Joint Committee on Police Oversight

Regular Meeting

Burlington, VT · November 27, 2023

Minutes

ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE Monday, November 27, 2023 Bushor Conference Room, 1st Floor City Hall or Remote via Zoom DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Councilor Bergman (Charter Change Committee Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty, Councilor Shannon, Councilor Hightower Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel) Others in Attendance: Romeo Von Hermann, Melo Grant, Sharon Bushor, Dave Maher, Sital Dulal, Whitney Hodges, Daniel Pecor, Jane Knodell, Ted Wimpey Meeting called to order at 5:38 PM. 1.0 Agenda Motion to adopt/amend agenda Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from November 13 Motion to Adopt Minutes as is. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon Abstain: Councilors Bergman and Hightower 3.0 Public Forum Sharon Bushor: I sent a question to Councilor Bergman late. Has the Police Commission had a chance to see the proposed draft language? I remember that they felt, as volunteers, taking on additional work would be taxing. I think that having the sitting body give some feedback would be important. I was hoping the charter language would suggest expertise for the HR panel that would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Melo Grant: The issue of redacted documents came up last meeting. There was a comment that it could have been a redaction for juvenile’s name. That was not the case in the documents I was referencing. It was so heavily redacted that the documents were useless and gave me grave concern that there was something that was trying to be covered up. Romeo Von Hermann: I want to echo Sharon Bushor’s concerns. I also want to emphasize having the Police Commission continue their work and not relying heavily on the HR Committee. Page 1 of 5 4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Change Language Attorney Sturtevant shared the working document from November 13. This document is available in the CivicClerk agenda packet. Attorney Diamond brought up a potential issue of timing with regards to disposition and potential Loudermill hearings. It would be awkward to have two separate dispositions between the Chief and the Commission and two potential Loudermill hearings. Councilor Carpenter responded that the Commission should be informed of those issues before the Chief comes to a disposition. Councilor Bergman suggested adding a notice period between when the Chief has come to a decision and when the Commission has to decide on their course of action. Councilor Shannon asked about outreach to both the Police Commission and the police union (BPOA). Councilor Shannon said that she spoke with Police Commissioners and they were not aware of the current direction of the draft charter change language. Councilor Shannon added that, in speaking with current commissioners, that the Commission wants additional help in reviewing materials received from the BPD rather than conducting their own investigations. Commissioners have said they do not feel qualified to do so. Councilor Hightower disagreed and said one of the primary focuses of these charter changes is to establish independent investigatory authority. She continued that the staffing issue will be resolved in ordinance so that the Commission has sufficient support. She was also concerned with having professional requirements for the three individuals on the new panel. Instead of establishing a separate body, the Police Commission should have the ability to overrule the Chief with a super majority. Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said that the Mayor envisions that this new body would be on standby and would only meet when there is an impasse between the Chief and Commission. Professional expertise would be necessary since they would not be interacting regularly with BPD given they would not meet very often. Councilor Hightower reiterated her disagreement with having a new panel as currently described. Jordan Redell said that the Mayor believes expertise is necessary when the decision could override the Chief of Police. The Mayor wants it to be a high bar to override the Chief’s decision. The rationale being that the Chief is the primary person in charge of discipline for Burlington’s officers. Jordan Redell shared the Mayor’s thoughts on the current iteration of the draft charter language. First, the Mayor is opposed to increasing the Commission size from seven to nine. Larger boards are less cohesive and require more administrative support. Second, the Mayor would like complaints about the Chief themselves to be referred to the Mayor and have it be clear that the Commission would not have authority to discipline the Chief. Third, there should be guardrails on the timeframe for how long the Commission has to render a disciplinary recommendation or investigate misconduct. Fourth, the Mayor thinks any independent investigation by the Commission should be done by a qualified investigator that is approved by the City Attorney. Fifth, the Mayor believes there should be a clear timeline that states that the Commission will give their recommendation to the Chief and the Chief will be the one to finalize the disposition after a potential recommendation from the Commission. A written memo from the Mayor’s Office stating as much is forthcoming. Page 2 of 5 Councilor Hightower said that the vote to initiate an independent investigation in Section 184(d) should be a simple majority. Councilor Carpenter said that the Chief would have already presented evidence to the Commission and it seems like having a higher threshold of two-thirds is appropriate. Councilor Doherty agreed with Councilor Carpenter on having a two-third majority given the expense and impact of having a second investigation for something the Chief has already had investigated. Councilor Traverse also believes two-thirds is an appropriate threshold to balance civilian oversight and the rights of officers. Councilor Shannon favored a two-thirds majority as well. Councilor Bergman favored a simple majority as with a seven person Commission it would have to be a 5-2 majority for two-thirds versus a 4-3 simple majority. Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) to require a two-thirds majority of the Commission to initiate an investigation. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Traverse, Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) to require a simple majority of the Commission to initiate an investigation. Final Resolution: Motion Fails Yes: Councilors Bergman and Hightower No: Councilors Traverse, Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon Councilor Shannon questioned the validity of allowing an investigation after the Chief has concluded their investigation and included Commission input. Councilor Shannon was also concerned about giving subpoena authority to a commission without standards for service, particularly because the Commission could subpoena victims. Councilor Doherty said that the subpoena power of the legislature has limitations in statute. Many would presumably plead the fifth. Attorney Diamond said there are statutes around civil investigative demands for the AG’s office. We could add more language here or not. Councilor Traverse said that he always assumed investigations would be performed by an outside professional rather than the commissioners themselves. The investigator would be the one using the subpoena power to that goal. Councilor Bergman said there should be some additional language around subpoena power to make the process clear for everyone involved. Councilor Shannon was uncomfortable with the subpoena authority given that many people cannot afford an attorney and not understand the process. She reiterated that giving the Commission authority to compel testimony after the police department has already finished its investigation is not appropriate. If this included then there should be guardrails so as to not victimize members of the public. Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) paragraph 2 to include the language “In connection therewith, the board of police commissioners shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to administer the oath to such witnesses.” Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Bergman, Traverse, Carpenter, and Hightower No: Councilors Doherty and Shannon Page 3 of 5 Councilor Doherty would like to revisit this language in the future and is uncomfortable with the current language around subpoena power as currently drafted. He believes there should be more detail on the process. Councilor Bergman asked that Attorney Diamond draft some language around this subpoena power issue. Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to require a two-thirds majority (as opposed to a simple majority) of the Commission to request that an independent panel resolve an impasse between the Chief and the Police Commission. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, Doherty, and Shannon No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower Councilor Hightower suggested leaving the question of expertise on this new independent panel alone for the time being and simply saying an apolitical panel will be appointed to deal with an impasse. Councilor Carpenter was concerned about the timing of having this panel get together to decide on a pending personnel issue. Attorney Diamond raised the issue that an independent panel, as the last step in a process, would have to have the ability to craft a novel decision after having a Loudermill hearing for the employee. Attorney Diamond continued that a Loudermill hearing provides an opportunity for an accused employee to influence the decision about their employment. The employee would get to submit testimony or evidence themselves. The awkward part is that a Loudermill would probably take place before this new panel meets. Councilor Shannon believes there should be professional expertise on the panel, but there is room for what expertise that would be. Her concern is that professional discipline requires professional decision makers. Councilor Traverse offered having a list of criteria that could be met for appointment to the new panel, such as HR, union, management, or law enforcement expertise. Jordan Redell reiterated that the Mayor feels strongly about maintaining the expertise requirements for the new panel and pointed to the success of the Church Street Marketplace Commission that has similar relevant requirements. The Mayor would also likely have a hard time supporting having these requirements in ordinance rather than charter. Councilor Traverse offered that, given the many levels of appeals that this process can go through, it might be easier to leave the appeal decision to the Mayor rather than create a new three person panel. Councilor Bergman said, as a point of information, that the Church Street Marketplace Commission requires two members to be owners or managers of businesses on the marketplace and another to reside in the downtown improve district. He also said that there are professional requirements for some members of other boards. Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to read that the Mayor shall appoint the members of the new panel. Page 4 of 5 Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, Doherty, and Shannon No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to reflect that “At least two of the members of the new panel shall have experience in law enforcement, human resources, labor and employment law, or similar experience, and one member from the general public.” Final Resolution: Motion Passes Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection. Motion to strike in its entirety the draft charter language of Section 190(b) pending follow up from the Mayor’s Office and the Chief of Police and further discussion at a subsequent Joint Committee meeting. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection. The next Joint Committee meeting will be held at on 12/4 at 7:00PM in Bushor Conference Room or Remote. 5.0 Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection Yes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 PM. Page 5 of 5

Agenda

Packet

