City Council - Charter Change Committee

Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM When: Jul 1, 2024 05:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/92468410160?pwd=QYXH7dCNNKkb1wC9JugtF4mbjROtAJ.1 Passcode: 817715 Or One tap mobile : +16469313860,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US +19292056099,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US (New York) Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US Webinar ID: 924 6841 0160 Passcode: 817715 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ab8MzmRAzH 1. Agenda Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 1. Agenda Department Type Recommended Action Page 1 of 26 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25 Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25 Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25 Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 3. Public Forum Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 3. Public Forum Department Council and Board Type 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 5. Any Other Committee Business Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 5. Any Other Committee Business Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 6. Adjournment Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn Page 2 of 26 Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 6. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action Page 3 of 26  Charter Change Committee Tuesday, June 25, 2024 Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. or Remote via Zoom. DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Bergman (Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty (remote) Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Erin Jacobsen (Mayor’s Chief of Staff), Councilor Grant, Hayley McClenahan (Assistant City Attorney) Public Present: Jeffrey Jarrad Meeting called to order at 7:40 PM. 1. Agenda 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda Motion to Adopt Agenda as is. Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Doherty Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/18 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/18 Motion to Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 3. Public Forum Jeffrey Jarrad: I am a resident of Ward one. At the end of the last meeting Councilor Doherty brought up that he would like the draft language to read that the Police Commission shall appoint someone to the independent panel rather than appoint one of their own members to the panel. I think the draft language should explicitly exclude Commissioners from being on the panel. Similarly, I think the draft language should explicitly exclude a member of the BPOA from being appointed to the panel. This would make the panel more independent. Melo Grant: There were comments during the Joint Committee process from previous Police Commissioners that seem to have been suppressed. Where do those comments stand now? I have heard from other people that they are disconnected because they have lost faith. I think that, looking at some of the comments from newer Commissioners, that they are politically motivated. People have been talking about issues like how the spokesperson for the BPOA is Page 1 of 4 Page 4 of 26 involved in a lawsuit. We have focused too much on the Department and not enough on the public. 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes Attorney Sturtevant shared the draft language changes in resolution format. The draft resolution is available in the agenda packet. Erin Jacobsen (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said the Mayor agreed with Councilor Carpenter that five members on the independent panel may be too unwieldy, but the Mayor is more concerned with ensuring the panel is representative and truly independent. She suggested that instead of a BPOA appointment that City Council could appoint a member instead. She continued that adding an experience requirement might be better done in ordinance instead of in charter and the charter could make reference to the ordinance instead. Councilor Carpenter agreed that BPOA should not have an appointee on the independent panel as it would jeopardize the independence of the panel. She also agreed that having a member appointed by the City Council would be prudent. Councilor Bergman said he was agreeable to having a five person panel with three members appointed by the Mayor, one by the Police Commission, and one by the City Council. Councilor Doherty said he disagreed to substituting the BPOA appointee for an appointee from the City Council. He said that the panel could be exposed to incredible political pressure and it would be good to have a member be appointed by the BPOA to alleviate concerns from officers that it won’t be a fair process. Councilor Carpenter said it was a good idea to include an explicit statement in charter that none of the appointees to the independent panel can be a current member or employee of the appointing party. Councilors Bergman and Doherty both agreed. Melo Grant said there is always a political influence. Life experience always influences people’s politics and outlook with regards to the police. Erin Jacobsen said it is a good idea not to have appointees be a part of their appointing body. She said it isn’t that the BPOA shouldn’t have their voices heard, because the BPOA will be present throughout these processes. The Mayor wanted a member appointed by the City Council instead of the BPOA so there