Citizens’ Engagement Advisory and Review Commission (CEARC)

City of Hampton, VA Meeting Minutes Citizens’ Engagement Advisory Commission Members: Sanket Acharya, Steve Bond (ACM), Chris Bowman (Co-Chair), Steve Brown (Chair), Celeste Carter (LOA), Larry Enscore, Leroy Foster, Kimberly Humphrey, Sallie Marchello, Henry Mills, Will Moffett (Councilman), Ahmed Noor, Shawn O’Keefe Staff: Shelly Thomas Cappe – Program Coordinator Attendance: Sanket Acharya, Steve Bond, Chris Bowman (Co-Chair), Steve Brown (Chair), Leroy Foster, Sallie Marchello, Ahmed Noor, Shawn O’Keefe Absent: Celeste Carter (LOA), Kim Humphrey, Will Moffett, Larry Enscore, Henry Mills _________________________________________________________________ Date: March 15, 2016 Time: 6:30pm Venue: Veterans Conference Room; Rupert Sargent Building - Hampton __________________________________________________________________ Call to Order: Chair – Steve Brown at 6:30pm Agenda: See Attached **All presentation materials (i.e. PowerPoint, Charts, Graphs, Handouts, etcetera…) and board bank applications are available, electronically, upon request** Action Item: Approval of Meeting Minutes with no corrections from November 17, 2015. Item 1: Reports & Updates S. Brown: ACM Laura Fitzpatrick will be sharing with us information on the naming of the bridge that leads to Fort Monroe. It has been named the MLK Bridge. I wanted her to share a little bit of history with us about the bridge, how the designation came about and the process. There are some who have petitioned City Council to reverse its decision from March 23rd. There are groups who have come out in opposition and some for the naming the bridge the MLK Bridge as a commemoration to Martin Luther King, Jr. We should know how this came about and have knowledge of the facts. Laura, who has been working with the group that named the bridge, has come to us tonight to enlighten us on the history of the naming of the bridge. Presentation by ACM Laura Fitzpatrick - Designation of bridge that leads to Fort Monroe now named the MLK/Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge My areas of responsibility are primarily Internal and External Services; i.e. Parks & Recreation, the Library and Quality Government, which includes Human Resources, Finance, Purchasing, Information Technology, and 311. 1 Along with our work with the departments, we also work on projects with the City Manager. My work is with the citizens’ committee that is tasked with naming the bridge. Handout Attached. Composition: 1. Official Record of Resolution: 16-0074; 2. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Naming Fact Sheet produced by City of Hampton, City Manager’s Office; and 3. Commentary that accompanied and illuminated the handouts: In city government, it is very common that city councils name a citizens’ committee to do certain work; to refer issues to existing boards and committees or to even create a working group to address issues, get advice and input that meets the needs of the city. The City of Hampton recognized an unmet need for our city to commemorate the work and legacy of Dr. King formally. The decision to create this committee was discussed in the December 9, 2009 City Council Meeting. The committee was tasked with finding ways that the City of Hampton could honor Dr. King as other cities in the country and in the region have already done. The work spanned over six years because of the many discussions over how the city would commemorate Dr. King. Based upon the availability of citizens and the passage of time, participation of citizens ebbed and flowed. There were probably 8 citizens on a consistent basis. Councilman Will Moffett was the liaison to that committee from the start. The council also wanted the citizens to identify some local heroes in Hampton’s history who had an impact on the community in the legacy of Dr. King that reflected a commitment to peace, justice and progress. Hampton City Council was presented with a resolution prepared by staff from the citizen group to name the bridge. As stated in the resolution (provided in handout), Dr. King was known for bridging divides. So, it seemed appropriate and symbolic for the unnamed bridge to be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. When considering which bridge to name the number of unnamed bridges was short. Also, when considering a national figure such as Dr. King, you want to choose a bridge that is equal to the person – not one that is insignificant or in disrepair. The chosen bridge was unnamed and over water. It is symbolic in that it connects the City of Hampton to Fort Monroe. That significance of this detail is also highlighted in the handout. One other significant detail is that Mercury Boulevard is a major thoroughfare in the city – it’s central and significant. That is how we came to be here today. There have been comments on social media since February 24th that could be divisive. There are accusations that the COH and City Council named this bridge in secret. I think that it is important to note that there have been 13 city council meetings discussing the memorial committee work or the actual naming of the bridge or street was mentioned during council meetings. 