601.

And uh first order of business is uh legible.

Which is the remote.

Thank you.

We have it, I'll say it.

Okay.

Let me say um so we've got we have uh, what's that?

Okay.

Oh, I missing the audio is like you.

Oh, is it?

No.

Can you hear us?

Yeah, it should be able to.

Okay.

Um, he's very quiet.

Can you hear me?

He can hear me.

Okay.

Um, all right.

So we're uh all are here.

Um, for those who don't know, last night our uh at large appointee from the uh mayor's office, Victor Kres.

I want to say Kreset Chaza, um, is was uh uh formal formally approved by the council.

So we were hoping he would be able to be sworn in in time for tonight's meeting, but uh hopefully we'll see him for the next meeting.

So um and uh we're at announcements now.

Did you take roll call?

Uh well roll call, like I said, everybody's here.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Um, so well well actually uh Casey's not here.

Actually, she's she's excused, she didn't have a park.

Oh great.

Excuse me.

I knew she'd be responsible.

Um, so um under announcements.

I I would just like to since we last met, um Minneapolis um you all know um and uh in fact uh Alex Pres uh Predi uh killing was just a couple days after our meeting um so NACO made another statement that I think was uh news release that I would like to just share a couple paragraphs of this was released on January 26th uh it said a basic principle of a democratic society is that law enforcement officers are answerable to the public.

We are appalled by federal federal efforts to lay blame for deaths at the hands of ICE on local officials, community members, and Minnesotans peacefully exercising their constitutional rights to protest and hold government accountable.

Law enforcement officers should never believe that they can act with total impunity.

The federal government's actions sideline constitutional protections, create fear, and undermine trust among those government safety systems we are meant to protect.

These deaths underscore their purgites for robust independent civilian oversight with clear cut authority.

This includes mechanisms for existing oversight agencies to collaborate constructively with the law enforcement agencies they oversee.

So we need to charged with oversight must not only review incidents after the fact to ensure accountability, but work proactively with departments to build systems that prevent the use of unnecessary force to ensure that policing is constitutional, transparent, and responsive to the communities it serves.

The federal government's expanding enforcement presence in cities across the United States raises serious questions about whether any current oversight structures are adequate to safeguard civil rights and community well-being.

Hopefully, that's just our minutes from the last meeting.

Hopefully we've all had a chance to look at them.

Um so uh are any first of all there any uh amendments or corrections to the uh the minutes hearing none um motion, motion to accept the minutes from Keith.

Uh and uh about a second.

Second from Saida.

Um so all those in favor, aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, okay.

Uh passage unanimously, six zero, thank you.

Uh uh, so we're now to the staff reports, and so the first report is uh the chief police department's report.

Good evening, everyone.

I wanted to start with a couple of updates and then I wanted to provide some information on a recent incident that we had since the last CPRP meeting.

As far as uh police officers, we have two recruits in the Alameda County Sheriff's Academy with possible graduation dates in May and August.

We have four recruits in the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Academy with their graduation sometime in the summer, possibly in July.

We have another couple of recruits in various stages of the background process.

We have three lateral applicants in various stages of the background process.

We had one recent academy graduate who graduated last Friday from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Academy.

He became a full-time police officer upon graduation, and we hired another academy graduate who started Monday the 16th.

We also have two officers in the field training process and one officer who thankfully successfully just passed our field training program and is a solo officer.

Regarding the incident from January the 31st of this year, this involves a fatal collision.

As you know, we participate in reset, which is the regional side show enforcement team, which is a multi-agency effort to prevent and conduct enforcement preventing illegal side shows and street racing.

On January 31st, at approximately 11 17 p.m.

A San Leandro PD sergeant assigned to reset attempted to conduct a traffic stop on a white uh infinity uh SUV.

The vehicle failed to yield to the officers' emergency license siren and began to flee.

The sergeant immediately shut off his emergency equipment and did not pursue the vehicle.

Several moments later, as the vehicle was being followed by an Alameda County uh air unit.

The air unit reported the infinity had collided into a parked vehicle that was unoccupied.

Officers from all of the recent agencies responded to the collision scene and initiated rescue operations and requested emergency medical attention for the three adult male occupants who were now in the overturned vehicle that eventually also caught fire.

The front passenger of the vehicle was pronounced deceased at the scene.

The driver and the rear passenger were uh transported for medical attention.

The San Leander Police Department is investigating the driver for suspected uh driving under the influence and other criminal charges while the fatal traffic collision is being investigated by the California Highway Patrol.

Um those are the only details that I can release at this time because the incident is actively under investigation.

Lastly, sometime last year, I want to say it was in the summer, we had the transformational policing model uh training, and several CPRB members attended the training, and I was asked to bring the workbooks for those who weren't able to attend or maybe didn't get a copy.

And so I have uh that material here if anyone is interested in getting a copy of the book, and that's all.

You want to raise your hand now before they go quickly?

I'll just ask for that.

It's fair enough.

Thank you.

I have four.

Great.

Do you want to?

I would like to open it up.

Would you mind passing it down?

We'll point yes.

Did I see your hand up to you just?

Did you get one?

I think there's one more that we could uh one more.

Oh, one, two, and three, I guess.

Oh yeah, Keith, you wouldn't record.

I've got one.

Oh, you've got it.

I guess we're all set.

Yes, I didn't get a sign.

Can we get another breath about the okay?

Um, thank you for that.

Um, so we're now to the uh IPA's uh monthly report.

Jeff?

I can't hear me.

Can you turn it up.

Yeah, sorry.

Can you hear what we can't say?

He's going to give you the chat.

And I am going to be the LP or you have a chart.

Or whenever that's not the adjustment.

We can't hear.

We can't hear.

We can't hear.

Okay, so can you hear me?

Barely.

Yeah, oh, I can hear you just yet.

So I'll just see copying, but I don't think I start recording until you get your phone.

Are you going to go?

Barely, no.

What's going on?

Oh yeah, that's that's the same as the school.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Does that help?

Does it try to be speaking on to me?

Somebody let me know if you can hear me.

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

We sure can.

There's some nice stuff going on.

We can see Eric.

Okay.

Don't ask, it's working okay.

And Eric, your phone is muted.

In case you're trying to do that.

Oh, there we go.

Yeah.

I can hear you now.

And can you all hear me?

Yes.

Awesome.

Okay, we got it.

Can you hear Jeff?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

That's uh okay, we got it.

So what I said was that Denise will be delivering the monthly report, and whenever we get to the ALPR, um review, I will deliver that.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

So you should have the stats chart starting the new year 2026.

Uh we're going with the the prior, the former monthly report style for the time being.

Although I I think you're all aware there should be a new format coming soon, but at this point we're gonna stick with the old version.

Um we also provided last month's report should be with your materials so that you can reference the prior month.

If you wouldn't like to do that, so with regard to use of the course, you'll see there's 29 incidents that are pending review that haven't completed yet, seven new uses of course in January.

There were six reviewed by the department and six reviewed by the IPA, and there were two agreed upon course of action that came out of those use of course.

Reviews.

Um I'm reading my the very tiny writing, but we basically said review and revise the body worn camera at a relevant policy to address the appropriateness of playing personal music, and then some verbal remediation on the use of profanity.

So those were the agreed-upon course of action that came out of the reviews of you support.

Moving on to pursuits, there were 15 pending incidents that were under review and hadn't completed four new pursuits in January.

Three reviewed by the department and three reviewed by us.

We actually had one there's that that's um the ACA.

There's not a one there.

I'm not that was my error because there was an ACA.

Um to take remedial action for officers demonstrating unsafe dragging.

So that was it should be a one there.