is more accountability to the public and more oversight by the citizenry. Councilor Bergman moved on to lines 69-70 of the draft resolution. Erin Jacobsen said the Police Chief is the only department head that is not currently subject to the authority of the Mayor and the Mayor is in favor of the draft changes to this section to codify that the Mayor has authority over all department heads including the Police Chief. Page 2 of 4 Page 5 of 26 Attorney McClenahan said the draft language that came out of the Joint Committee mirrors the language used in other sections of the charter for other department heads. The intention is to make clear that the Police Chief is subordinate of the executive authority of the Mayor. The new draft changes reference section 116 of the charter which lays out the relationship between the Mayor and the department heads. Worth noting that the previous and current draft language do not extend any more managerial power over the Department than previously and this is a codification of the current mayoral authority. Councilor Carpenter said that it only came to their attention that the Police Chief was treated differently under charter after we started looking into this oversight question. Councilor Bergman said it is important to reference section 116 to make clear that the Mayor is only going to take emergency control of the department in an emergency and that the department head still has general managerial authority over their personnel as delegated by the Mayor. He does not support having the Mayor be able to micromanage the police department generally. Councilor Doherty said he doesn’t think the intention of the draft language is to expand mayoral power. Erin Jacobsen said this language is not intended to provide new powers to the Mayor but to establish clarity on the relationship between the Mayor and the Police Chief. Attorney Sturtevant asked if the changes to lines 19-20 were acceptable. This change would add the City Council to the list of people that must be notified if and when the Police Commission changes any rules or directives for the police department. All councilors agreed to the change. Councilor Bergman moved on to the questions posed by the BPOA. The document titled “2024- 06-21 Joseph Corrow BPOA Questions for Charter Change” is available on the agenda packet. Councilor Doherty asks why the Committee is discussing questions from the BPOA without the BPOA being present. Councilor Bergman said the BPOA had a conflict with the meeting time and the Committee needs to continue to work forward. Councilor Doherty said he was unsure why the BPOA said that the Police Commission would be given hiring authority. He said that is not part of the current changes. Councilor Bergman agreed that there is no hiring authority in the Commission and that there isn’t a change in disciplinary hierarchy either. Councilor Carpenter said the intent was never to change the bargaining process. She continued that the confidentiality of the Police Commission has always been important. These changes do create a new panel that could be considered another level of hierarchy. Motion to find that the premature general public knowledge of confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the committee would clearly put the committee at a substantial disadvantage. Page 3 of 4 Page 6 of 26 Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous Motion to go into executive session to receive confidential attorney-client communication pursuant to 1 V.S.A. 313(a)(1)(f). Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 5. Any Other Committee Business The Committee’s next meeting is set for 5:30PM on July 1. 6. Adjournment 6.01 Adjournment Motion to Adjourn. Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Page 4 of 4 Page 7 of 26 Email from Joseph Corrow of the Burlington Police Department and Burlington Police Officers’ Association, 2024-06-21 Councilor Bergman, I apologize for the delay in this. Here are the questions posed by our council: It appears that they are recommending essentially making the Police Commission the hiring & disciplinary authority in the first instance, as I understand Section 184 (b) through (d). How can this be consistent with the whole notion of collective bargaining & the current agreement? It seems to me that this changes the collective bargaining entity on behalf of the employer completely from the City (through the Chief) to the City (through the Chief & the Police Commission). Is the Police Commission going to have members present at bargaining now? And under Section 184(d), the Police Commission is now going to be the recipient & evaluator of all complaints about officers? How does this impact the confidentiality of these matters from an officer perspective? So they are creating another layer of hierarchy and this provision also does not indicate what happens if an officer disagrees, as opposed to the Chief of Police? These changes are doing away with the right of appeal of an officer completely, as far as I can tell. (This last one is not a question, but I think it is important to highlight as we want to make sure changes to the charter do not at all cause this to be the case. Joseph Corrow | Detective Burlington Police Department 1 North Ave Burlington, VT 05401 Page 8 of 26 To: Burlington City Council From: Councilor Ben Traverse, Chair of the Ordinance Committee Councilor Gene Bergman, Chair of the Charter Change Committee Date: December 7, 2023 Re: Joint Committee Proposal The joint