Joint Committee on Police Oversight

Regular Meeting

Burlington, VT · October 18, 2023

Minutes

ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 18, 2023 Remote via Zoom DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Gene Bergman (Charter Change Committee Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Hightower, Councilor Doherty, Councilor Shannon Staff Present: Joseph Dempsey (City Attorney’s Office Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel) Others in Attendance: Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff), Sharon Bushor, Melo Grant Meeting called to order at 7:03 PM. 1.0 Agenda Motion to adopt/amend agenda Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda. Motion by Councilor Hightower, Seconded by Councilor Doherty Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from October 3 Motion to Adopt Minutes as is. Motion by Councilor Traverse, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 3.0 Public Forum No verbal public comments for this item. 4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Meeting discussion began with section 2b of Attorney Diamond’s matrix (available on CivicClerk). Councilor Carpenter corrected the matrix that the referral to the CJC will not come before the investigation, but that the referral to the CJC is a parallel activity depending on the context of the complaint. Councilor Traverse laid out his proposal for a basic charter change. The Commission would be immediately notified about complaints and UOF incidents. The Chief would decide on whether to investigate and the Commission would receive updates and could provide feedback. The Chief would notify the Commission of the final decision and the Commission would receive that and can request more information. Then, by a super majority vote, the Commission could open an investigation using an outside investigator. Then the Commission would offer their recommendation. How to rectify any discrepancies is still yet undecided. Page 1 of 3 Counselor Shannon added on to Councilor Traverse’s proposal that she thinks there should be a timing window where the Commission can choose to investigate. Councilor Carpenter proposed a parallel investigation track. The Commission should be able to investigate a complaint or incident regardless of if BPD wants to do so. Councilor Hightower added that every high-level incident should be investigated. Hightower also added that there should be some systemic analysis incorporated into the charter change. Councilor Carpenter concurred that there should be authority vested in the Commission to address or cure systemic issues. Melo Grant: I do not think time limits on complaints are appropriate. There are already many directives for most complaints and the CNA report offered a lot of solutions. Jordan Redell: The complaint system established the low, medium, and high categories in the complaint policy of 2020. The categories correlate with the negotiated discipline section of the BPOA union agreement. Councilor Hightower proposed having an initial level determination and then doing the investigation and potentially reassessing the level. She also added that the Commission should be reviewing data annually. Councilor Bergman confirmed there is consensus on the Commission’s access to evidence, authority to investigate, and would review complaints and make recommendations. Jordan Redell and the Mayor’s Office support having the Commission having the power to investigate, but it should be started by a super majority rather than a simple majority. The Administration is not sure about having anonymized complaint reports be published be part of a charter change. Sharon Bushor: It should be written somewhere that we want the initial categorization of incidents to be able to be changed after the investigation. I also believe some entity needs to review the totality of the complaints. Councilor Hightower disagreed with the Administration’s position. She offered a compromise that the Chief could initiate an investigation on an incident and if they don’t then the Commission, by simple majority, could conduct their own investigation. Parallel investigations seem unnecessary. At a minimum the Commission should be able to review the Chief’s designation of incident level and their decision to investigate. Melo Grant: I am against the super majority requirement. The Commission is a diverse group with different life experiences. I asked for data broken down by officer several times and it did not go anywhere. Councilor Traverse offered that the Commission should be able to investigate an incident or complaint after the Chief has concluded their investigation if they want more information or disagree. There would be a difference between requesting additional information from BPD’s investigation and actually conducting their own investigation. He does not think a super majority is necessary to request more information, but perhaps for an outside investigation. There should be some time limit where the Commission has to decide to conduct its own investigation. The Chief would then offer their decision and the Commission could agree or disagree. Page 2 of 3 Jordan Redell is unsure if the Administration could support having by-officer data breakdowns written into the charter. Josh Diamond offered that subpoena authority and investigative powers should be written into charter. The other unresolved issue is the outcome if there is an impasse between the Commission and the Chief. Councilor Hightower offered that situations that go to an impasse should go to the HR Director. There is consensus that the threshold for the vote to begin an investigation should be in ordinance. The Administration disagrees with having this in