Apologize for that with regard to complaints there were 18 pending complaints under review five new complaints none reviewed completed is reviewed by the department and therefore none reviewed by us as well so no awkwards it was a commendation um as we said last month we started putting those in there when we house commendable um when we see commendable behavior we want to make sure we point that out to the police officer the department they forward it to the police officer and we want to make sure you all have that as well so they were commended for their excellence in balancing the spirit of the pursuit policy and the need to capture a robbery suspect in this instance the officer located a plea suspect and attempted an enforcement stop but showed good judgment in terminating that pursuit when it became unsafe the officer conducted follow-up because we've seen that before I mean that's what they're supposed to do is terminate if it's unsafe but this officer went above and beyond conducted the follow-up investigation secured video and evidence that positively identified the suspect which which was um they obtained a warrant for so that was the the extra of going above and beyond and that's it for our monthly report for January are there any questions on that information is that meaning yes um that just this question about the uh the uh it's too echoey Bob I can't hear it yeah just take the micro okay um okay uh now confused okay now I'll just on the five complaints received in January but uh am I reviewed no anyway that the you said that none have been reviewed as yet and here it is February is that anything unusual about that no actually they'll not read typical typically anyway anyway depending on the timing of those and when they came in with the remote in the could be just a couple of weeks typically as I said those do take longer so it's not a new notes at this point.

Okay that's my complaint this is going to draw me great so the Dan's interpretation are there any other kind of questions or comments or comments on the report from other board members.

The only question I always have is like have we figured out these are like uh email have we figured out um a way to show if there is uh without the officer's name but to find out if they're duplicating the issues so I would think that we have so I have the annual the annual complaint information and I'm not sure if that is a separate item on the agenda or are we covering that now?

Could we why don't we I'm gonna suggest we um I'm gonna suggest we go back to that when we do the annual because I have the same question okay so we'll okay so we'll address that with the annual complaint report okay um yeah I think if that's it so um and uh the next item on the agenda is the uh board uh secretary's report uh there are we think reporting report that's nothing okay um well actually, I'll thought ask um where are we on the uh information card that you guys are working on?

Sure, I believe it is a process uh correct, and I believe uh board member well board members are speaking.

Yeah, great a hot seat here that's okay.

No pressure I can cover it too if you'd like.

If I'm not mistaken, I think we are trying to get photos in and we don't have to be stuck on photos, um, but that's that's the only holdup.

The graphics are done.

Um, we're just are hoping to get some photos to add to the board members or us doing community events because probably both phone band.

Because the only I understand the photo part, but getting more members is a good idea too, but in the long run, you know, board members come and go.

So I'm just saying, you know, just any photos, photos of actual people.

Okay, yeah.

It's the idea of a deliberative kind of bottom.

Okay.

So we actually had some photos that we had uh we use it for our annual reports.

I mean, if that's the only thing that's holding it up, we can always swap out photos over time too, right?

Because there's one because I'm thinking you guys you keep that one.

So I was encouraged looking at a little rough.

My modeling contract doesn't allow me to be on.

Sure.

So we'll we'll work on it, and you know what would be helpful, and maybe it was already given out.

Um is a deadline for when we would like to have this complete.

Yes, today.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, really, this has been going on for a couple months now, so I thought so.

Um certainly we want to have it absolutely in time for when we're actually doing some new events.

Like, you know, Cherry Festivals not till June, so don't take that as the deadline.

How about sooner?

Yeah.

So we can do like maybe another event before you know, before that.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

The chair's commission, sorry.

Also, I um I'm gonna continue working with the ad hoc committee to finalize this and we'll get that button up and in alignment with the feedback you just provided.

Uh, Chair.

Um I would also recommend that getting these things wrapped up in the current fiscal year would be Ubus as well.

As many of you heard, you know, the city is facing a very significant um budget ongoing budgetary shortfall, and there's gonna be a lot of very challenging budgetary cuts that will likely be coming down, like, you know, that will be discussed at the upcoming annual city council retreat next month, and then as part of the budget process as well.

So just getting things taken care of in the current fiscal year, I think would remove all of us before the commencement of the new fiscal year.

So, yeah, you remind folks when is the uh the council retreat?

Um, I can get that data.

Which is open to the public and people to oh, we can attend that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, it has public compared for public comments so that is coming up on it.

Um Friday March 6th.

What's the location?

Uh it'll be right here in this room.

Oh, okay.

What is this?

Uh 9 a.m.

So it's an annual legal retreat, but it's when the council meets kind of a workshop to set priorities for the public's invited, and the public gets a chance to comment when they're doing that.

But you also hear their process, but a big part of the as Eric has just indicated is setting priority in the context of what's the budget realities, and so this year all the more important to pay attention, I think.

Is it March 6th you said Mark?

March 6, you said.

Friday, March 6th, and we begins.

It's most of the day.

I think it's either 9 a.m.

or 9 30 a.m.

start, and I conclude, I think by 3 3 3.

Can you email or have evacuable members will reminder?

Sure.

Thank you.

Is there a like are we going to be organized around that event?

Or can attend and it's not so much an outreach for us, it's just an opportunity for us for you folks as residents of uh interested uh oh, not the board, but residents got it.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, you have we're not representing ourselves as sorry.

Yeah, we can use what business residents too.

Thank you.

But it is worth I've been filling them for the last several years.

It's a big time commitment, I understand, but uh it's worth putting in your day if you can.

Uh on that note, can we move to public comments?

Do we have any?

We have one public comment by Douglas.

Uh good evening, board members.

Uh I am happy that uh you have a newly appointed member making the uh the board whole, but um I'm a little concerned that uh Victor Kervoches uh was not present last night to be uh sworn in and it's not here tonight.

So I hope this doesn't become a rerun of the the person he's uh replacing that he takes this appointment seriously.

Um I wanted to take a moment to do have a clock up uh to um uh talk about pretextual stops, which has been uh problematic in the data we've looked at over the years, and I wanted to share with you a uh a Facebook post by a Facebook friend of mine, whose name is JT Reyes.

I don't think he minds me sharing his name since it is posted publicly.

Uh but uh I'll just read to you what it says.

For the second time in two months, I've been stopped by police.

The first was in Danville, yada yada yada.

Today was in San Leandro after leaving the dentist.

I think he and I have the same uh dentist Ali Mullett Select Dental.

This time, one cop on the driver's seat and another on passenger.

I see the cop on the driver's side with twitchy hand on weapon.

44 seconds.

Okay, thank you very much.

Cop on passenger size.

It says I stopped you because you don't have a front license plate.

We then go through the spectacle of license registration and insurance.

Cop must have gotten spooked by my movements and tell me to get out of the car.

He pats me down and has me sit on the curb in the rain.

I notice they now had three cop cars called on me.

Other cops are hovering and joking with each other, laughing at who knows what eventually this uh this one gives me a citation for my license plate and lets me go.

Okay.

This is where we're at now.

And imagine as shook and angry as I am now, I still don't move about the world, worrying if police uh is going to watch snatch me up every day.

This way of being is not sustainable for us as a people.

He's a professor at Cal Stadium Space, he'd be told all the students.

Not a good look for San Leandro.

Do we have any other parts or comments?

Okay, thank you.

Um we are now to the presentations of the uh report on the uh IPA's annual audit of the uh ALPR that's the automated license plate readers data, which as you know involves both the mobile uh cameras and the cars, but also the flood uh cameras.

So Jeff, take it away.

I hope we can hear you.

Uh oh, I can't hear you.

Um, hold on one second.

Jim, can you talk?

Oh, that's muted.

So I think you have to take off the mute on that one.

There you go.

No, I think it's a bit.

Go ahead.

Okay.

There you go.

Yeah, yeah.

You got me?

Yes, yes, better.

So we have it was meant to be an annual audit of ALPR um activity.

When we started looking at the activity, excuse me, um, I decided that the activity was just too voluminous to be useful for an annual audit.

And uh decided that instead of an annual audit, we would move to a uh a monthly audit system.

As such, we conducted an audit in July or of the July data, um, in which we found certain aspects that were uh troubling, and we've reported those aspects out uh to the police department.

Um let me just go over the system usage in July.

Uh over the course of that month, there were 9,883 separate queries log that was generated by 52 distinct users and related to 1,103 unique license plates, and were ultimately tied to 270 case numbers.