committee on police oversight forwarded a proposed charter change for consideration by the full City Council. The question before the Council at its meeting on December 11 will be whether to warn this item for a public hearing to place this proposal on the Town Meeting Day ballot. The following is a summary of the proposal before the City Council:  Section 184 – o Size of Commission – The joint committee considered increasing the size of the Police Commission to nine members but ultimately settled on a proposal that keeps the existing seven-member Commission. This was supported by members of the Commission and the Mayor’s Office. o Diversity of Commission – The proposal adds language requiring that the Police Commission be representative of Burlington’s diverse communities, including those that have been historically marginalized.  Section 185 – o Subsection (a) – Information to City Council – the existing charter provides that the Chief of Police is only obligated to furnish the City Council with information regarding the “finances” of the Police Department. In practice, the Chief of Police regularly provides the Council with more expansive information and the joint committee has proposed language that aligns with this existing practice. The Chief of Police and the Burlington Police Officers Association (BPOA) expressed a desire that the proposed language include additional parameters for information that is legally protected from disclosure. As noted below, the joint committee has invited suggested edits. o Subsections (b) and (c) – Auditing and Monitoring, and Rulemaking – in practice, the Police Commission regularly exercises auditing and monitoring functions over the Police Department. Additionally, to make amendments to or promulgate new rules or regulations at the departmental or Commission level, existing practice requires that these directives be mutually approved by both bodies. The joint committee has proposed language that reflects this practice and reaffirms the City Council’s role in potentially resolving any disagreement over rulemaking. Page 9 of 26 o Subsection (d) – Complaint Review and Investigations  First, the proposed language of this subsection reflects an existing practice where the Chief of Police regularly provides the Police Commission with notice of and updates on their review of complaints of alleged misconduct by a member of the Police Department. For higher-level complaints, such as those involving alleged use of force, the proposed language affirms that the Chief of Police may not dispose of the complaint until they have notified the Police Commission of any recommended disposition.  Second, the proposed language provides that in the course of receiving notice and updates of complaints of misconduct, the Police Commission may provide feedback to the Chief of Police and request that the Chief furnish the Commission with any documents related to their review of a complaint.  Third, the joint committee has proposed language affirming that once the Chief of Police has disposed of a complaint, the Police Commission may make a recommendation on an alternative disposition.  Additionally, a majority of the joint committee supported language that would allow the Police Commission, by a two-thirds vote, to hire a third party approved by the City Attorney’s Office to conduct an independent review or investigation of a complaint. The joint committee discussed whether the charter should provide this third party subpoena authority and a majority of the committee declined to extend that authority. The City Council would be able to establish time limitations for any review or investigation, and at the conclusion of that process, the Police Commission may exercise its authority to make a recommendation on an alternative disposition of a complaint. Some members of the Police Commission provided public testimony indicating disagreement with their assuming an expanded investigatory role. Members of the joint committee asked that the Police Commission act as a body to please provide the City Council additional feedback on this issue. o Subsection (e) – Complaint Resolution – if a recommendation from the Police Commission differs from that of the Chief of Police, the Chief may either accept or reject the Commission’s recommendation. If the Chief rejects the Commission’s recommendation, the Police Commission may, by a two-thirds vote, elevate the dispute to an independent three-member panel for resolution. This panel will be appointed by the Mayor for the sole purpose of resolving the elevated dispute. A majority of the panel must consist of members with experience in law enforcement, human resources, labor and employment law, or other similar experience. Representatives from the BPOA expressed a desire for further clarification on these eligibility criteria. As noted below, the joint committee has invited the BPOA to provide suggested edits. Page 10 of 26   Section 185 o At the request of the Mayor’s Office, the joint committee has included language that the Chief’s direction and control of the Police Department be “subject to the authority of the mayor as chief executive officer and the ordinance and orders of the city council.” This language is the same as that which applies to the Mayor’s authority over other City department heads. The Chief of Police and BPOA provided public comment on this change and noted, among other concerns, that Section 191 of the charter expressly creates a disconnect between members of the Police Department and political activities. After receiving this testimony, members of the joint committee asked that the Mayor please confirm their position on the proposed language.  