September 8, 2025 — Police Oversight Panel Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] ready when you are. All right, we will get started. Welcome everybody. Um, we'll start as always with calling our meeting to order and our land acknowledgement. Uh we acknowledge the Arapjo Youth and Cheyenne tribes, the traditional custodians of the land on which the police oversight panel and Boulder Police Department operate and pay our respects to their elders past and present. I want to welcome you all to the meeting. Welcome to our panel members and guests. Uh welcome to any public community members or media who might be here. We appreciate you guys being here. Um, we'll start with a uh quick reminder on the Q&A. Um, anyone who's in attendance, you're welcome to use the Q&A for small questions. Um, any public members who are here will have a

[1:01] chance to do public comment around halfway through the meeting, hopefully 30ish. So, if you have longer comments or questions, please stay till then and we'll have that time available for you. Uh, also for the public, a quick reminder, you can submit complaints um to the panel or contact the panel at any time for any reason. You can um reach us at least oversight panel bouldercol.gov. And you can find late submission process and more information about the panel and how to reach us um at on our website bouldercol.govservices. /services oversight. Um, and as a reminder, uh, the meetings, all of our meetings are available online. They're recorded, so you can see this meeting and all of our previous meetings on our website as well. All right. Um, with that, we will do our

[2:00] roll call. >> Okay. Um, Curtis >> here. Chico. >> Yeah. >> Bill. >> Alan. >> AB. >> There's no one waiting here. No, I think she No, Jason. >> Um, Turner >> here. >> Uh, Sadan >> here. >> And Milan >> here. >> Lizzy >> here. >> Kristen >> here. And Jason let us know he's trying to Oh, it's great. Was that for I was just wait I didn't know if J was waiting to go on camera. She's also muted.

[3:00] >> AB, we were just doing roll call. Are you >> I'm here. I'm here. Perfect. All right. Um, so we'll do a quick review of the agenda to get everyone started. Um, if you have it available to to Yeah, hold on. Share it. All right. Hold for just a sec. We'll share it with folks online. Chica, can you see this? >> All right. Um, so we'll start with our usual discussion of the minutes. Um, we'll hear from our community outreach and engagement committee. Um then we'll

[4:02] go into our IPM report. We'll do some panel updates um and ad hoc items starting with a ride along reminder and then some discussion of our upcoming legal training. Um we'll go to public comment after that. U folks online again 30 7:40 or so. Um after that we'll have the option to go to close session. Um, we'll go into regular business, case review, voting, assignments, and um, assignments for new cases, and then we will wrap up. Um, any comments on the agenda? And if not, anyone like to approve the agenda? Motion to approve. >> Move. Second. >> Great. All in favor of approving the agenda. Anyone opposed? All right. Agenda is approved. Uh on to the minutes. Um does anyone have any thoughts or feedback on the minutes from

[5:00] last month or would you like to approve? >> I'll move to approve. >> Do you have a second? >> I second. >> All right. All in favor of approving the minutes? Anyone opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. With that, we will go to Bill for Community Outreach and Engagement Committee. >> Okay. Well, we'll start with the the recap. Lot of things happened. So, we did our um community connectors and myself was there connectors and it was really nice um dinner. They talked about um being excited to collaborate with us and thinking about events that we're doing or gatherings that we're having and how we can connect um with each other and collaborate

[6:00] just a small group on their side too. >> I was just Uh yeah. Yes. I'm gonna say something that is not going to be nice, >> but >> um we So, so it felt terribly bad that that day it was only Bill and myself there knowing that there there was a number of us that have signed up to attend. It was a very nice dinner. There was enough dinner for all of us and it was just us which um not cool. And I know that there were people that um were sick and had kind of last minute things um happened. And as usual, the people that emailed or texted saying that they won't they wouldn't be able to go are

[7:00] the same people that show up all the time. and and it feels bad that that that is kind of the the reality we're facing as a pano. This was a group of uh people that do a very important job um with the communities that we are supposed to be more intentionally serving. So, um yeah, I think I I will ask for for um revisiting our commitments to these kind of events, especially when they're put together for us and and you know, and being mindful is sometimes, you know, of course we appreciate when people let us, but it's not about that. It's about showing up. So, um, yeah, that that unfortunately I had like a work emergency. I had to leave early, but I I took that thinking that there

[8:02] there were a lot of people signed up to attend and at the end of the day, it was just us, I mean, the three of us. Well, um, and I think mo most of all the the the loss is that in the the the sharing with them, we lose perspectives because at the end of the day, it's just Bill and I and of course Sherry sharing from from the IBM perspective, but it was just us and there's the rest of the richness of the panel that that is missing from these events that are very hard schedule. So, >> sorry that's my comment. >> Three and a half months still >> and you can't represent anybody's perspective. So, you're there long >> hopefully they'll reach out to some events.