The bulk of the inquiries fell into two categories.

One was standard plate lookups, and other the other category was broader searches that extended across multiple networks.

And I'll let the assistant chief explain the network situation.

Essentially, there are different networks within the system.

The greatest and most expansive network that can be searched from San Leandro is a statewide search, but there are also more regional levels as well.

These there were very few freeform inquiries.

A freeform inquiry is where you input information about a vehicle, a white van, for instance, or a white Ford, nor were there any significant number of convoy searches or visual searches.

There were some issues with documentation.

The entry of case numbers by the 52 to 10 users was inconsistent.

Nearly six out of ten searches contained no case numbers at all.

And the reason for the search at that point was a freeform field, which in many cases included a notation like 187 or 459 California Penal Code sections, but in others did not.

So there was no standardization with respect to those uh the reason for the inquiry.

I just want to when you mentioned the 53 uh users.

We're talking about just SLPD or uh other agencies.

No, all SLPD, 52 to say as SLPD issues.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um we looked at temporal patterns as well, that is when uh during the day these inquiries were made, there was nothing particularly noteworthy there.

We looked at repeat lookups by individual officers.

There were some training issues, again, which AC Torres can go into that needed to be addressed because of the way that uh searches were being conducted.

Um we looked for any indication of ice-related inquiries.

We found none, um, but then of course, it is uh against state state law to make those inquiries, so we wouldn't really expect that there would be any over sign uh of those kind of inquiries.

Um, in short, there was an absence of case numbers uh in what turned out to be a majority of searches.

Uh there were overly brief or absent or incomplete reasons for the search.

Um there was the occasional appearance of test data in the live system, um, and there were some sort of searches which were conducted over a broad period of time, meaning a start date and end date for a certain license plate, which was also problematic.

There was also a heavy concentration among those 52 users, among a handful, call it five or six individuals who had the bulk of those users.

And if I may, I'll turn it over to him to talk about the remedial efforts that were made with respect to this.

And then I just want to say that what we expect to do for 2026 is go to a system of monthly audits that can be acted on immediately or in a timely fashion, rather than an annual audit.

An annual audit from my perspective really not only would be voluminous in terms of the number of plates looked at and the number of actions looked at, but also would miss the opportunity for remedial action at any given time.

Go ahead.

Can we ask questions before assistant chief is sure?

So when you when you say there was no uh instances where you saw that uh anything was related to ice, are you looking just at San Leandro specifically, or the systems' ability to share data amongst other uh locations?

No, so the system's ability to share data is a different issue.

We were looking at the searches which were conducted by San Leandro personnel.

So then there's no data that suggests like if I start a search, if I start a searcher in San Leandro for the license place reader, and then I send the data to another uh police force, and then they use it for ice.

We don't have no correlation across sectional boundaries with that.

I'm sorry, the audio is bad, and I didn't catch the whole question.

Yeah, this would be a good question.

So, do we have data that suggests San Diego was initial uh license place reader, and then they sent the information to another say police force, and then they used it to do ice searches?

No, there was no indication of that, but the other California agencies are able to search San Leandro's data, if you will, and use it for ice possibly, I'm sorry, and use it for ice, possibly, or ICE can use that information.

Could they use it for ice purposes without putting that purpose down?

The answer is yes.

I think, but we had no indication obviously that that was going to be the we did that regard.

Have you looked at the logs from FLOC?

The other trans so-called transparency portal where they do have some information about the source of requests that are outside of our access to our system, our data.

Uh, is that part of your review or not?

We did not look at requests from outside agencies, but know that the system limit that to California agencies, unless there is a misapplication of a setting of the system, which happened for a few departments uh in California, or at least one department in California.

Yeah, I asked because we was brought to our attention by a member of the public that helped him, I think we talked about this CM.

I think it's Southern California.

Who was who was definitely sharing it from uh data with federal agencies, and and how that was actually discovered was reviewing those FLOC uh, their the running record of the uh their trans so-called transparency portal.

Um we had that I know it's on our portal as well, right?

The flock portal uh transparency portal is part of our transparency portal that it can be looked up ourselves, right?

Correct, yes, yeah.

So I don't know what to make of that, but I think that the and if it was that obvious that was showing up in this other California agency, I would hope that we would be looking to make sure that a similar errors weren't being made by our department in response to a request from another agency.

I guess that's just a comment, but I don't uh you know, um let's see.

I think a C Torres can again address the the remedial actions that were taken in potentially uh other questions relative to uh the systems use.

Okay, thank you.

Um, unless there's more questions.

Did you have a question?

I have a question just to get something clarified for me.

Um, in the context of like you had mentioned lack of case numbers and lack of standardization, you also said free form field, and I don't know what that means.

Could you explain?

So the the free form search is a search not for a specific license plate but for a vehicle with certain attributes that is possible in the system if that setting is turned on.

Um there were at least a couple of those searches, I believe, that we came up with, but I understand that that setting is no longer uh turned on, but instead of looking for plate one, two, three, four, five, you're looking for a white Ford fan, and the system is smart enough to come up with white Ford bands and be able to spit out where and when those were observed.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions before we hear from the system sheet?

All yours?

Great.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you, Jeff and Denise.

So I'll kind of just go over some bullet points as far as what we uh what we as agency did as a result of the audit that occurred.

Um as Jeff mentioned, um, you know, there were some things that we noticed, but luckily with the audit that they did, we're able to take some uh you know corrective action.

It wasn't necessarily that the officers uh did anything nefarious, um, some of it was was training issues.

Excuse me, I'll give an example where an officer was uh uh put in certain parameters for a search.

So, for example, he was looking for uh vehicle, you know, ABC 123, uh, between you know six and seven p.m.

on Tuesday evening, uh, did the search, nothing came up.

Well, he came back uh following day and did the exact same search uh and then did it several times and then changed his parameters.

So unless that vehicle traveled back in time and went through the intersection, you know, it's not gonna pop up.

So we were able to address that with some uh uh training, and it could have been it was something kind of as simple as uh not refreshing his uh search fields.

Uh the other thing that we noticed in the uh in the audit itself is we had a lot of uh and I'll use the word free form boxes where officers can for search reason, for example, if they're looking for a burglary vehicle, they would type in burglary vehicle.

Sometimes they would type in the penal code central for 459.

So very inconsistent in what was written in there.

Uh flock uh does or has given us the ability to make customizable fields.

So we created, I believe it's uh uh seven or seven or eight.

I didn't say six or something, seven or eight.

Uh the customized field, so it's it's cleaner.

So they're looking for robbery vehicle that's a drop-down, and they select robbery vehicle, but it's a very big way select that.

So there's no free form.

The other thing we noticed is there's some uh personal identified information that may have been put in the boxes that shouldn't have been put in there.

So again, this eliminated that by by making them customizable fields for the drop-down.

Uh, and for case numbers, we made those as um mandatory fields, excuse me.

So they have to physically put in a case number there.

Um, it seems common common sense.

Sometimes when officers are uh uh doing a search, they may inadvertently skip a field, but now it's gotta be put out there, or they put in case numbers in the other box, and that's one thing that was that you would be able to see in the uh transparency portal.

Now, if you jump in there, you'll see it's a lot a lot cleaner as far as what it looks like.

Um, what else is it?

Uh yeah, so we basically limited the possibility of of staff entering uh personal identifying information anywhere in there in the portal cell.

And in regards to uh the agency that was mentioned earlier, uh Al Cajon, we have removed them from the ability to search our um our our flaw cameras, and uh that was uh I just refreshed it right now.

So effective, you know, about five minutes ago or so.

So Alcohona doesn't have does not have access our um our flock system anymore.

Thank you.

Is there any other uh departments where you'd have to do that?

No, that's the only agency that we're aware of that uh uh has I would say a different interpretation of uh the law.

Interesting, okay.

Um, and then you have the question about the share of information that goes to uh federal federal partners.

If it's for immigration purposes, obviously we cannot, they cannot share, they don't have access to our system.