Section 190 o Subsection (a) – Appeal Process – the joint committee proposes the removal of language requiring that disciplinary appeals be presented to the Police Commission. This proposal is intended to remove any due process concerns related to the Commission exercising appellate authority over a matter it was previously involved in. By removing this language, the appellate process for unionized members of the Police Department will be the subject of collective bargaining and the process for non-unionized members will be controlled by the City’s ordinances and personnel policies. The Chief of Police and BPOA expressed that unionized members of the Police Department have been historically incentivized to advance into leadership ranks with the commitment that they will remain subject to the same appellate practices established by their collective bargaining agreement. Members of the joint committee verbally expressed support for this practice to continue. The following is a summary of the four areas where the joint committee has specifically asked for additional feedback: 1. For Section 184(a), members of the joint committee invited any suggested language that further defines parameters for information the Chief of Police must furnish to the City Council. 2. For Section 184(d), members of the joint committee requested formal feedback from the Police Commission on whether its current membership is supportive of the proposal that they be permitted to hire a third party to conduct an independent review or investigation of any complaint. 3. For Section 184(e), members of the joint committee invited any suggested language that further defines eligibility criteria for the members of the independent complaint resolution panel. 4. For Section 185, given additional feedback from the Chief of Police and BPOA on the proposed language, members of the joint committee asked that the Mayor’s Office confirm its position on this proposal. Page 11 of 26  Recommendations/Suggestions to the Charter Change Committee on Police Oversight by Burlington Police Commissioners Prepared and Collated by: Shakuntala Rao, Chair 1. Retaining Commission’s appellate authority Quoted from Commissioner Keefe: “Section 190 (a). Regarding the proposed deletion of the Commission’s appellate authority, it should be kept in mind that when Resolution 7.09 was approved, it was contemplated that the Commission might serve as the independent disciplinary body and its appellate functions would raise due process concerns. These concerns no longer appear relevant. It is now clear that the Commission will not function as the independent body as reflected in the proposed language contained in 185 (e). Notably, Det. Corrow confirmed that the BPOA explicitly negotiated to retain the Commission as the appeals body to hear officer’s grievances against discipline handed down by the Chief in the terms of the last contract it negotiated with the city. He explained that the BPOA believed the Commission’s hearing of grievances provided officers with an effective and efficient remedy. This was after the Commission began to review complaints of officer misconduct under the Complaint Policy the Commission approved in August 2020. Additionally, the Commission’s independent legal counsel also conducted analysis and identified precedent indicating that the Commission’s appellate function in hearing officers’ grievances does not compromise due process. It is also noted that Section 184 (d) provides that the Commission shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the Police Department. Officer’s grievances against discipline often arise from internal allegations of misconduct. Commission’s hearing of these grievances is an important review function that, like reviewing civilian complaints of police misconduct, strengthens the Commission’ monitoring role, helping to improve police performance and public safety. The adage “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” applies and it is recommended that amendments to the Charter do not eliminate the Commission’s duty to hear officer’s grievances.” Commissioner Rao, Cox and Garrison agree that the appellate authority of the Commission ought to be retained. 2. Use of a complaints monitor to help Commission with administrative work on all complaints (essentially the role of Commissioner Keefe); Commission retains the responsibilities of reviewing complaints. Quote from Commissioner Hanson: “The charter change proposes that the independent panel would have the power to conduct an independent investigation. This change was Page 12 of 26  made to reflect that the police commission does not want to have this power and I agree. The Commission is an all-volunteer board and does not have the resources and background to hire and supervise an independent investigator. This is just as likely to be true of the independent panel. In order to decide if another investigator is necessary, the charter change committee needs to first understand what currently exists to investigate wrongdoing and I do not think this has been thoroughly explored. There are two areas that need to be reviewed and understood: I would like to review the department’s internal affairs investigation policy and I am unable to find a directive about that on the BPD website of key directives. In order to develop transparency