ordinance and believes the threshold should be in the charter along with the authority. Councilor Shannon subsequently agreed with the Administration’s view. Councilor Carpenter proposed that if there is an impasse between the Chief and Commission then the HR Director could hear the complaint and then to the HR Committee if still unresolved. Councilor Traverse suggested that officers should be treated no differently from other City employees. This would mean the final person would be the Mayor. He suggested removing from charter that the Chief has sole authority. If the Chief rejects the Commission’s differing opinion then it would require the consent of the Mayor. The Administration agrees with this model. The Administration added that the HR Director is the peer of the Chief and the HR Director has no current authority over discipline for other departments. Vesting the HR Director with this power also makes the Director a political person and would sour the confidentiality that the Director has. Melo Grant: An important aspect of discipline is that the majority of issues are solved by additional trainings or changes to directives. Councilor Shannon is uncomfortable with having political oversight of a profession such as the police. There is a State body that is not currently very functional. Professional officers deserve professional oversight. Councilor Traverse brought up that professionals do have bodies in State government, but the officers are still employees of the City and we can discipline them if necessary; similarly to how lawyers or doctors can be disciplined by their employers without losing their license. Councilor Bergman agreed, if there is no outside new oversight body, that the Mayor is the top official for the City and is responsible for the police department. Councilor Traverse said he was not against having a second oversight body, but it would have to be different from current appointments. 5.0 Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Shannon, seconded by Councilor Traverse. Yes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. Page 3 of 3

Agenda

Packet

Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM When: Oct 18, 2023 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93818312659 Or One tap mobile : +19292056099,,93818312659# US (New York) +13017158592,,93818312659# US (Washington DC) Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +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) +1 646 931 3860 US +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: 938 1831 2659 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abVxRlh4Rr 1. Agenda Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda Meeting October 18, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 1. Agenda Department Type Recommended Action Page 1 of 17 2. Adopt Draft Minutes Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes Meeting October 18, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 3. Public Forum Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments Meeting October 18, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 3. Public Forum Department Council and Board Type 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Meeting October 18, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 5. Adjournment Subject 5.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting October 18, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM, REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 5. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action Page 2 of 17 ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Remote via Zoom DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Gene Bergman (Charter Change Committee Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Hightower, Councilor Shannon, Councilor Doherty Staff Present: Joseph Dempsey (City Attorney’s Office Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel), Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) Others in Attendance: Melo Grant (City Councilor), Shakuntala Rao (Police Commission), Mary Cox (Police Commission), Jake Schumann, Amy Malinowski, Sharon Bushor, Jaco Schiller Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM. 1.0 Agenda Motion to adopt/amend agenda Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda. Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Traverse Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from September 25 Motion to Adopt Minutes with an amendment to indicate Councilor Bergman supports having high-level infractions be investigated by a part of the Police Commission. Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Traverse Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 3.0 Public Forum Amy Malinowski: I want to make sure there is a lot of input from others affected by policing. Maybe there could be an NPA tour by councilors or something similar. Sharon Bushor: I want to speak in support of the proposals from councilors Carpenter and Hightower. Having appeals go to the HR Committee makes a lot of sense to me. I feel that if there is a conflict around discipline between the Chief and the Commission then having the HR Committee be the mediator would be appropriate. Having a few members with HR expertise would be helpful for the whole Commission. Jake Schumann: I sent some comments to the Committee via email. Our feedback mechanisms should be accessible to everyone. Officers should have paper forms that they can give to people to help make a complaint/offer feedback. A big question is how to hold appointed officials responsible if they don’t follow all of the policies set in place. Page 1 of 3 Page 3 of 17 Melo Grant: We are spending too much time on discussing the appeals process as it is very rare. We had one appeal and everyone thought it went well. We should spend more time on oversight and accountability. Shakuntala Rao (Police Commission): Commissioners do have an interest in remaining the disciplinary appeals body. Commissioners generally wanted more concrete, developed proposals before they offer opinions on each. Mary Cox (Police Commission): One of the issues that remains is that the current mediator between the Commission and the Chief if there is a disciplinary disagreement is the Mayor. This has not worked well. Given the rarity of deaths or grievous injury, I think it would be helpful to have an ad-hoc committee with professionals from the Howard Center or other outside organizations weigh in. The composition of this hypothetical committee could adjust based on the circumstances of the incident. 