Hi, Michael.

Thanks for joining us through Zoom.

Um good afternoon, everybody.

Um, my name is Donna Moore, and I um am the chair of public safety.

And I have with I am joined today by Councillor Chol Majuk, Councilor Aaron Rike.

Yeah, but I want to say your first name.

One of those two.

Hannah Aaron Wright, Councillor Martinave, President Paniagua, and Councillor Helen Hudson.

Joining us on Zoom is Michael.

I'm gonna butcher your last name, so I'll let you say it.

It's a tough one.

Okay, Szynski from um he's joining us on Zoom today.

Um so today I called the meeting because there's been a lot of community outreach to me personally um around the CRB, and I wanted to give an opportunity both for our counselors to hear some um differing viewpoints that I've been listening to, as well as um let the community know where we're at.

Um one of the reasons that the um CRB investigations have stopped is because of a ruling that has happened in Rochester, and our corp counsel has advised us that that ruling impacts Syracuse, New York because we're in the same district.

Um so that is where we're at today.

Um she has advised the common council also advised um the CRB board.

So that's I just want to give you a background of why we're at today.

Um I've asked a couple people to come and speak tonight.

Um we have Ellen Rosenthal, who is a prominent lawyer, civil rights lawyer here in the area, um, who I've spoken to several times and appreciate his help.

We have Michael Szyzinski um from the NYCLU, he's the um policy director.

Is that correct, Michael?

Okay.

Thank you.

And then we have, and I don't want to butcher her name, Mizahar from the NAACP is here.

She is the chair of the legal redress.

So those are the three people that are going to be speaking at our meeting today, and the counselors will be asking questions.

This is not a public comment um session.

So if you have questions, you can ask us after, but you can't ask during the meeting, okay?

So I just asked you to respect that.

Um so is Alan here?

Alan, I'd love to have you come up first if you don't mind.

Oh yeah, you're welcome to sit at the table with us if you'd like to.

Whatever you prefer.

I always prefer the left side of the table.

All right then.

You can see here you can see it in this one.

Come to the dark side.

Go to the dark side, Alan.

Thank you for the uh opportunity to to be here and and hopefully help explain um what has been bandied about now for months as to whether or not the ruling from the appellate division in the fourth department has any controlling effect whatsoever on any other review board.

Um in New York State.

Simple.

Because the issue is rather simple.

Speak straightforward and tell you that I think that the council and the CRB have been hoodwinked and horn swaggled by your own corporation counsel.

And it's not the first time that this has happened when it comes to an issue involving the CRB.

Invariably the administration and the corporations council is more interested in their working relationship with the police than upholding the accountability that was so hard fought for in Syracuse dating all the way back to 1993.

So you've been told by corporation counsel that this appellate division case pertaining to Rochester, call it on what has now become known as Locust II, comes in the wake of several years of litigation, Locust one, up and down through the courts.

But you've been told that it's now the law of the land, and is precedent to conclude that the Citizen Review Board can no longer conduct investigations.

This legal opinion that you've received is dead wrong and is jurisprudentially dishonest.

Let me explain why I make this bold statement.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand.

We start simply with an analysis of what was at the core of the decision, that the courts, starting with Supreme Court, up to appellate division, up to the Court of Appeals, what it is at what was it at the core of the decisions in Locust IST II.

And to digress for a second, it is ironic.

I have litigated police misconduct cases against the Rochester police department.

It is ironic that it's called the Locust Club.

The Locust Club is another name for the Billy Club used to brutalize people.

They proudly wear the name Locust Club.

I'll stop digressing.

The concern of the courts in the in the locust cases was whether the what they call their police accountability board, our version of the CRB, had been vested with the authority by their local ordinance to impose discipline for the misconduct of Rochester police officers, and as a result, undermine the right of the police union, which they have to collectively bargain over the subject of police discipline and police disciplinary procedures.

That's what it is at the heart of this all.

It seems clear, and there's no argument.