the report.

Well, thank you, and I'm going to encourage people if they haven't,

the report itself, don't be daunted by 26 pages.

There's a lot of good information in there that will answer a lot of the questions

you probably might have even from hearing this summary.

So please, please read it.

And I have a couple quick comments, but

any quick comments or questions from what you heard?

I just want to know, how does the public see this?

Can you see the mic? How will the public

be able to see this report? It's attached to our agenda.

besides that? Well, I mean, we could, and it's added to our website every year. So if you think we should be doing more to

to subnate that, that's a conversation we could have. But those are the ways that it's available now.

It's also on the IPA's website. What's the address for the IPA website?

It's right there.

It's on the screen.

Other comments? Did I see?

No, I'm good.

I'm looking to get out of here with time for Christmas.

I can guarantee you're off by Christmas.

That I can do.

Was there any other questions or comments?

No, I wouldn't.

Okay. So let me just say a couple things.

I think, first of all, I really want to, I think it's wonderful news that you've been able to increase your capacity to conduct these reviews with automation, you know, better automation and whatnot.

I think that's terrific news. I love the idea that you're doing commendations. We made some stab at that. I think we should be more disciplined about it ourselves.

but I'm glad to see you're doing it.

The other question I had about timing was,

when do you think the pursuit policy changes

would be coming to this board?

It's actually in the hands of the police department now.

I believe the IPA has done its review. Chief, I'm not sure if you're able to. I thought we said February-ish.

Well, as you know, I was gone from the department for an extended period of time,

and so that delayed some of the work that we've been doing behind the scenes.

But we hope to have the updated policy to the IPA by the end of January.

So, February, it sounds like?

and where you marches.

Terrific. One of the things related to that that I know is very controversial,

I don't know if people have heard of what's called a PIT maneuver, which is an acronym,

it stands for, it's an acronym that doesn't really, it's called precision immobilization technique.

It's when an officer in a pursuit actually rams another car.

I'm assuming that would be part of addressing your policy.

Actually, PIT stands for Pursuit Intervention Technique.

Okay.

I don't know where you got your acronym.

I'll blame it on AI.

Yeah, AI was dead wrong on this one.

We don't practice or train on the PIT in San Leandro.

Great. That's what I was hoping to hear. Okay.

Thank you. We'll move through my quick questions.

And this is just a general comment about how you describe in the report the relationship

of the IPA with us.

And it's true we've been doing tremendously much more collaboration around specific policy

issues.

But in general, in trying to understand the reference to the IPA as the substance matter expertise for the CPRB,

I think in the way it's described in your report, slightly misrepresents how the CPRB in fact does its policy reviews.

And my understanding and I think the way we've been acting on it for the past three years

is that we have the discretion to review any of St. Leandro police policy or practice that we need to be of compelling community interest,

and we do not solely rely on the IPA to either make a referral to us to do that policy review or to provide us the knowledge.

I mean we do independently our own research where we need to, we coordinate that with

the IPA when there's mutual agreement on that, but it's not, I don't want people to think

that we rely solely on the IPA to conduct our work and given what we've heard earlier

from Eric about the limited resources the IPA has to offer, it's important that people

understand that.

important for people on this board to recognize how important it is then for us to be doing

our homework because we can't reasonably expect that to come from the IPA.

Frankly, in my opinion, we want it to come from one source.

End of speech, but that's just my, what I just wanted to add to that.

But otherwise, I think your report is important, it's very informative, and people should get

familiar with it.

If there's questions that come up between now and after Christmas that you might have

for the IPA, you can raise it at a future meeting under the IPA report.

Just don't hesitate to raise those questions.

that again we're at board reports and announcements okay so so board anything

Sayida, do you want to report or comment on it here?

I'm just going to go around the table.

Oh, well, if it's okay, Jenny.

Go ahead.

For outreach?

Okay.

Yes.

Sure.

On behalf of the outreach subcommittee?

Ad hoc committee?

Ad hoc.

I get mixed up with other places.

We have new outreach flyers.

pretty much

98% ready.

They're really ready. We're just waiting

on some non-stock images

to film it.

The layout's done

thanks from the support of

the person

at the city, Angela,

who's just been awesome. They're just about

done. I'm just waiting, which is why I keep taking

photos of you guys at events.

That's why. We have photos

to populate the flyer. They're almost ready.

so soon.

And I can share them because the layouts are done,

but I just need to add some pictures.