4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Councilor Carpenter asked the Police Commissioners present what they think about having the Commission have the power and budgeting to investigate incidents on their own. Commissioner Rao said that the Commission wants a monitor to help with oversight, but would need more support to have any investigatory capacity. Commissioner Cox said after the Grenon incident there was an investigation and hearings. She also said that the BPD does a good job with its investigations and that, in her opinion, there is no reason for a separate investigation. Councilor Bergman moved to discuss the matrix of proposals that was put together by Josh Diamond. Josh Diamond went through the sections of the matrix. This matrix to available on the CivicClerk agenda overview or packet. The rest of this meeting revolves around discussing this matrix and the individual councilors’ proposals. Councilor Traverse added that he thinks there should be a charter change to clarify a complaint/feedback process that goes to both the Commission and the Police Department. The Department would conduct the investigation as they have the resources and professional staff to do so. Councilor Hightower added that the charter change should include that the oversight body (the Commission or otherwise) should also review the complaints/feedback in parallel with the BPD. Councilor Shannon said that BPD should put together the facts and that the Commission can review the facts and don’t have to investigate in parallel. Councilor Bergman thinks the designation/categorization of complaints should rest with the Commission. He thinks that the charter change should include that categorization power should rest with the Commission. Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said that the Mayor supports having BPD leadership make the initial determination and then have the Commission review their decision as BPD has the staff and expertise to do so. Councilor Traverse added that under his proposal the Commission could investigate or review the BPD’s initial designation of a complaint category. He also wanted more clarity from a legal perspective about how a charter change could work with regards to incident categories since the Council just approved the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the police union that includes language on this topic. Page 2 of 3 Page 4 of 17 Councilor Bergman asked if there is consensus on whether the Police Commission should have the ability to independently determine the level of seriousness of complaints. Only Councilor Bergman supported the idea as proposed. Councilor Hightower agreed with the idea, but with BPD also making a determination. Councilor Shannon asked if the commissioners present had any thoughts on expanding their role. Shakuntala Rao was apprehensive about the amount of work that would require on top of current work. The more pressing question for the Commission is what the process will be if there is a disagreement between the Commission and Chief on the determination. Bergman asked if there is consensus about having the Commission and BPD make parallel determinations (the Carpenter/Hightower proposal). Only councilors Hightower and Carpenter supported this proposal. The unanimous consensus on this issue is that the Commission has a role to play in the complaint process, but there is not consensus on whether that role is determinative, parallel to the BPD’s process, or final. The Committee will come back to this issue. Councilor Traverse proposed a charter change to have a Community Complaint/Feedback form that would allow the public to submit feedback on officer conduct, directives, or anything else. This feedback/complaint would go to both the Commission and BPD. Councilor Traverse clarified that this system would be both for external (from the public) and internal (from other officers, etc.). This would be a codification in charter of an August 2020 policy. There is unanimous consent on this proposal. Councilor Traverse clarified that his proposal sections on investigations mostly mirror the August 2020 complaint policy and that most of the content should be in ordinance rather than just a policy. The difference in this proposal is that setting a firm timeline from when the BPD must notify the Commission of a high-level complaint or use of force incident and codifying rather than relying on policy. Councilor Hightower proposed for charter change that the Commission has the right to investigate mid and high level incidents and that discipline will not happen before the Commission has a chance to review. The investigation will be done in a reasonable amount of time. Councilors Hightower, Bergman, Carpenter, and Traverse voted yes. Councilor Doherty voted no/abstained, Councilor Shannon abstained. All are in agreement that Attorney Diamond should wordsmith the themes into proper language. 