2 I have spoken to some citizens who claim that this was done in secret. But I always use that as an opportunity to point out that government work is transparent. The agendas for city council meetings are posted on the website and citizens can sign up to attend and/or participate via text message or email. Additionally, the agenda is posted, the minutes are posted, anyone can watch council sessions live on channel 47 or on the internet; anyone can also watch by web stream after the live broadcast – illustrating that this was not done in secret, as the work of city government is never done in secret. Comments: S. Bond: CEAC is always here to look at issues of divisiveness at least in a monitoring standpoint in the beginning as they pertain to diversity and inclusion. (Calling attention to handout containing social media comments) Currently, we are still in a monitoring phase. We are continuously evaluating. If this issue continues to escalate, and if it becomes necessary for CEAC to take an active role, the City Manager and the Mayor are prepared to make that request. We have not reached that point yet. We wanted to make sure that this was on everyone’s radar and that you are familiar with these comments, in the instance that work is necessary in the future. S. Brown: I was privileged to be one of the original members of this committee. Several options were mentioned; a bridge was mentioned, a monument was mentioned and a street was mentioned. It was decided by the committee that the bridge was the best memorial for Dr. King. The committee was very diverse and the members were very invested in the community. W. Moffett: The group had two missions. One, was to honor Hampton’s heroes as a memorial along with Dr. King, and then also to honor Dr. King singularly. There was an article in the Daily Press about the proposal from the students at Hampton University coming up with the Hampton Heroes piece and Dr. King would be featured in that as a part of that presentation along with Hampton’s Heroes. That presentation is planned for the Convention Center. Laura Fitzpatrick: This segment is a part of your fact sheet. At the same time that the committee recommended that the bridge be named after Dr. King, they also recommended that we initiate a partnership with Hampton University whereby the students of the school of architecture would design the Dr. King and Hampton Heroes of History. The city wanted to move on naming the bridge now because, that’s the “low hanging fruit”. That’s something that the city can do much more quickly than building a memorial. One thing that you may hear when it comes to city government and dealing with issues that are contentious is that,” we need to let everyone in the community vote on these issues (what buildings and bridges should be named).” Typically, in government the city council is elected by its citizens to make decisions or to appoint citizens to advise them. This is a process and a model. If we called a vote of the public on every issue, that would not be a good use of resources. Will Moffett: The composition of the committee was very diverse. It wasn’t a group of African-American citizens sitting in a room deciding. The committee has screened out names of people who have had an impact on Hampton. 3 Laura Fitzpatrick: There was a list of 40 names. This list is not fixed. The committee created a list of names. That list is subject to approval by City Council. The memorial will be a designed such that names can be added. C. Bowman: I’ve been living here all of my life. Aren’t most of our bridges named after NASA astronauts? W. Moffett: Some are, not all; and not all are on Mercury Boulevard. There is the Booker T. Washington Bridge leading from downtown Hampton to Hampton University, the Phoebus Bridge and the Monroe Bridge. C. Bowman: Are these comments are on the Hampton Facebook page? L. Fitzpatrick: Yes. The evening that the City Council passes this resolution, the city placed the announcement on the city Facebook page because it was a wonderful thing that City Council chose to honor this national leader from our history. Afterwards, a lot of comments transpired in the hours after that. A few of the comments had profanity in them, so in accordance with our procedures, they were taken down. It was quite striking. S. Marchello: In the interest of communication; many times, people get on Facebook and just start overreacting. I suspect that the vast majority of citizens, including myself, are not watching City Council and are not looking at the agendas and so forth. We may end up explaining the seed that is the foundation of many of these reactions. It was probably just a surprise. I think that for some people, Fort Monroe is associated with other things, such as the Army or Phoebus, and may think that Martin Luther King was a wonderful American who ever lived, but may not associate him with that spot in this city. I know people who may have been surprised by it, but not vitriolic about it. And think “how weird” [it is