So let me know how you like to do that.

A form and a flyer with a QR code?

It's everything.

So it's event flyers, outreach flyers,

postcards, whatever we're

using, the layouts are all done.

Okay.

It'll be good to see

you.

You will do.

So yeah.

So, yeah, go ahead.

No, anybody?

Joseph, do you have anything?

Casey?

Kenny?

Nope.

Nope.

I could have done that.

I really, I could have done that.

So you got about 30 seconds to get this thing done.

I'm sorry.

I'm done.

Motion to adjourn the meeting.

I'm going to ask you to bear with me for maybe a couple minutes.

One thing, and when I read that statement, the dismissal of the Theo Taylor case, I also

had reached out to Addie Kitchen to see if she wanted to come to this meeting and make

any comments, since I knew it was pretty important and devastating for the family.

She could not, but she did give me a statement that I would like to share with you.

brief, if I can find it, okay, I can. She says, thank you for the invitation to speak at the CPR

meeting. I won't be able to attend. I want to thank the community for the support for five years and

eight months of fighting for accountability. It's hard to believe people cared so much. It helped me

realize people care and I wasn't alone. My heart goes out to the students of St. Leandro High School

who saw themselves as if it could happen for them.

They fought alongside Justice for Stephen Taylor for accountability.

Mental health is real for them as it is for my family.

I know the death of my grandson was not in vain.

Some positive changes have been made because of his death.

Again, thank you so much for the work CPRB has done

and the changes that have resulted in all you do.

Addie Kitchen grandmother of Stephen Taylor.

Next, I just want to review.

I have heard from at least one council member who's been concerned about the various reporting

on the misuse of FLOC data by various departments, either sharing it with federal agencies or

out-of-state agencies.

and Richmond apparently has just canceled the contract with FLOC.

You may have seen the news that Oakland, after much debate,

approved the several million dollar contract with FLOC

but added some conditions to the contract.

So I think this is a topic we need to end under our own policy.

The IPA has responsibility for conducting an annual audit.

So I don't know at what point that would be available,

but I think we need to plan to schedule an update of where are we on this issue of how the data is being handled

and whether we've identified any problems here so far.

But it's certainly coming in part from immigrant communities that's really concerned about,

in particular, sharing of information with ICE.

And I think we had a public comment last meeting pointing out that El Cajon,

a time down in Southern California was identified as one of the departments that were improperly

sharing data and I think what we heard was a request that our city make sure that we

don't respond to those kind of requests from that particular agency but there may be others.

So I think we need to plan for that.

So then this leads to just to kind of wrap up the next agenda items.

So we're going to carry over the training issue for us.

We had anticipated that we'd have kind of an update from the department on kind of the impacts of the budget cuts on your department that you can share with us.

And I think you'd ask us to wait until January.

Is that still the time?

No, unfortunately, we are still in the budget process.

and we have meetings scheduled in January to continue that process.

So I will give you an update as soon as I can.

I just don't have a timeline for you right now.

Okay, so that's to be determined.

We'll continue the ad hoc committee updates.

It'd be great to be able to see some samples or whatever you guys are working on

between now and then, if possible.

I keep was suggesting you could get emailed or whatever.

That'd be great.

We also had the report on the National Legal Conference, like I did for the regional.

You could try to schedule it for January if you'd like.

I'm just wondering if there's a sense of urgency around this blockage and whether we should

actually go ahead and schedule it for January and then if there's a, we can get more information

from the IPA also about where they are in their audit and whatnot, that would be helpful.

If there's no objection, I'd like to actually make that.

What was that?

Kind of an update on...

If the IPA has a report or they have updated data, I believe we asked the system chief last meeting if they were sharing the information and the answer was no.

So, I do want to see what the IPA has found. If they have a report to report, then let's put it on the agenda, but if they don't, we could put it on the next agenda.

Okay, I'll follow up with the IPA.

So all I have then is the board member training,

ad hoc committee reports, and

to be determined whether there's anything to do

whether the IPA has anything for us on the flock stuff.

So that's kind of to be determined. We're not yet ready on the

budget issues for the police department.

And I believe that's it.

Is there anything else that anybody hadn't heard or was expecting us to be scheduling?

Now I guess under the IPA report we could ask questions if we find anything on their

end of the year report if we have questions on it.

Yeah, I would encourage that, that the IPA report questions.

Okay, and I think unless I'm missing something, we can adjourn.

Thank you.