[9:01] >> Okay. Um want to talk a little bit about how to >> Yes. something you put together. >> Yeah, it was good. Uh we had a turnout of I think maybe 50 people came through all together. Uh different groups were tableing different things. Um yeah, we got to share with a few people uh just how to file a complaint, the the work of the panel um as far as reviewing cases and some of the um recommendations that we've been able to make over time that have been heard. um and also about the uh student employment opportunities for um for future enrolled students. Uh but yeah, it was a good event because yeah, >> you have anything new? >> No, it was great. It was great to meet people and faculty and they seem to care about it. So that was great.

[10:03] And then what's our boulder? Everybody was there. I was there in the morning. Wasn't very busy because but we did a lot of set up and we're like want to share your experiences because the winner there wasn't a lot of folks. Do you have any folks? the latter half definitely had more more traffic. Um, a lot of people um signed up on either in paper or through the QR codes to express interest in panelopathy at least. So I've as you were talking I realized I wish I would have had that together for like a QR code sign up for potential neuropath. Anybody else? >> Thanks for letting us choose your 10th.

[11:00] Everybody, >> we did do it. Um, I I thought it was it went well this year. And to Sad's point, um, it was really nice having a good group of panel members attend. So, want to call that out. Really appreciate stepping up and volunteering. And it was nice to have everyone there. We had much more many more panel members than the previous year. So, that was great. And I sent out to all of the um all of the people who attended, I sent an email with a sheet where you can add thoughts or suggestions to um improve engagement next year. >> Awesome. Or it would also be transferable to any type of um event, especially outdoor events. >> Yeah. Just like the lessons learned. So like putting the QR code is a lesson that machine. So, um, if you have any thoughts on it, just add to that use it for any community engagement.

[12:01] >> Any other events? >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Did you see a difference in um, traffic with you guys being on the bingo? Did they do the bingo thing this year? >> I was going to say that that was better. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. I actually feel like last year there were more people who came up being disappointed that we didn't like see if we were on the news sheet, but it definitely drove people to the table. Yeah, good to know. >> The the young children didn't seem to know very much about police oversight at all. >> Yeah. >> The QR code. >> Um any other coming down. So, um, one of the things we did shift is that whole process document we got rid of and are just creating a plan document. I noticed there's stuff in the agenda, but that's not the current one. This is basically going to be structured

[13:01] around what's the event who's going to go there and maybe some after thought and I like about whatever you learned. So, I'll finish that up based on the feedback. Then, I've got the last meeting. And the other thing I want to bring up is is Chris, your name came up a lot in terms of your role. >> Sure. >> And since we have some time, I'd really love to hear how you see your role, especially in the community engagement process. Doesn't run this might come from we want you to have a role to you can't tell us no to everything in the middle. And so, so rather than speculate as to what we think your role is, I really wanted to have you have an opportunity just to share based on ordinance and you know work with Sherry and also see the manager. Just how how do you see your role? >> Yeah. in our community process and and I

[14:01] want to go back because with the whole film thing that happened we were told on one hand no we couldn't do it and then based on the ordinance it seems it's fine to do this so that's kind of created some trepidation confusion trust issues around >> sure >> how is that how is that going to play out moving forward to kind of give you a lens of the landscape too >> yeah thank you bill >> and That way if people have questions we could just ask Chris and we'll stay within our time frame so you let me know if we're getting close to 40 minutes. Um so not to steal my own thunder but uh to preview for the upcoming legal training. You know, I'm going to be talking about the role of the city attorney and how the city attorney provides legal advice to all of city council boards and commissions and panel and the city of Boulder as well as city staff like Sherry. Um, you know, my role

[15:00] is to be the lawyer for the panel. So, if there are legal questions or issues that come up, I am a resource. So, I hope that you all view me as a resource to answer some of those legal questions that might come up. Most of the time when I'm asked a question, my first if I can't immediately answer it, I'm going to look in the code and look to see what the code says. Um, almost all of the legal questions that I have to answer as a city attorney are in the code. And so, uh, you know, when if I am asked about whether or not a community engagement advice, um, community engagement event, um, fits the different visions in the code that discuss community engagement, and there's actually a few, and I'll evaluate the facts, and then I'll render an opinion. It's not my role to say uh no, I don't direct the panel. I can provide advice and then it's up to