Any uh agency outside of California does not have access into our system.

Uh there was the uh in the news, I'm sure we've seen what happened with certain agencies where there was a toggle button on their uh when they set it up that allowed agencies to say peek into their system and not necessarily that they got any information from it, but they were uh they had the ability to search for uh again that vehicle ABC 123 vehicle, whether or not it traversed in their in their town.

Uh, when we set up our system, we didn't have that nation lookup system activated.

Uh so we so our our system was not impacted by it.

And uh we double checked with uh with Flock, I double checked and ran um audits for the for uh three months.

Uh before the they actually churn off that feature for all agencies, and we had no no peaks into our system.

Can you just repeat the what is the feature actually?

It was uh uh it was toggled like a national lookup where you can um look up uh for vehicle nationally, okay.

Uh and I don't quote me on the exact uh button that is, but it was a basic national lookup.

And we've activated it basically.

Okay, thank you.

Is there more?

Uh no, I'm open to questions.

Okay, any questions?

What are we?

Okay.

More of a comment.

I think I'm gonna wait for the next month's data.

9,000 seems like a lot.

Um, and just going back to the conversations we had when it was presented to us that you guys would be using the flock cameras and brought up a couple of issues, probably more than a couple, but and it's manifesting itself to exactly kind of what we thought.

So hopefully it's the training issues, um, but we'll see next month.

Other questions?

And again, our thought is that we will be doing this on uh a monthly basis and looking any of the items that may need remediation of some kind or another, catch it early, get it corrected, and make sure that there's nothing on toward uh occurring in the system.

Uh, Tim question.

Uh yeah, the the total number for the month was what?

Could you repeat that?

Uh I believe it was 9,883 separate queries logged, generated by 52 distinct users.

And each of those users that could have been obviously multiple times.

You said five or six was the majority of those 52.

Five or six users was accounted for the majority of those uh 50 of those inquiries among the 52 users, correct?

And there were 1,103 unique license plate searches.

Thank you.

So I'll kind of put a little context into this.

So if you go to our public uh portal on the website that's available to anybody, uh you'll see that in the last three days we've had 1,170 searches per vehicle.

And if our detectives are looking for a particular vehicle, uh they're gonna search for that vehicle more than more than one time.

And if you have multiple officers uh working at a time or detectives, it could be that two or three officers are looking for that uh for that vehicle at the same time, and then hitting a refresh button.

So I just want to put that in in the context on a on what a high number is, but again, if you go to our public uh our portals on our website under data reports, uh the last 30 days, 1,170 searches, and there's a CSV file that you can download uh to get additional um information as far as the reasons for those uh particular searches.

But I'm a little confused.

What's the 9,000 number then?

Is that annual number or is that all just in the month of July?

I'm asking the 9,000 the 9,000 number was the month of July of separate queries log.

Right, and so like I'm just trying to understand that number in terms of what's the chief just so the 1100 or whatever it is you just read, um assistant chief, is that queries or uh license plates?

License plates, 1103 license number.

I'm asking about what assistant chief just the searches that were conducted.

I just confused how we'd be almost confused about how it'd be almost 10,000 in July, and if we're hearing correctly only 1100 in this past 30 days, does that make sense?

That's it maybe just the difference between a query and you know distinct license plates searched for.

I'm just trying to understand the data because if we're gonna get this on a regular basis, we need to understand what these numbers mean.

Um if if I'm uh processing this correctly also, it sounds like there were 1,100 unique license plate numbers that were searched, right?

But the total number of queries was 9,000, whatever the number was he gave.

So of those 9,000, only 1,100 plates were searched.

So that means that were multiple, there were multiple queries on the same license plates, which brought us up to the 9500 or whatever that number was.

Right.

So the number, what what the assistant chief is citing is is actually the number of searches for distinct license plates, not the total number of queries, correct?

Yes, I'll have to do a I got a large Excel spreadsheet here.

Excuse me, but that seems to be about about right because I'm seeing you know, same license plate that is uh that is being searched.

Okay, I mean I just especially as we start to get this regularly um were there other questions because I've got just two um one question they have is the fact that five or six uh officers or uh SLPD personnel account for most of the queries um is that because of the nature of their assignment is this detectives is this is it just an average patrol person what it's those that are very familiar with the system itself and are utilized and we have officers that have our are uh that have you used the system okay so we would expect that to change over time then as people as they get more familiarized with the system.

Okay um I guess we'll see the other thing I guess a little concerned about is you uh hopefully this has been fixed but you mentioned that one of the things that was found that you needed to uh so remediation was that some personal information was being showing up in this logs that was inappropriate.

Could you describe what that so not necessarily inappropriate but um putting in a a case number in a search uh reason field whether it's a um recent field or the license plate itself in the search reason um because that that's the information that's pushed up publicly on the on the portal so the portal is extracting the field for the uh for the reason of the search so the reason for the search is a broker investigation RAW investigation or by the prime investigation the reason for the search is not that the license plate okay so that's getting that was getting pushed out it wasn't other things like an address or anything no no no no okay okay um thank you um please say it just got one question about the training involved for use of the system can you tell us about that yeah our crime uh our crime analyst puts on a training and with any software they constantly make updates to it so uh for example the uh uh the drop downs you know we push something out that uh you should usage of those uh the drop uh drop down fields and what the expectations it goes in each of those boxes so every new officer that comes on board before they can access the system they meet with our uh our crime analyst um or one of our officers um that uh is is very familiar with the system um to go over the process goes over the policy um itself with uh fill out a trade evaluation form and before they get access into the system they have to show either myself or uh our crime analyst or the two of the department that can ransomware at the same time remove access that they've done they've gone to that okay thank you thank you other I have a two couple of questions uh so it's resolved about apparently if I understand this right the case number or the reason uh one of those are both of them was required yes both are required to be filled and you've solved that problem uh by making it uh they where the search is unsuccessful until they put that in yeah it's match for a field so they wouldn't even get the the button won't line up for them to make the search and that was we did that back in August September ish.

Okay and the other thing I didn't quite understand was the item about sharing information and L call uh could you could you repeat what that was about so in if you go to our our uh our transparency portal on uh our website it shows every agency that uh that has access into our into our our cameras and uh I couldn't even tell you what the numbers because there's it's a lot, it's mostly it's almost every agency in California that has a has a flog system.

Those agencies that are listed can search our cameras for a particular vehicle.

So if they're looking for that ABC 123 vehicle, very common vehicle apparently, um, it'll they'll it'll search our cameras to see if that if that vehicle has been here at San Diego.

Okay, and and among all the agencies that have access to our data, uh they share the same ideals that we have about not sharing it with ICE or somebody like that, is that correct?

Yeah, it's uh the state law, you can't use it for immigration for immigration enforcement purposes.

There's not a uh dividing line between non-sanctuary and sanctuary systems.

And it's actually just to add to that, it's not just ICE, it's also other state uh the laws very specific, other stating requests for information are also not allowed.

The concern there was about tracking people who are coming to California, for example, for reproductive rights uh treatment or whatever you want to call it, and so that's so that's the knowledge of it's not just ice.

Yeah, there is so if there is a criminal investigation that that an outside agency uh is involved in, um, they can request us to look for you know, particular vehicle in our cities and our system.

We will not grant them access to our system, uh, but they will tell us that they're looking for that infamous vehicle, and then we would we ourselves will make the uh the search and not grant them access to the search ourselves.

Thanks for explaining that.

Other questions?

Um I'm gonna suggest we we um perhaps carry this over for some further conversation next meeting.

Uh would would that be the would you be doing a monthly report on this uh at our next meeting?

Jeff.

Yeah, the hope is that we will, but we still haven't gone through the approval channels of the city and label and the department.

But we submitted a um a proposed form which would accomplish it.

So we don't know is what you're saying, can't state with certainty, but we're shooting forward for the next month.

Okay, um the reason I want to carry it over, um, and and then if any of others disagree and don't want to revisit this, just say so because I need the uh majority has to say yes with this to be an agenda item.