to name this bridge after Martin Luther King] because there are so many other people that this bridge could have been named for. These were the most constructive comments. Not vitriolic and not really opposing the issue. And certainly, before they would oppose this they would at least become educated. I very much appreciate this background. I just want you to know that for some, it just didn’t click and they were taken by surprise. I just want you to know that there are reasonable people who are not opposed to this, but just surprised. If you have been working on something for eight years, it could be a questionable moment. That reaction could have been different if it hadn’t been connected to areas that are not necessarily associated with Dr. King. I say that at a way to facilitate understanding. W. Moffett: I really appreciate your comments you have always come from a place of reason. People who listen to you can understand a different perspective. There is an emotional reaction from others in the community not only because it’s Dr. King, but because of the different kind of history at Fort Monroe being that the first Africans landed there in 1619 and that it’s been seen as the beginning and the end of slavery with the Contraband Decision. So, Dr. King is seen as a bridge from segregation to integration. The symbolism is viewed from another perspective. Thank you for adding another perspective that was very helpful to me, and thank you for feeling safe enough to share it. C. Bowman: Has this issue gone before Council? Will there be a public forum? 4 W. Moffett: This resolution has already passed. The convergence on this issue now is that one side is coming with the hope of having Council reverse the decision. The other side is coming in support of the decision. C. Bowman: Will the next meeting have both sides represented? W. Moffett: Yes. And it may be the only item on the agenda. S. Brown: I would like CEAC to attend that meeting. We won’t have a speaking part. If you do speak, you can speak from your individual perspective. I would suggest that we be there to listen. H. Mills: Is there any likelihood that Council will consider reversing the decision? W. Moffett: As I sit here now, I would say ‘no’. But that is relative to this time right here. But I think that it’s going to be important. I also think that it’s important for Council to not fan the flames and to take the ‘high road’, because after this is over, we still need to be one city – one people going in one direction. We have to not allow ourselves to get caught up in an emotional moment. C. Bowman: Chief Terry Sult is here this evening to talk to us about the Use of Force and Related Equipment and the Use of Deadly Force Policies. We all have a copy of each of these in the packet. There’s not a community that’s not dealing with this issue. Chief Sult will give us the highlights tonight. Chief Terry Sult: Policy and Procedures 533 I want to point you to just a couple of different things. This is the basic policy in Use of Force and Related Equipment Policy. It goes into detail on reporting and the types of equipment we carry. If you look under Section 2, part A; it really defines how we justify what force we’re likely to use. “Only that amount of force reasonably necessary to effect lawful objectives will be used. Choice of a particular tactic must be objectively reasonable under the prevailing circumstances. Typically, you’ll hear in court “prevailing circumstances” “totality of circumstances”, and that type of thing. “Objectively reasonable” is typically what a reasonable police officer would do under similar circumstances. There is some debate going on a national level about “proportionality” versus “objectionably reasonable”. However, “proportionality” is not supported by case law or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a case called Connor v Grant – Actually, I know Officer Grant. I was working when this case occurred in Charlotte. The Supreme Court ruled in that and that is where they defined the “objectively reasonable” standard. As we go through the policy, if you look on page 2, Section 3, Part B; it talks about “Objectively Reasonable”. “Objectively Reasonable – In determining the necessity for force and the appropriate level of force, officers should evaluate each situation based on the known circumstances, including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the crime, the level of threat, the level of resistance presented by the subject, and the subsequent danger to the community.” 