5.0 Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection. Yes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 PM. Page 3 of 3 Page 5 of 17 A. Investigative/Review Function 1. DD40, Section 1, Subsections B, C, D, F, and G describes the process by how allegations of violations of Department Rules or Regulations are initiated from within or outside of the Department. Does the Committee wish to make any changes to how internal or community complaints are initiated? 2. DD40, Section 1, Subsections A and E vests the authority to investigate all internal and community complaints regarding Department personnel with the Chief who determines whether an investigation is necessary or not. The 2021 Mayoral Executive Directive, requires that all use of force incidents that result in injury be reported to the Police Commission after investigation, but only after the Chief confers with the Mayor and receives the Mayor’s approval with any recommendation from the Chief. The overarching question is: Does the Committee wish to make any changes to this authority and process? The following specific questions are raised by this broader question: Should internal complaints be treated differently than community complaints? Should conduct other than just use of force incidents that result in injury be reported to an oversight body (e.g., dishonesty, discrimination, harassment, criminal conduct, or other serious misconduct)? Should reports to an oversight body only be reported after the Mayor has reviewed the Chief’s recommendation? Should an oversight body have a role in deciding who investigates internal or community complaints? Are there distinctions based on the severity of the allegation (“categorization”) that would change who is the investigator and decisionmaker on the disposition of the complaint? Article XV of the BPOA collective bargaining agreement defines the continuum of lower-, mid-, and higher-level infractions. Should there be a modified process for categorizing complaints (e.g., should the process be authorized by charter?, etc.) and, if so, how does that intersect with collective bargaining rights? Who decides on the categorization of the allegation? Is the categorization reviewable? 3. If the Committee believes an oversight body should have a role in deciding who investigates internal or community complaints, who other than the Chief and their designee should conduct the investigation? 1 Page 6 of 17 The following options are raised by this question: the oversight body itself, an independent investigator selected by the oversight body for a particular investigation, an independent monitor selected by the oversight body to conduct all investigations, etc.. 4. For an explanation of the current investigatory framework, see DD40, Section 3. The broader question is: Should the current investigatory framework be changed? More specific questions are: Should this framework apply equally to all complaints? What authority should an oversight body other than the Department have in the course of their investigation (e.g., right to review documents, subpoena testimony, review any Department investigation, make recommendations, etc.)? 5. If the Committee believes the Chief should retain some or all authority to investigate internal or community complaints, what role should the oversight body have during that investigation process? More specific questions that arise from this broader question are: Must the Department inform an oversight body upon the filing of a complaint and, if so, when must this notification take place? Is the Department required to provide regular updates during the investigation? Must the Department report back to an oversight body at the conclusion of all investigations? Must the Chief’s recommendation be approved by anyone—the Mayor, the Commission, an oversight body—prior to the decision being finalized? 6. DD40, Section 2, outlines rights and obligations of employees during an investigation process, cross-referencing due process considerations in the BPOA collective bargaining agreement. Does the Committee wish to explore any changes to these due process considerations and, if the Committee supports different processes to investigate complaints, should the same due process considerations apply to each process? 7. If the Chief retains some or all authority (and responsibility) to investigate internal or community complaints, what occurs after the Chief issues their conclusions on how a complaint should be disposed? Does an oversight body have any role if the Chief retains the authority and responsibility to conduct the investigation and make recommendations on the disposition of the complaint (e.g., review the investigation and make recommendations, etc.)? If an oversight body makes recommendations on the disposition of the complaint and the recommendation is not followed, does the decider have to explain why the recommendation was not followed? 2 Page 7 of 17 8. If an oversight body obtains authority to investigate internal or community complaints, what is the process going forward after it reaches its conclusions on how the complaint should be disposed (e.g., what rights do parties (accused, complainant, Department have upon receipt of the conclusions of the investigation)? Should the complainant have any rights to appeal if they disagree with the final disposition? What due process protections should be incorporated? Should there be any changes to the requirements of the BPOA collective bargaining agreement? Should anybody else (e.g., other community members) who is aggrieved by a decision have the right to appeal or to raise objections? 