So um tell me if you're disappointing, but uh I have a council member who's very concerned about this.

Um there's a you know, number of people in the community who are seeing repeated, you know, uh news articles about various city agencies uh who in the Bay Area who have found uh significant errors in how the data is being shared outside of California.

Um so I think we need to stay on top of this and try to learn as much as we can as quickly as we can.

Um, you know, one of the uh articles that uh was out was about uh to Chief in Mountain View who's gone so far as to turn off the system, the flock system, and I believe part of his uh concern was he's not sure he trusts the security by flock itself and how they're managing the data.

So I think this is a important matter.

Um, if if I shows up in town here, um, whatever concerns people have now about whether the LPR data and whatnot is being used inappropriately, you can be sure it'll be even greater concern then.

So I'm hoping we could be ahead of this if possible, and and uh I'm pleased to hear honestly the remediation that you you've uh described already uh shows how important the audit is and it needs to be ongoing, um and you know, from my perspective, if it's more manageable for uh the IPA's office to do this every other month rather than every month.

I mean, I think that's you know, whatever would make it every month.

Okay, I stand uh that was just on a personal opinion, which is uh not shared.

So um but I certainly didn't want it to be just an annual report, but I want this to be as thorough as possible and as reliable as possible when we're looking at these numbers and that we are understand what we're being presented with.

Um any other comments on this before we go on?

Go ahead and I already talked about it, but I just popped in my head.

Okay, yeah.

Is there any report on uh how useful the license plate readers have been, solving robbery violent crime?

Yeah, we have that uh you know we have that data, and then what we can do moving forward is we can include that part more uh um our uh police report out because we do have a lot of success with the system in itself.

Yeah, I think that'd be good for the to know about something how we can work on it.

Well at least with five or six people, right?

What's that?

At least with five or six people or six or seven, I got a good thing.

No more six, you know, please.

Okay, um, if we are fitted to thank you, um folks.

Um, do we have uh public comment on this?

There's no public comment.

Okay, was you said helping a teacher out on Tuesday and the kids are guessing my age.

I lied, I said it was 67.

Took a while to get the class back on track.

Um, I'm I'm feeling a little targeted because I drive a white uh every main model with the license plate ABC 123.

I don't know why that came up, but um I think this is a uh an invaluable analysis.

I'm glad that it's gonna be ongoing.

I don't think you need to spend time as a as a board every month on what the report is.

Maybe you can carry on and review them.

Uh I just would want to ensure that you know we're gonna get the August 25 through January 26 sub months included in there.

Um pr data, you know, is undeniably powerful, very very useful crime fighting tool, but also now part of this you know the surveillance state, and so the usefulness of it needs to be balanced against the privacy and civil rights concerns that uh that we have.

Um, as the chair pointed out, increasing number of municipalities are either suspending or avoiding um their contracts with Flock.

Uh and it's not just in uh California, it goes back east Cambridge, you know, Eugene and Springfield and then Oregon.

It's I mean it's a growing list.

And why is that is because Flock has proven itself to be a bad actor.

I mean, either they're incompetent, I don't think that's the case, or they're engaged in deception, or the word that comes to mind is duplicitous.

Um I think that the kind of audit that the Keith and Bob uh requested, is also necessary.

It's not it's not sufficient to just turn off Elkhone's uh data, but we need to go and look and see whether Elkhone was able to get the data through some side portal because that's what these other cities are finding.

It's like even though we set the right uh um settings, uh, you know, the data's getting leaking out somehow.

So we need to ensure that that is not happening uh here in uh San Leander.

And I think we should investigate alternative vendors there.

You know, Flock is not the only one out there, uh, but they are you know quite in with the surveillance state as the head of Flock has indicated is recently.

Thank you.

Um, Chair, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

There, uh thank you for the commission of the chair.

I just wanted to clarify.

So thank you for this feedback sign dialogue, just so we're clear to staff up.

We'll plan to continue the sign into the next meeting as well for further work uh conversations.

Is that am I hearing that correctly from the board?

Is that correct?

Does anybody disagree with that?

We're gonna carry over, and we'll see.

If we'll have we may have the actual monthly report from the IPA to look at, um, but also if people have other questions that they about this from talking to a bit of the community or whatever, um, you know, you'll have a chance to discuss it further.

We've got other things on the agenda, so I just want to move us on if possible.

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay, Austin.

Chair Wailey, I hate to be the uh stickler for the rules, but technically under the Roberts rules, since you're continuing an item, um, it would require a majority approval at the board to do so.

Um, I just I asked if there's any objection, that's not the same thing.

Um if we could just make it a motion and uh an option to move the motion.

I'll I'll submit the motion.

This is this brings up another issue then is how to agenda it.

Um if we were to have for further discussion next meeting, have we actually thought there was some action we wanted to take?

We would need to be able to my understanding is we need to be able to identify it as a possible action item now in order for it to show up that way next meeting where all we can do is discuss it, and we don't have the option of taking any action.

I don't know if we'll know enough to feel comfortable actually taking any action next meeting, but I guess I throw out that question to you all is do you want to be able to take action or do you just see this as a further opportunity to kind of explore research and understand before we get to that step?

Jim.

My understanding is it's gonna be much like the IPA reporting that we're already getting.

And tonight was a little cumbersome because we didn't know what some of these numbers meant now that we've done a little of the groundwork or perhaps it won't take so long, but it'd be good to get the data on a market basis.

I don't think it I don't think anybody disagreed with that.

The question of whether how we agenda, I'm gonna suggest that we just discuss just have it as a discussion item at this point because we don't have enough information to take action, but just know going forward, yes, we would have to make that decision you know in advance of the next meeting if we expect to.

Yes, okay.

So discussion.

All right, no, it's fine, right?

Yeah, okay.

We will try to move.

Okay, so we're not taking action on it, we're just doing this.

We'll have a chance to ask questions, gather information, discuss amongst ourselves, but we can't then have a motion that says I think the department should be XY or Z, you know.

Um, make that a recommendation that would take agenda and actually.

Okay, so we're gonna move on.

Um, so now we're too and thank you.

Um, no, it's fine, thank you.

Thank you.

Um Jeff and Denise.

Um, so now we're at the uh review of the 2025 complaints.

You all should have received that as attached to the agenda.

Um, and then um, I know I have a few questions, but let's hear from uh is it Jeff gonna be doing this or Denise?

That's a good question.

Let's just say me, since Jeff went on camera and I've got it in my hand.

But Jeff said that.

Denise is going to go over the numbers and uh all answer questions that anyone may have, okay.

So I have to use funny.

Thanks.

So um, there, we put some comments and definitions on the bottom to clarify the information that you're seeing.

Um, the most important first one was that these are all of the complaints that we reviewed during 2025 for sworn personnel.

The numbering system on the first column there is just the order in which we reviewed them, and it's a unique number for us to reference, but it's not part of that information within the department.

The complaint intake year, just to clarify that is the year the complaint was received, the source of the complaint, internal external, it's kind of self-explanatory, but that means we either generated from within the department or an external complaint from outside of the department.

The type of allocation also is pretty self-explanatory there, as far as uh what that what the uh misconduct was uh and lastly, disposition.

We gave you the definitions, which are also consistent with what's in our annual report, but just for reference, so that um it's clear what an exonerated unfounded sustained or not sustained means.

So, with that, I will just turn it over for questions, please.

Please questions okay?

Well, let me try.

Um, I guess the first question I have is um so while the these 17 complaints from what I my reading of this, 10 of them were received in uh 2025, but another seven were received in either 2024 or 2023.

Um why are these um from 24 23 um just being reviewed now a year later or more?

So I you're getting a little broken up, but I think your questions related to the the timing, right?

When it was received, um, when the complaint came in and when we reviewed it, is that like the difference in that span of time?

Yes, yes.

Okay, um, so in short, uh I think I mentioned earlier on the complaints, complaints are the type of investigation that does tend to take a little longer.