Monday, November 27, 2023, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM When: Nov 27, 2023 05:30 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/92434940070 Or One tap mobile : +13017158592,,92434940070# US (Washington DC) +13052241968,,92434940070# US Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +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 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +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 +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 Webinar ID: 924 3494 0070 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aeyniqTjrY 1. Agenda Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda Meeting November 27, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday, November 27, 2023, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 1. Agenda Department Type Recommended Action Page 1 of 14 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from Nov. 13 Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from Nov. 13 Meeting November 27, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday, November 27, 2023, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from Nov. 13 Department City Attorney Type Recommended Action 3. Public Forum Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments Meeting November 27, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday, November 27, 2023, 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 November 27, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday, November 27, 2023, 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. Adjournment Subject 5.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting November 27, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday, November 27, 2023, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 5. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action Page 2 of 14 Page 3 of 14 ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE Monday, November 13, 2023 Remote via Zoom DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty, Councilor Shannon Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel), Jon Murad (Burlington Chief of Police) Others in Attendance: Romeo Von Hermann, Melo Grant, Sharon Bushor, Evan Meeting called to order at 5:39 PM. 1.0 Agenda Motion to adopt/amend agenda Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda. Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Shannon Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from November 1 Motion to Adopt Minutes as is. Motion by Councilor Shannon, Seconded by Councilor Doherty Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 3.0 Public Forum Sharon Bushor: I sent a communication to both of the co-chairs. I think the Committee has made good progress on a charter change. I felt there the statement about a possible discrepancy between the Chief and the Commission was too vague. The language suggested the appeal process would be on a case-by-case basis and I think the Committee should look back at this and add more specificity. When I was on the HR Committee there was an established process with guidelines for appeals. I know the Commission is concerned about taking on more responsibility given the time required. I hope the Commission has agreed that they can take on any new responsibility. We don’t want to have a situation where people feel burdened or don’t want to serve. 4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Vital Questions Outside Counsel Josh Diamond shared the working document from November 1. Discussion began with section 184(d). Councilor Traverse clarified that the current draft charter language would allow the Chief to either finish an investigation into a complaint or relay to the Commission that the complaint was not Page 1 of 4 Page 4 of 14 going to be investigated. After that, the Commission would decide if they wanted to do their own investigation. Motion to change the draft charter language of 184(d) to be: “The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal police department complaints of allegations of misconduct by members of the police department. To the greatest extent provided by law, the chief of police shall provide the board of police commissions timely updates of any review, investigation, or disposition of allegations of misconduct, and the board of police commissioners shall have authority to ask for additional information from the chief of police and access to any and all documents or other evidence relied upon by the chief of police in reviewing allegations of misconduct. After receiving notice of disposition relating to the review of alleged misconduct by the chief of police, the The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to independently investigate any complaint of alleged police misconduct upon a vote of ____% of its commissioners.” Motion by Councilor Traverse, without objection. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Councilor Carpenter inquired whether subpoena authority would mean the Commission would have to subpoena the BPD to receive records or whether that authority would extend to other individuals outside the Department. The draft charter language should be amended to include a section on this. Councilor Carpenter asked what types of information or materials would be prohibited by law to be disclosed to the Commission. Attorney Diamond responded that ongoing criminal investigations and their materials are protected by the court. In addition, family court materials or other information about a juvenile are protected. Attorney Diamond also added that non-disclosure agreements can solve some of these issues. Councilor Traverse said that both councilors Hightower and Bergman were interested in having the vote threshold to start an independent investigation be a simple majority. Councilor Shannon suggested placing in a two-thirds vote as a placeholder until there is further discussion at a subsequent meeting. All councilors present acknowledged the intent to return to this section at a subsequent meeting. Motion to change the draft charter language of 184(d) to be: “…the The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to independently investigate any complaint of alleged police misconduct upon a vote of two-thirds of its commissioners.” Motion by Councilor Traverse, without objection. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Councilor Doherty asked Attorney Diamond for clarification on the enforcement mechanism for subpoenas from city Commissions. Attorney Diamond responded that the city may want to include a provision that states that subpoenas can be enforced in Superior Court. This would be similar to civil investigative demands being enforced through Title 9. Councilor Doherty continued that he would like to know if a city charter can make someone answerable to a Superior Court judge. Attorney Diamond believes that is the case given that the charter goes through the legislature and, in essence, the legislature grants the city such authority through its charter. Page 2 of 4 Page 5 of 14 Councilor Traverse suggested highlighting and noting for continued review the following draft language that could potentially be added to section 184(d): “In connection therewith, the board of police commissioners shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to administer the oath to such witnesses.” Councilors Traverse and Carpenter brought up the issue of providing adequate hearings for officers facing potential discipline. Councilor Traverse clarified that an officer facing termination, demotion, or suspension would receive a hearing either after the Chief, after the Commission, or after the placeholder impasse board decide on such discipline so there would only be one hearing for that officer rather than multiple. Councilor Traverse started a discussion on what this placeholder ‘human resources panel’ would be and when it would be used. He continued, should any impasse between the Chief and the Commission regarding discipline go to this placeholder panel? Councilor Doherty said that, given the existing complexity, every impasse between the two should go to this panel. Councilor Doherty said that if the two sides are at such an impasse then it would be serious enough to warrant going to this placeholder panel. Romeo Von Hermann: I think it important to have citizen members on this new independent panel and they should be appointed by the Council rather than the Mayor. Councilor Carpenter added that part of the reason for expanding the Commission is to ensure there is diversity on the Commission to begin with. In addition, the Mayor has influence and power through the Chief in this regard. She added that this panel will not be meeting very often. Councilor Shannon said that the Commission is appointed by the Council and it seems appropriate for the Mayor to appoint these new panelists. At the state level, these kind of panels are professionals appointed by the governor and do not require a messy political process. Councilor Shannon strongly urged having these panelists be mayoral appointees that are removed from the political processes that are with the Council. Councilor Shannon added she would remove the Council confirmation. Councilor Traverse responded by saying he was not comfortable removing the Council confirmation clause. Councilor Carpenter agreed that having Council confirmation of mayoral appointees seems appropriate. Councilor Traverse asked whether there should be professional background requirements for this new panel. Councilor Shannon figured individuals with policing, HR, or legal backgrounds would all be important. Councilor Doherty said having one individual with policing experience, one with HR experience, and one general citizen would be ideal. Motion to change the draft charter language of section 184(e) to be: “As the result of an investigation set forth in subsection (d) above, tThe board of police commissioners may recommend discipline to the chief of police. The chief of police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject the recommendation. In the event the chief of police rejects the recommendation, the board of police commissioners upon a % vote may request that the independent a human resources panel shall resolve the impasse, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 190(a) and the right of appeal set forth in Article 62, section 190(b). This human resources Page 3 of 4 Page 6 of 14 panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Each panel member shall serve for staggered three (3) year terms.” Motion by Councilor Traverse, without objection. Final Resolution: Motion Passes Councilors Traverse and Carpenter agreed that they should clean up the current draft and distribute to the union, the Chief, and any other stakeholders. 5.0 Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Traverse, without objection Yes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 PM. Page 4 of 4 Page 7 of 14 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT 183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms. The board of police commissioners shall consist of seven (7) legal voters of said city, to be appointed by the city council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. (Act No. M-18, § 2, approved 3-1-16) 184 Same-powers and duties. (a) The city council shall make rules and regulations for the government of the entire police force and shall fix the qualifications of applicants for positions and service on said force and the chief of police shall furnish the city council with any information they may require concerning the finances of the police department. The chief of police shall be responsible for all expenditures made by the police department and no expenditures shall be made by the department except in conformity with the standards promulgated by the city council. (b) The board of police commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the management of the police department, its services and facilities, as may be delegated from time to time by resolution of the city council. Said board shall notify the mayor and the chief administrative officer, in writing, of any and all changes, modifications or additions to the rules and regulations of the department. (c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the board of police commissioners and the chief of police may propose rules and regulations for the government of the entire police force in a manner not inconsistent with those established by the city council. Adoption of such proposed rules and regulations requires joint approval by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police. In the event joint approval is not provided by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police, either party may bring forward to the city council the proposed rule or regulation for the city council’s consideration. (d) The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal police department complaints of alleged police misconduct. The board of police commissions shall have the authority to independently investigate any complaint of alleged police Commented [1]: Should there be an additional misconduct upon a vote of ____% of its commissioners. provision to provide subpoena authority upon a finding of "probable cause" or "reasonable basis" to (e) As the result of an investigation set forth in subsection (d) above, the board of police believe the officer has engaged in some level of commissioners may recommend discipline to the chief of police. The chief of police may accept the misconduct. recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject Commented [2]: An alternative or additional basis the recommendation. In the event the chief of police rejects the recommendation, a human could limit such independent investigations to resources panel shall resolve the impasse, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in allegations of misconduct involving high level matters, use of force, allegations of discrimination, Article 62, section 190(a) and the right of appeal set forth in Article 62, section 190(b). This human etc. resources panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Each panel member shall serve for staggered three (3) year terms. Page 8 of 14 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN 185 Officers of police force designated. (a) The direction and control of the entire police force, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be vested in a police officer who shall be called the chief of police, and such other ranking police officers as the city council shall authorize. The order of rank and succession within the police department shall be as designated by the city council by regulation. (b) Except as herein otherwise provided, such officers shall have the powers and duties granted to police officers by Vermont law and assigned to them by regulations adopted under section 184 of this Charter. ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION 190 Chief may remove member for cause; hearing. (a) Whenever it shall appear to the chief that any member of said force has become incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the chief by a responsible person against such member, the chief may investigate and, after appropriate notice an hearing, dismiss such member from the force, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14 days. In connection with any possible dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the chief’s notice to the member shall be given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the charges being considered. In connection therewith, the chief shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. The board of police commissioners shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions of the police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such board of regulation. Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the police chief. (b) The city council’s human resources committee shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner Commented [3]: An alternative here is the human with respect to discipline issued by the chief of police in subsection (a) above or the human resources panel referenced in section 184 above. resources panel set forth Article 62, section 184(e). The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be determined by the human resources committee. Following its consideration of such appeal the human resources committee may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the police chief or the human resources panel. (b)(c) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or incapable from any cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor by a responsible person, the mayor may suspend the chief from duty pending a hearing thereon by the city council. The city council shall forth with notify the chief of the charges preferred by them, or of the complaints or charges presented by such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and investigate the same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made, Page 9 of 14 shall give the chief reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the city council shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. (c)(d) If, upon hearing, the city council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it may dismiss the chief from the force, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her without pay for a period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control in the event of any conflict with section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the chief. (d)(e) The chief may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the rules and regulations of the police department that may seem to the chief sufficient, suspend from duty without pay any member of the police force for a period not to exceed 14 days. Page 10 of 14 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT 183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms. The board of police commissioners shall consist of nineseven (97) legal voters and should represent the diverse nature of said city’s constituents, including those from historically marginalized communities, to be appointed by the city council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. (Act No. M-18, § 2, approved 3-1-16) 184 Same-powers and duties. (a) The city council shall make rules and regulations for the government of the entire police force department and shall fix the qualifications of applicants for positions and service on said force department and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the chief of police shall furnish the city council with any information they may require concerning the finances of the police department. The chief of police shall be responsible for all expenditures made by the police department and no expenditures shall be made by the department except in conformity with the standards promulgated by the city council. (b) The board of police commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the management, auditing, or monitoring of the police department, its services and facilities, as may be delegated from time to time by resolution the ordinances and orders of the city council. Said board shall notify the mayor and the chief administrative officer, in writing, of any and all changes, modifications or additions to the rules and regulations of the department. (c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the