[16:02] the person or people that I'm giving the advice to to uh take it and then do with it what they will. Um uh it is usually good to listen to a lawyer's legal advice and consider it carefully. That is legal advice. Um but it's not my role, you know, to say you can't do this. I'm not going to let you do this because I don't I don't that's not my role. I'm I'm an adviser to the panel. I'm an adviser to uh to Sherry and um I am happy to be with anyone on the panel. Um and and you know, if there's questions that come up, we can schedule a time uh to talk. That's something that um I've done with city council members. I've done with other boards and commissions that I advise. So that is totally normal and and and and great. It can be difficult to render on the spot legal advice in a setting like this with lots of different people because sometimes get into um

[17:00] I've observed and experienced the game of stump the lawyer because they're all very smart, educated and um very capable and impressive individuals and I'm not going to be the smartest person in the room most of the time. So, uh, so if there are those kind of sticky legal questions, I'm happy to schedule a time to meet, you know, one-on-one, two-on-one, something like that to discuss those. Um, so if there are any questions about community engagement, uh, events and whether or not they fit different provisions in the ordinance, I'm happy to render an opinion. I really like this. Um, I know there might be a different version of the community engagement proposal form, but but I like this because it has like criteria. It's standardized. It's It's great. So, I like >> it's changed to a planning guide. >> Well, there you go. Yeah. Some changes basic. >> So, I hope that answers your question, Bill. Wonder if anybody else. >> Of course I do.

[18:00] >> I'm glad you didn't ask. >> Of course I do. >> Uh Chris, thank you for being here. If um you say that you're a council to the independent police manager and to the council, how do you define your role >> as an adviser and a resource >> and would you give the same recommendation to >> to um >> because we're two different entities, right? complimentary but different roles, right? >> The the panel and a police monitor, you know, work together and by the um but but are separate, complimentary to each other. Um because there's different roles and different duties and responsibilities. Um, I wouldn't give contradictory legal advice, but the legal advice I would give to the panel might be different than I might give to

[19:02] Sherry just because the rules I sense, >> but I'm not going to like render a legal opinion about topic A to Sherry and then render a different legal opinion about topic A. >> I would worry about you if you did, >> but I appreciate it. Yeah. So you would you would have a different approach because of the roles that we have, >> right? I would I would look to different places in the food. >> So it would take away some of the subjectivity or interpretive approach that like Sharon might take by hearing you and then interpreting what you're saying. We would wise here's here's what it says. Here's here's my council to you and even to us and the revis.

[20:05] So I'm just wondering how you take out the subjectivity and interpret it part of it. Somebody might take what you're saying and interpret it as >> yes or no or something like that. >> And a lot of times with lawyer answers the the answer is going to be it depends which is sometimes not super useful but you just recognize the fact that if you have like one fact pattern, you change the fact pattern just a little bit, it can change the advice. And so sometimes like if I have a conversation with somebody about legal issue or topic and they go talk to somebody else about that legal issue or topic, it's some can be difficult to translate the legal advice exactly as it was because the fact pattern has to stay the same and the words have to stay the same. And so, um, uh, it's it's really hard to take subjectivity out of legal advice because

[21:02] there's not always going to be a black letter rule that governs the situation that you're in and you just have to use close precedent or similar situations or judgment. Um, so you can get different legal opinions about the same topic if you talk to different attorneys. That's just legal world. Ultimately you see your ro is just advising >> advisory and support as a resource know I know a lot of things about the city of sorts um >> I have a question regarding so we have the ordinance and you follow the code and um how do you like the one of the issues that we had was the intent of the audience around engagement

[22:00] um which led to misinterpretation and and so how how do you reconcile the ordinance that we follow and the code that you follow? >> Well, those should should be the same thing. You should all be following when I say code ordinance. I kind of like >> Are you meaning the same thing? >> The same thing. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not I'm just looking at what the law is. Boulder revised code. >> I thought you were meaning like the city code. >> When I say code, I mean like the the code that's the law that's passed by city council revis. >> So in our case the ordinance. >> Yes. Ordinance uh which is in my mind synonymous with the code. >> Thank you. When when city council approved the ordinance, the ordinance becomes a part of the revised code. When we changed the ordinance and we the council approved the revised ordinance that