5 It [the document] talks about “Levels of Resistance” in Section E and defines those various “Levels of Resistance”. Such as the least level is “Passive Resistance”; this is where and individual might just sit down and say “I’m not going with you and that’s it”. The next level is “Defensive Resistance”, that’s where someone is trying to run away from you, but they are not doing anything other than defensively running away – to flee or attempt to flee. The next level is “Active Resistance”. If the officer lays his hands on the person and the person is jerking away or pushing an officer. That would be “Active Resistance”, and pushing an officer, believe it or not, is a felony in Virginia. “Active Aggression”; this is where true assaults take place. It starts to get pretty serious when you get into this level. And of course, “Aggravated Active Aggression”, is when you have a weapon and your intention is to cause serious injury or death. That is where “Lethal Force” starts to come in. In a simple aspect, that is the “Use of Force Policy”. We’ll talk about a “Deadly Force Policy” in just a second. What the court says is “Objectionably Reasonable”; we go further than the policy and restrict some of the things that we do. You may have [read] in the paper recently, about Norfolk and a couple of agencies, after a 4th Circuit Court appeals hearing in the use of Tasers. They had to changes their policies. Well, our policy was already restricted to the level that it met the 4 th Circuit’s rule. So, we’re ahead of the game in a lot of ways. If we look at it, we restrict on shooting at moving vehicles in our policy. That is one of the things that a lot of agencies have not done yet. When we’re looking at the national media, we look at the ways that a lot of these other agencies are dealing with the “Use of Force” issues that there are over 18,000 agencies in this country. And only about 800 to 1,000 of those are fully accredited or nationally accredited agencies. And then of those that remain, their policies and procedures are not necessarily reviewed by outsiders. We just went under a “mod” assessment for our next re-accreditation. We’ve been accredited since 1988. And every 3 years we have an outside review, it goes to a board of commissioners, the commissioners read that review and we have to go attend to make sure we receive our re-accreditation. Since 1988, we were one of the first agencies in the country to be accredited. We were in the first 25. And we have maintained that. We have another re-accreditation coming in that is currently every 3 years and is going to change to every 5 years. Ours comes up at the end of July/beginning of August. We will have outside accessors from somewhere around the country. The CALEA accreditation agency picks and sends its representatives. We don’t know who they are. They come and look at our policies and make sure we’re in compliance with what we have written. We are at a “gold standard”, we take the highest level of accreditation. If you look at this policy, you’ll see that it covers everything from handcuffs to Tasers, it covers batons and spray. We monitor court cases, and when an incident comes up and it draws national attention, we start paying attention to it. In the4th Circuit case, that was a case that came out of North Carolina, in Pinehurst; the individual was imminently dangerous to himself and was found so by a doctor. They [unknown] issued a temporary protection order. The doctor found that he was dangerous to himself and he was engaged in “Passive Resistance”. 6 The person wrapped his arms around a pole, sat down and said “I’m not going”. There were 4 police officers and 2 security guards there and one medical person. They were trying to comply and take him back to the hospital. He sat there and for some reason, officers decided that they would Tase him and get him to release to try to gain his compliance. They used the Taser on him multiple times and he subsequently died. Tasers are not “non-lethal” force; they are “less than lethal” force. Anytime you use a Taser, there is a small chance of death. What the court in the 4th Circuit has said in its ruling is that “Passive Resistance”, it is not reasonable to use less than lethal, such as a Taser. We already have that in our policy; it states that [we rise to] a level of Active Resistance before we can deploy the Taser. That is listed on page 7 sections 2 and 3. We already have that in our policy. It would be inappropriate if someone was just fleeing from us. I just sustained a violation against an officer who was in a foot chase with an individual. And the guy gets to a gate. The guy was trying to get through the gate, but he never turned aggressively on the officer, he was just trying to unlock the gate and the officer ‘Tased’ him. I sustained a violation on the officer. And we’re dealing with that disciplinary process now. We hold officers accountable for that. We are all accountable for that. S. Brown: When you sustained that violation was that officer re-trained? Chief Sult: The officer is re-trained and will receive disciplinary action, suspension or something like that; and absolutely, re-training. Everyone must be certified on Tasers every year, and if you don’t go through that certification every year, we take the Taser away from you. In this case, the Taser is taken away from him until he is retrained. S. Marchello: What should the officer have done instead of using the Taser? Chief Sult: What he should have done first is to use “soft hands”. And then, if the person “Actively Resists” or jerks away then it would have been appropriate to go to the baton or “O/C” spray. He could have gone to O/C spray right then. But it’s