board of police commissioners and the chief of police may propose rules and regulations for the government of the entire police department in a manner not inconsistent with those established by the city council. Adoption of such proposed rules and regulations requires joint approval by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police. In the event joint approval is not provided by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police, either party may bring forward to the city council the proposed rule or regulation for the city council’s consideration. (d) The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the police department. To the greatest extent permitted by law, the chief of police shall provide the board of police commissioners timely updates of any review, investigation, or disposition of alleged misconduct, and the board shall have the ability to request additional information from the Page 11 of 14 chief of police and access to all documents or other evidence relied upon by the chief of police in reviewing allegations of misconduct. After receiving notice of disposition relating to the review of alleged misconduct by the chief of police, the board of police commissioners shall have the authority to independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the police department upon a [2/3] OR [majority] vote. [In connection therewith, the board of police commissioners shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to administer the oath to such witnesses.] (e) The board of police commissioners may recommend discipline to the chief of police. The chief of police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject the recommendation. In the event the chief of police rejects the recommendation, the board of police commissions may, upon a [2/3] OR [majority] vote, request that an independent panel resolve the impasse, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 190(a) and the right of appeal set forth in Article 62, section 190(b). This independent panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed by [the mayor] OR [the mayor and confirmed by the city council] OR [the city council with mayor presiding]. Each panel member shall serve for staggered three (3) year terms. [Members of the independent panel shall include at least one person with expertise in law enforcement, at least one person with expertise in human resources or labor and employment law, and one member from the general public.] ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN 185 Officers of police forcedepartment designated. (a) The direction and control of the entire police forcedepartment, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be vested in a police officer who shall be called the chief of police, and such other ranking police officers as the city council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as chief executive officer and the ordinances and orders of the city council. The order of rank and succession within the police department shall be as designated by the city council by regulation. (b) Except as herein otherwise provided, such officers shall have the powers and duties granted to police officers by Vermont law and assigned to them by regulations adopted under section 184 of this Charter. Page 12 of 14 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION 190 Chief may remove member for cause; hearing. (a) Whenever it shall appear to the chief that any member of said forcedepartment has become incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the chief by a responsible person against such member, the chief may investigate and, after appropriate notice and hearing, dismiss such member from the forcedepartment, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14 days. In connection with any possible dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the chief’s notice to the member shall be given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the charges being considered. In connection therewith, the chief shall have the power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. The board of police commissioners shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions of the police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such board of regulation. Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the police chief. (b) The [city council shall assign responsibility to a standing committee of at least 3 city councilors] to hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to discipline issued by the chief of police in subsection (a) above or the independent panel set forth Article 62, section 184(e). The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be determined by the city council. Following its consideration of such appeal the appellate committee may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the police chief or the independent panel. (b)(c) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or incapable from any cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well- grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor by a responsible person, the mayor may suspend the chief from duty pending a hearing thereon by the city council. The city council shall forth with notify the chief of the charges preferred by them, or of the complaints or charges presented by such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and investigate the same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made, shall give the chief reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the city council shall have the power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. (c)(d) If, upon hearing, the city council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it may dismiss the chief from the forcedepartment, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her without pay for a period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control in the event of any conflict with section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the chief. Page 13 of 14 (d)(e) The chief may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the rules and regulations of the police department that may seem to the chief sufficient, suspend from duty without pay any member of the police forcedepartment for a period not to exceed 14 days. Page 14 of 14