and trust, it is important for the public to understand how the department ensures how the investigation it undertakes is impartial and independent. It should explain when another agency will be asked to conduct an investigation and how the commission can request additional follow-up as needed.” Or 3. Quoted from Commissioner Keefe: “Section 184 (d) (ii). Regarding the Commission’s authority to conduct investigations, Councilor Bergman clarified the Commission is not required to conduct investigations, just that it is authorized to do so. Councilor Travers likened the authority to “break glass in case of emergency.” I believe providing the Commission with authority to respond to extraordinary events strengthens the Commission’s oversight functions and could be effectively exercised by the Commission with guidance from the City Attorney’s office and the Commission’s independent counsel. Additionally, Vermont state statute in Title 20: Internal Security and Public Safety Chapter 151: Vermont Criminal Justice Council § 2403. Law enforcement agencies; duty to report provides that: “(a)(1) The executive officer of a law enforcement agency or the chair of the agency’s civilian review board shall report to the Council within 10 business days if any of the following occur in regard to a law enforcement officer of the agency: … (B) Category B. (i) The agency receives a credible complaint against the officer that alleges that the officer committed Category B conduct.” This includes allegations of Category B misconduct alleged against the Chief. The duty to report misconduct to the Vermont Criminal Justice Council is mandated by statute and does not provide discretion to the Commission. As such, it is recommended that the amendments contain language to the effect that matters of alleged misconduct of the Chief be addressed in conformity with Section 190 (b) of this Charter and relevant Vermont state statutes.” General Questions/Suggestions for the Joint Committee City Council. Page 13 of 26 1. Commissioner Keefe: Section 184 (d). The purpose and effect of the provision that higher level complaints may not be disposed until the Commission is notified of the proposed disposition is not apparent. Does this mean that the Chief’s disposition is not final unless the Commission agrees? Or if it does not, final disposition of the complaint rests with the independent body? It appears the answers to these questions depend on clarifying the powers and duties of the independent panel in disciplining officers. 2. Commissioner Hanson: The charter change encourages appointing members of historically- marginalized communities to better reflect the diversity of our community which is a great and important step. The charter change should also speak to the need for the commission to be non-political. As I understand it the city council tries to have geographic diversity, should the charter change encourage this? Some cities have provisions that police commissioners should not hold any political position, have lived in the community for a certain number of years or be a certain age for example. 3. Commissioner Hanson: Having a timeline for when the process will be resolved is important because Detective Corrow expressed concern about the stress that this places on officers. He also expressed that the officers would like the independent panel, if this idea moves forward, to have more than 3 people. He suggested 5 and that they be required to have at least 10 years experience for the LE members and 5 years for the HR representative. He also commented that officers did not think it was appropriate for the mayor to play a role in discipline, that is the chief’s role, and could inject politics in the process. It is important that officers feel that any changes to the system provide fairness so that we do not adversely affect the department’s critical recruitment efforts. 4. Commissioner Cox: The review panel would be a professional panel consisting of 3 members. Two of the members would be current or former police officers with a minimum of ten years policing experience. The third member would be an individual with professional experience in diversity, equity, and inclusion work and/or mental health policy or direct services. This panel would be appointed by [whom? Mayor, City Council?] for fixed terms of ?? years and members could only be removed for cause, as determined by [mayor, city council?]. Panel members would be entitled to per diem compensation for all hours worked in investigating complaints and reviewing discipline. The Panel would have subpoena power and an ample budget to retain investigators. Panel members need not be Burlington residents. Appropriate experience and temperament are more important. Would the Police Commission would be responsible for working with the Department to make any changes to Department policy or procedure suggested [mandated?] by the Special Panel.” Response from Detective Corrow (as representing BPOA) at the Commission: Page 14 of 26 General agreement with the suggestions being made by various Commissioners. Added comments were: 1. The review panel is to consist of 5 members with at least one with experience in labor/management issues; and 2. To include a fixed and quick timeline for resolution/decision regarding any disciplinary matters. Page 15 of 26 Page 16 of 26 Page 17 of 26 Page 18 of 26 Page 19 of 26 Page 20 of 26 Page 21 of 26 Page 22 of 26 Page 23 of 26  Resolution Relating to RESOLUTION________ Sponsor(s): Charter Change Committee CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 Introduced: ____________________ REGARDING POLICE OVERSIGHT Referred to: ____________________ ______________________________ Action: ________________________ Date: __________________________ Signed by Mayor: ________________ CITY OF BURLINGTON In the year Two Thousand Twenty-Four..