an escalation ‘thing’ at that point. If the person jerks away, then go with the Taser. But that is not the case. He [the officer] had a body camera on. And so, he is very accountable. S. Bond: Just for clarity; you spoke about some 4th Circuit cases in North Carolina, Virginia is also in the 4th Circuit. Chief Sult: I want to talk a little bit about “Objective Reasonableness” but about “Deadly Force” policy first. The second document, the “Use of Deadly Force”, page 1, #3. You can look at “the Use of Deadly Force”, #3. You can also see the “Reasonable Belief” and “Serious Injuries” and their definitions described. An officer can use deadly force and is justified in using “Deadly Force” in defense of injury, in defense of another, or to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, but only when all the circumstances are met. Typically, what that means is when that guy gets away, he’s going to hurt somebody else. Only in those circumstance is typically the only time when [officers] can do that. S. Brown: Use deadly force; this is meaning that a person can be shot, if they flee and if they have the intent of hurting somebody else. 7 Chief Sult: Say if you have an active shooter, and he has shot 2 or 3 people, or you have a spree shooter going on like they had in Wisconsin or wherever that was. If one officer come up on him, and the guy flees by means of deadly force; meaning that he has a gun in his hands and he is running away from you, and if he encounters somebody else, chances are that he will shoot somebody else. Based on the totality of circumstances, you [an officer] can shoot him in the back or whatever right then. But that’s not a typical scenario, that’s an atypical circumstance in the Use of Deadly Force. We’re going to have to be able to articulate that there is an imminent threat to others. S. Brown: How difficult is it to justify those cases in court? Is it difficult in court? Chief Sult: Yes and no. It depends on the court. I can tell you that I’ve been in the business for 40 years and anytime I’ve seen that; the Charleston case is a good example of that. The guy is running away from you, there was no imminent threat. It speaks for itself. I have not seen that done to begin with, and when I have seen it done, it’s ended in prosecutions. It’s very rare. You’re going to have to have an active shooter, a spree shooter or somebody going down the interstate “popping off” rounds, jumps out of the car, runs and randomly shooting cars. It would have to be a scenario similar to that. And then, we’re still going to try to do everything we can to corral him before we move to that level. This is the absolute last resort. In all three of these policies, the one thing that I mentioned was “Objective Reasonableness”. When you read through these policies, you’ll see that we’re even more restricted than what an “objectively reasonable” officer might do in several circumstances and [the use of] Tasers is one of them. How we get our officers to de-escalate is through training. We change what a “reasonable officer” would do. That’s what the national dialogue is doing. Places like the Police Protection Research Forum and all that. They are one of the ones talking about “Proportionality”, but in reality they’re talking about training policies and tactics. What we starting doing over a year ago is to teach through our training in practical exercises and classroom exercises in Use of Force discussions -- de-escalation and making that the reasonable standard for our police officers. That’s the way you change things. There are not a lot of written changes in the policy. It comes to the training and the mindset of officers. In order for that to take hold nationally, that has to become the doctrine across the country. Just saying, “ok, we’re going to deal with ‘Proportionality’, as “PERF” would suggest. There’s a lot of controversy [inaudible] because this [decision] was not in a discussion forum. This is one in which they said, “this is what we’re going to do” and there was no discussion. I can tell you that the Risk Liability Managers are going to want to go with what the court says and have that kind of backing because that’s what they have to defend. The officers will be held to the accountability level of what the courts say. In the department we have a different level of accountability that’s a much higher standard than the courts that’s both civilly or criminally imposed. Nationally, what we have to do is [inaudible] change the mindset to de-escalation mindset through training and that type of thing. And I believe that we’re on the top of the wave with that and moving very quickly in that direction. We’re into our 2nd or 3rd level of de- escalation training. S. Brown: Where are we in terms of best practices? Do we ever change this policy based on what CALEA and PERF would say? 8 Chief Sult: There are 30 standards that PERF came out with as a suggestion out of this meeting with Proportionality. I don’t agree with Proportionality. This is a standard not recognized by the court. They put Proportionality against the Grant v Connor case. Basically, if they