There are typically interviews that need to be conducted, so people's schedules getting a hold of people, there's a lot of um procedural stuff with regard to the officers that has to be followed.

So there's it's a it's a lot more, some of them are more formal than others, but there's a lot of procedural stuff that has to take place.

Um, and and it's a very serious thing when you're accusing an officer, right?

So you want that to be super clean and thorough.

So it's expected that it will take longer.

I know um Bob, one of the questions you asked was about whether or not they were conducted uh by a third party or the department, that's one of the questions.

Three of these, yeah.

And I'm just gonna relate it, but three of these were conducted from by a third party, the rest of them by the uh San Leando police department.

So the timing, I guess I'm trying to use that as part of explaining the time.

There's only one from 2023, right?

And that was one of the externally, so third party, and it just so happened it was at the end of 2023, and they had a reassignment of an investigator, so it didn't get reassigned that other agency or entity until early 2024 by the time that got investigated, and then we reviewed it in early 2025.

So that gives you kind of a picture of how long it can take.

Is that my answering your question, Bob?

No, you are because that was one of my quick questions, I guess.

I think also in that particular case, there was a problem with interviewing the complainants as well.

Yes, yes.

Um, an anomaly.

Um a case could conceivably come in at the at the end of 23, and hopefully we would get to it and it would be completed in uh in 24 and we would review it immediately.

Typically, we review these immediately, but to Denise's point, what we are reviewing for is to make sure that these investigations are complete, so um they do take time, and more complex investigations take more time, and and timeliness is one of the criteria that we're looking for.

So when we're evaluating these, we're evaluating them for many things, including completeness and timeliness.

So if there was a problem with how long it was taking, we would certainly point that out within our review.

Okay, um, can you are those disposition your dispositions or the third party or internal the department?

So that's a uh we don't we don't recommend dispositions at all, right?

That's the chief's job.

So what are you reviewing in how do we disseminate what your report is?

Because if I'm looking at this, this is not the IPA report, is the the department's report it it is the report of how investigations were handled first by the department and then reviewed by the IPA?

The IPA again does not um it's not make dispositions that is the chief's job.

If in fact we disagreed with a recommended disposition, uh we discuss these in a command forum.

Uh we hold bi-weekly meetings with command staff, and if we disagree with a recommendation, we would make that known, and there is a process by which we can't go to the city manager under certain circumstances uh to deal with a standoff, if you will, on something like that.

But that has never occurred in our district, so to follow up.

So the dispositions are the result of the complaint investigations, whether it's done by the third party or the department.

Um you review those, you have the ability to challenge those dispositions if you choose to.

Um, but what would be reported here is the the final outcome.

And so if you disagreed, um either that would have changed the department's disposition, or are any of these dispositions ones where you had disagreed with?

We just said no, you know, yeah, okay, it's never happened.

No, that didn't happen.

Okay.

But you're correct in terms of the possibility that it could happen, and that after the discussion, the disposition could conceivably be changed.

Okay, and we would be able to be able to identify those from any future reporting in.

No, you would see the final disposition.

Um, we don't get to know if there was a disagreement.

Um, then I just I guess I'll just want to make a quick comment.

Um, because we're running out of time, um what's how do you define um a couple of the uh sustained complaints were for um incompetence?

Um could you define what incompetence is uh as a formal allegation and cause for possible disreaction?

What is incompetence?

I'll let the assistant chief or chief talk about that professional conduct with a couple of things.

There's a few of them that discourtesy on the I was looking specifically at one time, but list the allegations as incompetence.

I just don't know what it means.

Um I would say the um the meaning behind the incompetence allegation changes for each investigation, so it's based on the nature of the complaint as to whether or not the uh employee was found to be incompetent in their duties.

Um three that are on there um four or five, I don't have those cases queued up.

Um I mean I can't give you additional information, but um it depends on what the nature of the complaint is.

There's not uh one definition that fits every situation, but it's distinguished for example from neglect of duty, yes, okay, and it's distinguished from uh uh unprofessional conduct.

Yes, okay.

So each of those are different buckets.

So incompetence is some other, some other allegations.

So can you just give me an example of what that means?

I don't want and not a real case, just an example of what I was gonna try?

Sure.

That should answer my question.

Please.

I don'm not sure where you're on it, but I thought it would try this.

Um hold on, Denise.

Okay, go ahead, sorry.

But who I thought the chief was still speaking.

Chief.

Yeah, yeah, I I think it before Denise tries to uh on the incompetence.

I think we have had had as recently as uh this last week a conversation about these categories which are drawn from the left assistant.

Um, and frankly, the categorization in the left assistant is not everything uh that perhaps it could be so as to provide the greatest amount of specificity uh that could be provided here.

Ultimately, anything which is brought up as a an allegation has to be an allegation of a violation of a policy, and uh those are often delineated in the body of the investigations rather than in this category, and just I think going forward, we we may try to work on this categorization with the department.

I think that would be helpful.

Um that's just a thought.

Um, and uh just this is just a also uh a comment um of these um 17 uh 12 of them are external complaints, meaning from the public, none of those were sustained.

Um for internal complaints, four of six were sustained, which is actually a pretty high rate and pretty impressive.

But I don't know if you'll care to comment on the fact that none of the external complaints were sustained.

Is there any context to provide or not?

Um I'll ask both of you, I guess.

I think you were asking us.

Is there any significance?

From our perspective, each one stands on its own, and we review it and uh that's just the way they turned out.

Okay, um, I don't know, Chief.

Did you want to come in or not?

It's up to you.

Um, you know, obviously again, I can't get into specifics, but um sometimes um complaints that are received, whether internal or external, um, can be um adjudicated through body camera footage.

So sometimes let's say I'll give a very hypothetical situation.

Let's say someone was placed under arrest for whatever violation, um, and they may say, you know, um the officer used a racial slur against me or use excessive force, and a lot of times some of those complaints can be even though they are thoroughly investigated, we have the physical evidence to prove that that incident did not occur.

And I'm not saying that it was true of every external complaint, I'm just saying that could be an example as to why it was unfounded or the officer was exonerated.

Okay, let's see what we see over time, I guess.

Um the uh I did have one other question, which I don't know, Jeff, if you'd already prepared for this, but I did ask uh how many officers total are involved in these 17 complaints, and are any of those um officers have more than one of those complaints.

So we in order to do that calculation, we felt it was going to take too much time and effort for 2025 going forward, we will give those statistics um subject to to city and department approval on an annual basis, so not for this annual report, but the next one that's what I mean.

Yeah, there is no mechanical way to extract that information from the system.

So we wouldn't have had to go back to each of these cases, and it would have been fairly labor-intensive.

Okay, um troubles me a little bit to hear that.

Um but um this again, this may be something that we would uh want to take action on at some point, because I asking for the specifics if you involve some research, and uh so I just kind of forewarn you that that might be coming.

Um but not good camp tonight because this is a presentation.

So I'm sorry, Bob.

I missed that if it was directly toward me.

It's directed to uh the department and you in terms of what kind of information can this buddy get that would give us a better handle on the nature of the complaints, doing everything that we can that you must do to protect officer project.

So it feels like there's more information out there that that ought to be available to us, and I'm just suggesting you may very well request it.

Well, we can't do that tonight.

Um anybody have any other comment on that?

Okay, um, so you know, yeah, and I'm not no, super quick.

I would be, I think a little bit to your point, um, uh chair, I would be curious.

Um like just because of the subjectivity that you mentioned the categories, some of them just seem so incredibly subjective.

So I would be curious about connections between the categories themselves and then the resulted disposition, um, and to compare some of that information, but that would require what you said just a tremendous amount of the lift with the data.

So I would be curious though, to if one day we could get there.

Very good.

Um, I mean, first of all, I appreciate this.

We we've had not little of this kind of information in the past, or we got some information to the IPA's GANU report, it's kind of very, but in the spirit of transparency, which is part of the mission of this agency, that this is a healthy start, and I think we'll just try to drill down as appropriate over time, and and uh and hopefully we're more confident in uh that we're doing all we can to make this process as transparent as possible.