……………………………………………………………………… Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows: 1 That WHEREAS, 2 WHEREAS, 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 4 5 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT 6 183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms. 7 The Board of Police Commissioners shall consist of seven (7) legal voters and should represent the diverse nature of 8 said City’s constituents, including those from historically marginalized communities, to be appointed by the City 9 Council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. 10 184 Same-powers and duties. 11 (a) The City Council shall make rules and regulations for the government of the entire Police force Department and 12 shall fix the qualifications of applicants for positions and service on said force Department and, to the extent 13 permitted by applicable law, the Chief of Police shall furnish the city council with any information they may require 14 concerning the finances of the Police Department. The Chief of Police shall be responsible for all expenditures made 15 by the police department and no expenditures shall be made by the department except in conformity with the 16 standards promulgated by the City Council. 17 (b) The Board of Police Commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the management, 18 auditing, or monitoring of the Police Department, its services and facilities, as may be delegated from time to time by 19 resolution, ordinances, and orders of the City Council. Said board shall notify the mayor, chief administrative officer, 20 and City Council, in writing, of any and all changes, modifications or additions to the rules and regulations of the 21 department. 22 (c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the Board of Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police may propose 23 rules and regulations for the government of the entire Police Department in a manner not inconsistent with those 24 established by the City Council. Adoption of such proposed rules and regulations requires joint approval by the 25 Board of Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police. In the event joint approval is not provided by the Board of 26 Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police, either party may bring forward to the City Council the proposed rule 27 or regulation for the City Council’s consideration. 28 (d) The Board of Police Commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal 29 allegations of misconduct by members of the Police Department. The Mayor’s proposed budget and the City Council 30 shall annually appropriate an amount necessary for the adequate support and facilitation of such review. To the 31 greatest extent permitted by law, the Chief of Police shall provide the Board of Police Commissioners timely updates 32 of any review, investigation, or disposition of alleged misconduct., Tand the Board of Police Commissioners shall Page 24 of 26  Page 2 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING POLICE OVERSIGHT 33 have the ability to request additional information from the Chief of Police and access to all those documents or other 34 evidence relied upon by the Chief of Police in reviewing allegations of misconduct as the City Council shall designate 35 by ordinance. For complaints of alleged misconduct that constitute an offense subject to an investigation of the 36 Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A 2401 et seq. or for which the Chief of Police 37 intends to impose discipline constituting loss of pay, suspension, or termination, the complaint may not be disposed 38 until the Board of Police Commissioners is notified of the proposed disposition. 39 After receiving notice from the Chief of Police of the recommended or actual disposition relating to the review of 40 alleged misconduct, the Board of Police Commissioners shall have the authority to: 41 (i) recommend an alternative disposition to the Chief of Police within a time established by ordinance; or 42 (ii) independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the Police Department upon a 2/3 43 majority vote. Such investigation or review shall be conducted by an independent investigator hired by the 44 Board of Police Commissioners, and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, and completed within a time 45 established by ordinance. Upon the conclusion of such an investigation, the Board of Police Commissioners 46 may make a recommendation per subsection (i). The Board of Police Commissioners shall not have the 47 authority to investigate or impose discipline upon the Chief of Police. Matters regarding the alleged 48 misconduct of the Chief of Police shall be addressed in conformity with section 190(b) of this Charter and 49 other relevant Vermont statutes. 