had just said that we support the Grant v Connor, then of course, [inaudible] there will be a change in what the objectively reasonable officer would do. You do that with training, policy and equipment. [inaudible]. They are using the same term that ‘pits’ against the Supreme Court. We all take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. At the end of the day, we will have to at least [inaudible] as the lowest standard of justifiability. By policy you will see that we are above that lowest standard that the Supreme Court [dictates], we expect officers to use better judgment than that. If we engage in Deadly Force every time an officer was justified by the court to do it, we would have a really serious issue with Use of Force that we are seeing across the country. It is officer’s discretion, the training and equipment that we provide them and the policies and procedures that we set that combine into what our expectations are; and the community’s expectations come into play here. On a national dialogue, that’s where community demands come into place. We have to start to look at alternatives. Those 30 recommendations that PERF suggested, I would agree with all of them except for the term “Proportionality”. We are looking to incorporate those as we move forward. C. Bowman: This is from 2014, are there any revisions? It has been reviewed a number of times, in regards to the court cases and circumstances that have come out, but we are ahead of the curve. We look at de-escalation, we look at options that we have, and will take another look at it after we go through CALEA Accreditation Review. During accreditation we have standards, and then we have to prove that we are following the standard. So, if I make substantial changes in the Use of Force Policy, unless it’s something that is direly needed at this point, I would have to show compliance with that standard since July and have documentation to show that. We’ll actually be looking at our entire policy manual and – not completely rewriting it, but highlighting the [ ] areas and comparing it to the 21st Century report and comparing it to the PERF recommendations. And then, right after the review, go ahead and make those changes and reformat the policies. The policies are probably at least 1,000 pages long. An officer doesn’t need to know a thousand pages worth of information of the top of their head, they need to know the operations ‘stuff’ off the top of their head, when they can and cannot use force, when they can pursue and can’t pursue. We have an operational side and an administrative side. The officer in the field [inaudible] that’s standard operational procedures for special units. It gets down to the area where officers need to be more accountable to those policies and procedures instead of laying a thousand page book in front of them and ‘saying you need to know all of this stuff’. We can prioritize what act on. Dr. Noor: Are our policies comparable with those used in other cities like Newport News? Chief Sult: Yes they are – even more advanced than some. I just looked at one that was reviewed in Greenville, South Carolina in the Use of Force policy. I liked some of the things I’m seeing, so I’m already looking at some of what we might want to change in the wording; not so much what the meaning is, but what the wording is. It is specifically talking about de-escalation and things like that. We need to incorporate some of that in our policies. But we are in that cycle of the mock review and the full review with accreditation and it is very difficult for us to make substantial changes until after we get through this next review. 9 C. Bowman: Steve or Will, when you review policies, don’t you know the document used, so you don’t get into situations where you have a 2 year old policy [inaudible] Chief Sult: We have that documentation, it’s just not here. The [inaudible] was substantially changed. For example, we changed maybe one word. Every revision that is made in the policy is documented – what the revision is. Then, there is a procedure where I have to review it periodically. Just because the effective date is noted, doesn’t mean that we have rescinded the previous one. If you look at the one here #537, the effective date was February 14th, but it superseded the policy dated 9 of 98. There were probably 50 revisions to it between that time, but the substantial document wasn’t completely rewritten. S. Brown: The 21st Century Policing Report suggested that citizens participate in the policy and procedures of police divisions. Is that something [ ] is going to do the next time? Part of the report spoke to perceptions and trust with police divisions. Chief Sult: You’re talking about Legitimacy. S. Brown: Yes, Legitimacy. If citizens were involved in that process, then there is a “buy-in” as well as educating citizens about the policy. That would be good Chief. I know that you guys are about letting the group know what the 21st Century Report suggested. Chief Sult: Email me with any questions or concerns. C. Bowman: Your officers are sworn officers; they have to go through the academy. Chief