9. If an oversight body has authority to review an investigation of an internal or community complaint and a recommendation is made, what is the process going forward? Should the complainant have any rights to appeal if they disagree with the recommendation? What due process protections should be incorporated? Should there be any changes to the requirements of the BPOA collective bargaining agreement? Should anybody else (e.g., other community members) who is aggrieved by a decision have the right to appeal or to raise objections? 10. Should there be a process by which disagreements over the recommended action are resolved and by what authority is the process codified (e.g., charter change by which entity other than the Chief is resolving disputes)? What changes if a complaint is about the Chief? B. Auditing. 1. What role, if any, should the oversight body have as an auditor. Sub-issues to consider: What is the scope of matters subject to auditing (public safety trends, reviewing and creating new policies, adherence to policies and procedures, internal investigatory processes, analysis of aggregate data on discipline and other police practices). What events should trigger an audit, e.g., periodic reviews or other events. 3 Page 8 of 17 What is the scope of investigative authority as auditor, access to data, analytics, policies, procedures, and reports. What degree of community involvement should an audit involve, including recommendations and feedback? 2. Deconflicting procedures regarding auditing/monitoring function: What procedures should be in place to make sure oversight body’s operations work harmoniously with ongoing internal affairs investigations, criminal investigations, prosecutions, etc. 3. Transparency for public accountability and need for confidentiality in certain circumstances. When should data or other information be kept confidential, for how long, and under what circumstances. C. Composition, selection, and resources. What should be the oversight body’s composition, selection and resources (e.g., staffing). 4 Page 9 of 17 Traverse Hightower/Carpenter Bergman I. Complaints I. Complaints I. Complaints Intake via Community Complaint form. Deputy Chief of Adm. tracks Oversight body receives all All complaints should be reported to complaints and record keeping of complaints a week before regularly the oversight body. essential information. This includes scheduled meeting. identification of witnesses, Oversight body shall have ability to documents, evidence, and other Oversight body shall categorize independently designate level of information obtained or consulted complaints by severity (low, seriousness of complaint. with during an investigation of use medium, high per CBA), UoF, of force incident (UoF) and any discrimination. response taken. BPD shall annually report Complaints categorized by BPD as individual-staff level outcomes, data lower, mid, and higher level to be disaggregated by race and consistent with CBA. disability. II. Investigations. II. Investigations II. Investigations A. BPD. A BPD. A. BPD. Lower level and some mid level Chief will provide updates on each Lower level and some mid level complaints resolved quickly with milestone in the investigative complaints resolved quickly with first level of supervision. process to the oversight committee. first level of supervision. 1 Page 10 of 17 Mid level, high level, and use of Mid level, high level, and use of force escalated for Administrative Chief will have the authority to refer force escalated for Administrative Review (AR). AR determines resolution matter to restorative Review (AR). AR determines if IA whether IA investigation occurs. justice program, such as CJC. investigation occurs. Referrals to Referrals to SA or VCJC as needed. SA or VCJC as needed. Chief will have authority to launch Reports of all complaints against investigations after decision to refer Reports of all complaints against members of the department sent to matter to CJC has been made. members of the BPD sent to Police Commission (PC). oversight body. Lower and mid level matters will be Lower and mid level matters will be reported to PC via oral or written reported to oversight entity via oral summary, status, and disposition. or written summary, status, and Recommendations of dispositions disposition. Recommendations of involving more than a written dispositions involving more than a reprimand will be shared with the written reprimand will be shared PC in advance of issuance. with the PC in advance of issuance. Regular updates provided on status Regular updates provided on status of investigations involving high level of investigations involving high level matters, UoF, or unlawful matters, UoF, or unlawful discrimination. This includes key discrimination. This includes key demographic information about the demographic information about the officers and subjects involved, officers and subjects involved, reports, and video evidence. reports, and video evidence. Recommendations for dispositions of Recommendations for dispositions of such matters will be shared with PC such matters will be shared with before they are issued. oversight entity before they are Commented [JD1]: Is there an obligation to issued. maintain confidentiality during executive session. 