50 (e) Upon receiving a recommendation by the Board of Police Commissioners in subsection (d), the Chief of 51 Police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or 52 reject the recommendation. In the event the Chief of Police rejects the recommendation, the Chief of Police shall 53 immediately the notify Board of Police Commissioners. Upon receiving notice of the rejection, the Board of Police 54 Commissions may, upon a 2/3 majority vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter 55 within a time established by ordinance, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 56 190(a). The disposition of the independent panel shall be final, subject to any applicable right of appeal or grievance 57 process. 58 This independent panel shall consist of five (5) persons appointed on a case by case basis, per ordinance, as follows: 59 one (1) member to be appointed by the Burlington Police Officers’ AssociationCity Council; one (1) member to be 60 appointed by the Police Commission to be appointed by the Chair; and, three (3) members to be appointed by the 61 Mayor as follows: one (1) member with at least five (5) years of work experience in human resources, or the labor 62 and employment sector; (one) (1) member with at least x (x) years of work experience in law enforcement; and, one 63 (1) member from the general public. No panel member appointed shall be a current member or employee of the 64 appointing party. 65 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN 66 185 Officers of Police force Department designated. 67 (a) The direction and control of the entire Police force Department, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be 68 vested in a police officer who shall be called the Chief of Police and such other ranking police officers as the City 69 Council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as chief executive officer pursuant to §116 and the 70 ordinances, resolutions, and orders of the City Council. The order of rank and succession within the police 71 department shall be as designated by the City Council by regulation. 72 (b) Except as herein otherwise provided, such officers shall have the powers and duties granted to police officers by 73 Vermont law and assigned to them by regulations adopted under section 184 of this Charter. Page 25 of 26  Page 3 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING POLICE OVERSIGHT 74 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION 75 190 Chief of Police may remove member for cause; hearing. 76 (a) Whenever it shall appear to the Chief of Police that any member of said force Police Department has become 77 incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, 78 or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or 79 charges to such effect are made in writing to the Chief of Police by a responsible person against such member, the 80 Chief of Police may investigate and, after appropriate notice and hearing, dismiss such member from the force Police 81 Department, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14 82 days. In connection with any possible dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the Chief of Police’s 83 notice to the member shall be given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the 84 charges being considered. In connection therewith, the Chief of Police shall have the power to subpoena documents 85 and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to enforcement or 86 modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and 809b. The board of police 87 commissioners, or in the case it has already offered an opinion on discipline pursuant to §184(d)(i), or in the case that 88 the voting number of commissioners falls below four (4) due to declared actual or apparent conflicts of interest, an 89 independent panel comprised as in §184(e) shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions 90 of the police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such 91 board of regulation. Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the 92 decision made by the police chief. 93 (b) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or incapable from any 94 cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private 95 or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor 96 by a responsible person, the Mayor may suspend the Chief of Police from duty pending a hearing thereon by the City 97 Council. The City Council shall forthwith notify the Chief of Police of the charges preferred by them, or of the 98 complaints or charges presented by such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and 99 investigate the same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made, shall 100 give the Chief of Police reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the City Council shall have the 101 power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be 102 subject to enforcement or modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and 809b. 103 (c) If, upon hearing, the City Council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it may dismiss the 104 Chief of Police from the force Police Department, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her without pay for a 105 period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control in the event of any conflict with 106 section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the Chief of Police. 107 (d) The Chief of Police may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the 108 rules and regulations of the Police Department that may seem to the Chief of Police sufficient, suspend from duty 109 without pay any member of the Police force Department for a period not to exceed 14 days. 110 111 112 *Materials in red & highlighted are changes since 6/25 mtg. draft 113 114 115 HM/JD/Resolutions 2024/ NAME 116 DATE Page 26 of 26