Sult: They receive training every year. C. Bowman: And they have to qualify on the range every so often and get a certain score. Correct? Chief Sult: Correct. All that is covered in the policy. C. Bowman: There’s a lot of discussion over the use of weapons and shooting at the “center mass”. Chief Sult: We will never change that. We shoot to stop the threat. C. Bowman: A lot of the public thinks, “why don’t you shoot them in the leg or the arm? You didn’t have to kill them.” Your training is consistent with that national standard. Chief Sult: They think that, yes. The reality is that this is not the wild, wild west. You’re talking about a split-second decision. If you look at the number of times that a police officer hit and the number of times they miss, it’s already bad. The percentages are not favorable. We are accountable for every single round we fire. So, if you’re shooting at a hand or a gun or leg or something like that, there might be exceptions to that, but just the typical officer on the street, a loose round might hit a house or a kid or car or something like that. [Recounting the details of a certain unspecified case.] That is an extremely rare situation. The training that we do with CIT training that all of the officers are going through, is all about de-escalation. Anytime we are not dealing with a firearm is an opportunity for us to maintain distance, take cover and create time to get the resources there to de-escalate the situation. And frankly, Deadly Force encounters - the vast majority of the time, we’re dealing with the mentally ill or the terribly violent. A good portion of those, 10 probably 50% or more, is the mentally ill. This is an opportunity to de-escalate particularly if they are willing to [inaudible] opposed to a firearm. Statistics have shown that if we can create enough time just to get a Sergeant on the scene, you reduce Deadly Force encounters by 75%. It’s all about de-escalation. H. Mills: Recounts details of recent shooting in another city of citizen running away from officers. Chief Sult: I will tell you that we spent a great deal of time talking about that particular case. The policy states that you don’t tase somebody for running away from you. The officers could have used the baton they could used OC spray and that sort of thing. There are other options that he had. One thing you have to consider is did the officer know that there was another officer in close proximity? In this case, there was another officer right there. Now, he may not have realized that, but as a trained professional, he should have known that. The second thing in this particular case is that he was chasing a guy in an area and he (the officer) didn’t know his specific location. Under those circumstances, our training tells you to disengage that foot pursuit. You don’t know where you are and we can’t get help to you. There were a series of decisions that were made up to the point that lead to the tasing. If everything had gone his way, if he had been fully in compliance with his training before he got to that gate, we may have justified – although retrained him in that particular incident. The problem I had with it is that we have specific policy, there were other options, there was a back-up officer there that he reasonably should have known [inaudible]. At the end of the day the officer did what he needed to do to stay safe and take the guy into custody. And no injuries to anyone in this case. In training, this was a teachable moment and that’s what we try to do with that particular officer. We got policy and if we need to change that policy, then we need to change it. The policy says this, and we need to draw a line on that policy, then that’s what we have to do . S. Bond: It’s important for us to review these Use of Force policies. It’s important for us that when we do that, we need to support the officers that are in the field. It is difficult to recruit officers now because, they feel like everything they’re doing is being second guessed. If you think about Hampton, we really haven’t had any incidents here in the city. It’s partially because of the policies, it’s partially because of the training, it’s partially because of the people that we have working in the field. I’m always mindful of supporting the vast majority of the officers who are out there risking their lives every day to try to protect us and to make sure that we are able to recruit other great officers. Chief Sult: I’m just as concerned, if not more so concerned with these instances that we see across the country because they tarnish our officers in the eyes of the public. I’ve said this publicly many times; I don’t know a good police officer, in all the areas that I’ve worked, that would not give up 10 good felony arrests to not take off a bad cop, or a cop that is going to cause harm to another. They want them off the streets just as much as everybody else. We have to be that concerned and at at the same time ask the question that you just asked, at the same time find that balance, and to do that we need training. C. Bowman: When you come back the next time could you