2 Page 11 of 17 B. Oversight Entity. B. Oversight Entity. B. Oversight Entity. Shall have access to all evidence Shall have access to all evidence obtained from the investigation of a related to an investigation of a UoF incidents and their underlying Shall have the authority to refer complaint. complaints. matters for resolution through Commented [JD2]: This may require review of restorative justice program, e.g., Shall have authority to conduct an possible issues involving CBA and Public Records Act. In addition, access to evidence may be limited By majority vote, after receiving CJC. independent investigation. if referral is made to State's Attorney for criminal Chief recommendation, may initiate charges and public disclosure would adversely independent investigation upon any Shall have the authority to launch a Shall have the authority to hire its impact successful prosecution and/or access to a fair trial. complaint involving UoF, unlawful parallel, independent investigation own investigator. discrimination, or high level offense. based upon majority vote. Shall have the authority to publish Investigation to be performed by anonymized complaint reports. independent monitor or counsel. Commented [JD3]: JRD Question: Should format be Authority includes ability to Subcommittee of oversight entity similar to OPR, where there is a panel with a professional investigator, PC member, and counsel? interview witnesses, obtain would review complaints, oversee documents, and other evidence. investigations, and make Commented [JD4]: JRD Question: subpoena recommendations. authority? III. Disposition/Discipline. III. Disposition/Discipline. III. Disposition/Discipline. Within 14 days of Chief’s Chief will make a recommendation After Chief’s recommendation, recommendation, PC shall accept to oversight body for all high level, oversight entity shall accept recommendation, request UoF involving injury, and matters recommendation, request reconsideration, seek an involving bias. reconsideration, or make an independent investigation by alternative recommendation for majority vote, or make an Oversight body may make a disposition. alternative recommendation for recommendation for all high level, disposition. 3 Page 12 of 17 If no action is taken by the PC UoF involving injury, and matters within 14 days after receiving the involving bias. If the Chief does not follow BPD’s recommendation, the Chief’s recommendation for alternative recommendation shall be considered disposition, they shall publish their final. objections and reasons. A. Conflict with A. Conflict with A. Conflict with Recommendations. Recommendations. Recommendations. Chief may accept or reject PC If a conflict arises between the Oversight body shall have the recommendation. If Chief rejects, recommendations of the oversight authority, in cases involving higher written explanation provided for body and Chief, HR Director shall level infractions or police abuse, to rejection. If majority of PC reconcile. impose discipline in conflict with the disagrees after explanation, PC shall Chief. report disagreement to Mayor. Commented [JD5]: JRD Question, who is the final arbiter of the disagreement? B. Communication with B. Communication with B. Communication with Complainant. Complainant. Complainant. Communications with complainant Communication with complainant Oversight body shall have authority informing them of the disposition or informing them of the disposition or to publish findings, other status. other status. recommendations, and dispositions. Commented [JD6]: Issues of investigative confidentiality should be addressed. 4 Page 13 of 17 Opportunity for complainant to appeal disposition. C. Appeal, Step 2 C. Appeal, Step 2 Grievance. C. Appeal, Step 2 Grievance. Grievance. Appeals to be heard by City Council. Appeals go to HR committee, like Appeals are heard by oversight rest of City staff. BFD process to be body. followed. IV. Auditing IV. Auditing. IV. Auditing. Changes, modifications and Oversite body shall release annual Right to audit and monitor the additions to rules and regulations of report with high level data that BPD, both sworn and non sworn the department must be adopted by categorizes complaints by type and staff. the PC. severity, and it will identify how often recommendations between Oversight body shall have broad PC may initiate their own body and chief deviated. access to data, evidence recommendations for modifications investigation materials and or additions to rules and analysis to carry out monitoring regulations. and auditing functions. If BPD objects to proposal or refuses Oversight body shall have authority to adopt, matter is referred to the to adopt directives, policies, and City Council. make recommendations on practices. 5 Page 14 of 17 PC may report performance Oversight body shall have ability to concerns regarding the Chief to the review BPD training. Mayor. Oversight body shall report Annual report to City Council auditing and monitoring activities regarding summary of the number, to the public. This includes ability type, and disposition of complaints, to publish anonymized complaints. UoF incidents reported to the commission. REIB shall also have access to oversight body’s data and analysis to report on UoF and other interactiosn that implicate equity issues. V. Civilian Oversight V. Civilian Oversight V. Civilian Oversight Entity. Entity. Entity Entity shall have professional staff One body, up to 9 members, Independent body from PC to including an oversight monitor. including one or two per district. investigate and decide discipline. Subcommittees including directives, Membership appointed by the City discipline, and _______________. Council after soliciting input from a range of community organizations. Professional staff, at least .5 FTE, The body should represent the should be housed within City diverse nature of the City’s Attorneys Office, HR, but not BPD. constituents including those from historically marginalized communities. Professonal staff including a monitor to assist with auditing functions, independent counsel. 6 Page 15 of 17 Budget appropriations commensurate with responsibilities, staff, and other community commissions and boards. 7 Page 16 of 17 8 Page 17 of 17