Um, I will tell you that uh how complaints are handled and recorded is often uh you know uh controversial for for oversight agencies as well as for the police departments.

So I know it's not it's it's it's not true for example.

If if you just see a low sustained rate, that means there's a problem.

Um so I'll just put out that out there.

But if we can say that there's no problem, we'd need more information.

So let's leave it at that for now.

If you um I want to ask if we can extend the meeting for 10 minutes.

Keith, you could uh berate me later.

Um, just so we can get to the last two items.

Um, and I know we've got to do a public comment, right?

Um so um is there any objection to extending it for 10 minutes?

Okay, thank you.

Um, any public comment on this uh complaints before uh well, I hope the board will ask for that data that you were just suggesting, Bob, uh, because hypothetically, let's say there were five officers uh with five different complaints, they were all exonerated, but that would suggest to me that there's there's a pattern.

Maybe it doesn't rise to the level of a sustained complaint, but maybe a training point or something else that has to happen.

Um, after all, we've just hung two city council members on that kind of uh evidence.

Um I uh as a scientist, I look at data and you know there's times when the data is a little too neat, you know, China syndrome uh scene where they find the same x-ray of the welds over and over and over again, right?

It's been uh it's just been copied, and and this this looks like good data.

I um not bothered by uh the to me, the sustained rate is not is not that low.

Uh it'd be nice if you know there were there were no complaints and they were never uh sustained, but the fact that some are sustained means that to me that this the system does work.

I want to ask uh about the next column over, which is about uh consequences.

So, you know, when I see neglect, I see incompetence.

Um I used to get the discourteous one all the time as a teacher because I apparently I gave out too many C-s.

Um, I'm assuming, maybe correct me, but that you know, those again are kind of on the level of retraining or coaching memos or whatever, but the one that caught my eye was the one about falsifying reports.

To me, that kind of elevates to uh a level of distrust, or you know, maybe some of these other ones.

If you had a more uh experienced uh or senior officer, it would be a more concern.

But falsifying records, I like is that person still in our police force?

What what happens, and you know, in terms of the consequences for these different kinds of allegations.

Okay, is that it?

That's all okay.

Thank you.

Um, moving on.

Um we have uh ad hoc committee reports and we've already uh jumped the line already to talk about the the outreach efforts on the uh info uh cards, so that's done.

Um the other is our uh ad hoc committee is the on crowd control that involves Joseph Tim and myself.

Um we met several times and we've put together a memo for the chief that she received just this week, um, with a number of questions.

So we'll report back to you when we have that, and uh in part uh what the next step is will depend on both what those answers are, but also whether it makes sense to convene kind of a three-way meeting again with the IPA and the department and us or not, but the first step is to ask the questions.

So there's without further ado, let me move on to speaking of ad hoc committees.

Um, we've heard, especially during the IPA's um annual report, that there's been a lot of attention and focus on the department's vehicle pursuits policy, um, and where our understanding is that there's there's some uh revisions to the policy that uh either underway or or uh in progress, but and that there was some expectation that we would provide some input on the policy before it's finalized.

Chief, do I have that right?

Yes, okay.

Um I mean, well, I just want to preface it that way.

Um, so in order to kind of be ready to do that policy review, then we need to create an ad hoc committee, and again, that could be um uh I actually I should ask at this point.

Do you think it makes sense to do any kind of a preliminary presentation of what you guys are considering as policy changes here or uh or some uh back and forth with an ad hoc committee in order to get it to hear for the full body?

I just don't know what I don't know.

What's obvious is I don't have a clue where you are in the process of changing the policy.

So I'm just looking for some guidance here.

What's the best way to say your house involved the board?

So um, the policy has been under review internally uh for a couple of months, and like I mentioned, um, I wasn't here last month, maybe it was in December.

I mentioned that um the revisions were being stalled because I was I was out for an extended period of time.

Um we are close to finishing our internal revisions on the policy.

Um, and once we have completed that, then it will be sent to the board and for the ad hoc committee to then review um the changes or revisions that we made, and then for us to take your suggestions or recommendations for any additional revisions to the policy.

Um so what that suggests to me is we could go ahead and create the committee now, and maybe the first step would be when you're prepared to release what you've done, that would go to the committee for them to kind of assess and then kind of frame how it would come back to the full board.

Does that make sense?

Um the alternative would be a presentation for the full board as the first step.

Um, given how we've operated so far, I think there's a value in allowing a smaller group of the board to kind of dig in and and uh uh present it back to the board where we've got a more robust discussion, is likely than 150 minutes on the editing and moving on.

So this is a big deal.

I mean, pursuits as I know it's been a priority for the city manager's office.

Uh it shouldn't shock you that it's a big liability issue for the city.

So um, so um, and then we've had a dramatic uh reference to the incident that happened on January 31st.

Um, you know, to uh indicate just how serious it can be.

Um so with that um I'd like to suggest we create an ad-hoc committee.

Do um I've asked Keith, would you be willing to uh share that committee?

Um so do I have a couple some volunteers who would work with Keith?

Okay, um, you're not stretched too thin.

Well, I mean, they're not gonna happen at the same time, right?

Who knows?

So, yeah, you are you able to do that one question.

Okay, um, then what we have is just three, it can only be three.

Uh correct.

Okay, so okay, so I've got Keith, Jenny, and Tim.

All right, we'll find another one for you.

Don't you worry.

Um, thank you, Keith, for agreeing to do that.

Uh so let's move on.

Um, do we need a formal motion?

Yes, I do.

Okay, I'll second you.

A motion to create an ad hoc committee on the uh department uh those in favor, yeah.

We have a second.

I seconded.

Thank you.

I apologize.

I know you guys don't like to hear these, but the current agenda item is an ad hoc committee report.

There's no agenda item to form an ad hoc committee for the uh yes, there is.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I thought you were still an ad hoc committee report.

I'm I'm obviously a little bit more.

Write this one down.

Thank you.

I will for the wonder at 7 34 p.m.

and make my February.

Okay, yes, and okay.

My apologies.

The formal the motion has been made and it has been seconded.

You'll require public comment before action is taken.

Uh, public comment, thank you.

This 300 to one year.

You were ready to go with 730.

Is that what it's exactly?

Yes, please let's go.

Not counting.

Um very briefly, uh Dr.

Linda Davis was a K-38 special education teacher who was killed yesterday morning in this uh outside the school where she worked as a result of a high speed chase that was uh conducted by ice.

It wasn't the ice vehicle that struck her, was the the vehicle they were pursuing that.

This is the kind of thing that results.

So I appreciate you doing this, it's very important.

I I actually feel very confident in San Lander that a lot of positive steps have been made.

Uh we heard earlier, right?

The commendation for uh an officer that broke off a high speed circuit uh pursuit, and and I don't know if it's the same uh instance or not, but I remember the last thing we described the the incident happened over at the uh the railroad tracks on uh off of uh Davis, right?

Or ended up following up and finding the guy with the rifle, but uh but initially, right?

The officer didn't pursue the high high speed chase.

Thank you.

Um, then I think we're finished with this item.

Um the next one, just for clarification on starting casual motion first and then second, Keith and it was six-o.

Um thank you.

Um so the uh last action I do have is to uh adopt the work plan.

Um, hopefully you've all seen that.

Um, you know, we're just kind of updating the same kind of format we've used in previous last couple years.

Um and um Keith and I have kind of looked at it and put you know put this together.

Um it has to be part of our annual report, so we do need to formally um adopt this work plan.

Um and did anybody have any questions or concerns about the the work plan again as an attachment to the agenda?

Were there any things that you either were missing or you think uh needed to be added or that you have questions about?

Um we break it down by month.

Um, including things we've already done this last uh starting January.

Um I think it's pretty straightforward.

Um, if there's there are two things I would like to um say on this before we wrap up.

One is um Eric had requested that the any uh discussion of the SLPD budget be um pushed to the end of the year.