update us on the 21 st Century Policing, perhaps the recent crime stats that have been in the Daily Press the last couple of days that we’ve all read that we might have some questions on and fill-in the blanks for us. S. Brown: Thank you Chief for your overview. If you have any additional questions for the Chief, you can email him or you can email me and I can put these questions together and the Chief can give us answers in one fail swoop. Next Item: Membership/Recruitment 11 S. Brown: We will hear the diversity report and then new appointees. L. Foster: What we did was to obtain the demographics of the city of Hampton off the website. I then re- worked the CEAC information to reflect the percentages. See attached handout. According to having 13 core members, the make-up should consist of: Gender: 6 male, 7 female Ethnicity: 6 AA, 5 Whites, 1 Hispanic and 1 Asian The make-up of our group now is: We have 10 members Gender: 8 males, 2 females Ethnicity: 4 AA, 4 Whites, 1 [inaudible], and 1 Asian Of all the applications sent to us we worked down to 11 applicants. We brought those 11 applications for discussion tonight. Our new member make-up should be someone who is 35 and younger, 1 Latino, and one woman. Choose 6 of the applicants that you have in the folder in front of you. S. Bond: The clerk’s office has requested from all boards and commissions that names be submitted no later than March 24, 2016 so that council can act on the submissions. If not, the decision will occur after budget discussions. S. Marchello: It would be good to contact these applicants even by telephone interview to inquire about their continued interest – some of these applications are 3 to 5 years old. I have tendered my resignation because of my work in Williamsburg. I am not as active in the city as I should be in order to be an effective member of CEAC. I have noted that Kim (Humphrey) and Larry (Enscore) have missed this month and January. Our by- laws say that if you miss 2 in a row, there will be communication. In other words, if we’re going to need to replace one or the other, we ought to know that now too. W. Moffett: Since I’ve been coming to these meetings, I have never physically seen Kim. Is there a requirement that the member needs to be present? And, if you get into real serious work, will that present a problem? S. Brown: No, that is not specifically in the by-laws, but she’s usually present telephonically. If we get into a really serious incident, it won’t work, but since we have not had one, it works by phone. Even lately, we have not heard from her by phone. I will personally call her and gage her commitment. And ask if she still wants to be involved and if not then this would be the time now to make that change. Discussion of applications presented. Each applicant is highlighted for their merit and outstanding qualities that may be profitable in CEAC work. 12 Final: Clark, Davis, Glover, Joshua Head, Ebony Majeed and Amber Smith These 6 candidates will be invited to interview here assuming they are still interested. S. Brown: Please send to Celestine Carter a copy of the most recent minutes. Discussion on letter/communication sent to applicants who were not selected. S. Bond: In addition to making contact with the applicants, that the committee should come up with questions for the interview process and circulate that before we get to the next meeting so that we can all weigh-in and be on the same page when the interview takes place. Normally, with any interview that the city conducts there is a standard list of questions that we ask every single applicant to make sure that we are not discriminating or changing things. We can have a list of 7-8 questions that they all answer making it a more uniform process. I do not have a list for this group, and the questions depend on what position I’m interviewing for. Please refer to the audible recording of the meeting to hear the last few minutes in which the discussion consisted of details of interview questions. S. Brown: For the sake of time we adjourn, leaving the last items for the next meeting. Announcement: International Children’s Festival sign-up sheet. Adjourn. 13  Citizens’ Engagement Advisory Commission Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 15, 2016 – 6:30pm Rupert L. Sargent Building, Veteran’s Conference Room – 1 Franklin Street, Hampton, VA Members: Sanket Acharya, Steve Bond (ACM), Chris Bowman (Co-Chair), Steve Brown (Chair), Celeste Carter (LOA), Larry Enscore, Leroy Foster, Kimberly Humphrey, Sallie Marchello, Henry Mills, Will Moffett (Councilman), Ahmed Noor, Shawn O’Keefe Staff: Shelly Thomas Cappe – Program Coordinator Call to Order – Commissioner Steve Brown, Chair Action Item: Approval of Meeting Minutes Item 1: Reports & Updates Presentation by Laura Fitzpatrick Designation of Bridge Presentation by Chief Terry Sult Use of Force Policy Overview Membership/Recruitment by Leroy Foster Interviews and Recommendations for Appointment of New Members Item 2: Discussion of New Business Possible Formation of New Members Orientation Sub-Committee Item 3: Community Observations Adjourn. 14