Um, but Eric, given what you just described as the state of the you know the budget cuts the city's facing, um what I was hoping for was that we'd actually have an opportunity to get an update about how that impacts the police department sooner than later, and so I'd like to actually put that back in the work plan just as a an understanding of what kind of adjustments that's our department having to make.

Um, and not wait I assume the item in general in December is really in anticipation of the next budget.

And the plan really, so do you have any objection to us scheduling something for just an update on the kind of the status of the department's budget in the in the context of the city's overall budget process?

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chair Bailey, for flagging this item um for our for our attention.

I did have a chance, opportunity to check it on in regards to this particular item, and and also as it relates to the administrative adopted administrative procedures, which reference the ability for the board to provide input as part of the normal biannual budget process.

Um budget is as you know in San Land, we operate on a biannual budget, so it's a two-year budget.

We are now about six months into a two-year cycle.

So, we are not the next the normal baseline budget planning process is what which we would kick off towards the end of this year, and that would be the opportunity.

You know, at this point, this is really just like a mid-cycle update.

This is not part of the normal budget development process.

This is really just a you know, we are tweaking, I mean it's cycle tweak of the budget, is not the baseline budget planning.

That is what is referenced in the administrative procedures, uh, which also just as a reminder too that was that provisioning admin procedures does not have any corollary in the actual ordinance that created this body.

As you recall, the budget budget does not appear anywhere in the ordinance that created this body, so it's not a traditional power or duty.

This body is adopted by the city council when it adopted the governance model for the body, but that said there is the reference to the normal biannual budget process and the admin procedures, and that normal that normal process for that baseline manual process would take place later towards the end of the calendar.

Again, we look forward to working with you as part of that process.

Okay, um, thank you.

Um I will avoid um getting upset about the reference to administrative procedures as if they're not important because it's not in the ordinance.

That's why we had a negotiation for six months to create them.

Um, that said, um I'm trying to be clear, but my question I'm suggesting is we just want an update.

We're not asking for an opportunity to have input on the budget.

I understand that's what the December item would be with the next biennial budget.

I'm just asking for can we schedule some kind of a you know uh presentation to the board about the impacts of the on the department of the city's budget crisis?

Period.

It's not we're not asking for input or chance to make recommendations.

This is again in the under the umbrella of we're supposed to be about trying to produce more public transparency.

And you know, it seems to me that um if there was a chance to have some kind of an understanding of how the department is impacted here beyond what might happen in a uh the board retreat, for example, we ought to be asking for that.

Do you really have an objection to that?

Thank you for your comments and questions, Chair.

I would I would say this, you know, so certainly I'm glad you referenced the the annual orchard that's coming up in March 6th.

So certainly, and there's also an upcoming finance committee meeting as well.

The city council finance when you were discussions on the budget cuts.

So all departments, including the police department, will be will be elevated and discussed and there'll be opportunities to serve all the comments.

To those forms, in addition to that, I will share.

I mean I appreciate you sharing this feedback and concerns, and I would just ask you to allow us the opportunity to discuss it subsequent to this meeting today.

We can discuss this feedback.

I would appreciate that.

We can report back at the following board meeting as well.

That I appreciate.

Um thank you.

Um, then uh before I um, Keith, we haven't talked about this, but before we actually vote on uh adopting the work plan as it is, um there is something I'd like to add.

Um, this is uh thinking of the uh this is this will be the end of our fourth year.

That's all right, um, and we haven't reviewed our administrative procedures, speaking of the devil.

Um I think we ought to review our administrative procedures.

I've looked at them and they're out of date on some basic things like the what constitutes a quorum, what's our current membership because we shifted from the students to the ad hoc, and there are other things in there that we probably want to revisit, and we also have the benefit now a number of years of experience where maybe we'd have a better idea of things that we think might need to be tightened up in the industry procedures.

So I was gonna suggest that we add that to what you've seen, uh, a review of the administrative procedures uh in September, you know, after the summer break and before the end of the year.

So if there's no objections to that, um I would like to uh move that we adopt the work plan adding a September item for review of the administrative procedures, um, and do I have a second for it for January?

Do we have a second?

I don't know if I can do it who make the motion first.

I just did so.

I think you can.

You're making the motion though, but you're gonna add something in September.

Yeah, right.

Can we also add farmers market in August?

Doesn't it go July and August?

It goes through April basically.

Why is it only in one month?

I think it was April, August.

It's up there, it's up there.

Does it doesn't mean we have to do it in July, right?

We can do it.

First of all, this is a guideline.

We think we don't feel like the we can't, and that box that says July also refers to other community events, which could be interpreted as uh I just wanted to make sure that we pin down some of the things we know done before.

Okay, um, so I think I think work plan might make sure it's reflected every time that we're doing it, but okay.

No, we're not gonna, you know, it's just yeah, we do probably need to add it because we do the farmers market uh all the months that it's open.

Yeah, we've been there too.

Basically, it's all summer.

No, I know they're right, okay.

But we haven't been there.

We've only got we've only done it the modern one that's from April till like probably October, but we've only done I think like one.

One or two, yeah.

One or two, yes.

Yeah, so that's you know, but as opportunity if we can't do it one month, we can do it every month.

So we should put it on every month that it's open.

Yeah, which is April to the okay.

So you basically can you put on there um monitor for the cheap extra hot dogs?

Okay, ready for the motion.

I mean it's is I want to wrap this up.

Lori pass the time.

Is the farmers market something you want to be added to August?

So we show July, August, and September.

Or is it understood here that we're at least gonna try to make two of them?

And what's suggested here as a starting point in July and September, going in can change if you want to my suggestion would be every day that isn't every month that it's open, we would have it up here, and in case we can't make it, we have an opportunity to do it the following month, as opposed to being stuck on having to be there September, and our schedule might change.

Yeah, yes, so basically, start from April because that's when the market opens, all the way until October is when they close.

Right.

I'll find a way, I'll find a way to amend this to show that you know we've been looking throughout those months, but our goal is at least two.

Okay.

Um, and we have one member's schedule too.

So any other changes.

So we're gonna show that we're we consider farmers markets for the whole period, April through October.

Um, and we're gonna add the distract procedures review in September.

Are there any other changes or additions?

Okay, right now so um I thought I'm like you're telling me I can't make the motion.

The preference the preference is that you open it up to a motion as the chair, and if no motion is made or carried, then you can relinquish the chair and make one on your own.

Uh but you can invite the motion.

The preference first.

Okay, so Keith and Saida makes the motion.

Saida approves it.

Um, do we need to have a discussion on this?

And do I need to hear from the public?

Yes.

So the motion's been made.

The uh we'll open up to public for action committee taken.

And yes, you need to open it up to public comment.

Before we vote.

Yes, okay.

So any any further discussion?

Do we have any public comment on this?

No public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Um, now um hearing none.

Um, thank you, departments.

Thank you.

Um those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Anyone abstaining?

Were you?

It went by too fast for me.

Sounded like three questions.

What am I voting on?

The work plan.

The work plan.

But you're looking at it there with two changes.

The farmers market extension and the adding the administrative receipts.

Okay.

Um, I think that's it.

Um for uh thank you for that.

Chair, can we can we clarify boards and women's position?

Was that a vote?

Oh, sorry, what?

You clarify if the vote is just supporting that.

Thank you for the clarification.

So, um, final wrap-up comments from the board members.

Happy Black History Month, everyone.

Thank you.

That's it.

Joseph?

Well, same thing in uh, you know, I'd like to thank everybody for their time today.

We've got a little bit over, but we got a lot accomplished.

Okay, um I have no comments.

I don't have any footballs, no comments.

Okay, so just the only things I have for the agenda then for the next meeting, March, is that we would have the IPA's RIPA data analysis um report.

Um we have elections, so by way of saying if anybody um is interested in serving as a chair or vice chair and you have any questions or want more information, I would say contact me.

Um but and then the other things we're carrying over for discussion only the discussion about the uh ALPR uh audit.

Okay, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you