[23:01] change the code. So that's why it's called revised code because it should be updated with all the changes that are happening. So anything that is approved as an ordinance is becomes immediately a part of the P code. So that's why it's a >> it's a very good way. >> Yeah, better than >> Chico. Go ahead, please. >> Well, thanks very much, Chris, for that. And um I I just want to be very clear on when you talk about subjectivity, you sounded like you were not giving a direct answer there and I'm being very blunt here because the reason why I'm raising this issue is that and again I don't want to belabor what happened in the past and I don't care for that but the point is and I hope somebody will correct me here is that If

[24:03] the panel feels that Chris is too close to the matter and do we have the leeway to say Chris you're too close here you need to step aside we need to engage somebody who is more independent and will be more objective because already you've alluded to the subjectivity matters. >> Thank thank you Chico. There there is a provision in the code that talks about you know the panel if there's a conflict of interest then can engage independent um legal advice. Uh but conflict of interest is a specific legal term. Um and so if if a panel member believes that there is a conflict of interest that's something that should be raised that we can look into it. Um, but the panel doesn't have uh like independent authority to go around the city

[25:00] attorney's off office to get outside legal advice. That would have to be something um that we'd have to evaluate to see if there's there is actually a a conflict of a conflict of interest, which is a a legal term that has a specific uh definition. So, I hope I'm answering your question, Chico. No, I I just wanted to for for it to be on record that should a case arise where we say Chris, you're too close to this, you're not going to offer uh objective opinion or whatever we want there. There should be a way for you to step aside >> in that way. from what I'm hearing is just starting a conflict of interest process all >> I mean it's my duty to identify conflicts of interest so it's not like I want to slide something past the panel and be like haha then I'd be committing an ethical breach

[26:01] >> so I'm on the lookout for conflicts of interest most of the time conflicts of interest arise when when it comes to money um or close personal relationships so that is something that I'm look out So, so basically we have to build a trusting relationship with you to know that what you're giving us is your best advice without pushing us either way because then you have to make the decision. >> That's what I will strive to do every time. >> We have still Oh, you go ahead. I was just getting in line. Okay. Um, so just to, you know, I hear you and everything you've described is very in line with what I would expect for your role to be, but all sounds great. I think one of the reasons we're talking about this um is because there was a situ situation recently where it didn't unfold that way. I don't think

[27:01] like the panel did not request approval for this event or request guidance directly but I think the feeling of the panel was that there was like this sudden like uh entry of legal opinions into the situation where it wasn't expected and maybe it wasn't actually from legal but I just want to lay all that to rest for what we should expect in the future. So if we are working on planning events and we are all on board with events, is there a role that you need to have in that process or would you expect us to come to you to propose events? I'm hoping the answer is no, but I'm just trying to really clarify all this for the panel. What should we know in the future about how that should unfold? >> Um, thank you very much uh for that, Lizzie. Um, it's not my role to approve community engagement events. If I am asked or I observe something that seems

[28:01] to be outside the scope of the code or the ordinance, then it is my role to render legal advice. Um, but I don't you don't need you don't need to run things past me. It's not my my it's everybody's job to follow the law. Um, you know, I can't be like looking around and making sure that things are all legal and things. That's just not not how I operate. It wouldn't wouldn't build the trust necessary. Um, so, you know, I'm here to support. I'm here to advise. I'm here to issue spot. You know, if I see something that that that um might need to be discussed a little bit more, I might bring it up. Um, but it's not my role to say like you can't do this. like that I might say I strongly advise against it, you know, but but I don't again, you know, I'm not here to direct anyone. I'm just here to support. I believe in the mission of the panel. I believe in civilian oversight of law enforcement. I believe in mission

[29:00] here. So, um I hope that um eventually uh you know or I hope we're on the way towards building that trusting relationship. >> Okay. So, you will proactively provide guidance and recommendations as well. >> Yes. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. If I feel like it's appropriate um that that that maybe something's going this way, I might step in and say, "Well, let's let's talk about, you know, code says." Um yes, I wouldn't be doing my job if I just sat back and let you guys do whatever you want. There's a kind of middle fiddle ground. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um I'm sorry. Just again in the in the spirits of being super clear that wouldn't put you ever in a position of overseeing the B >> right >> because I mean just that sounded like if I'm saying something then I will say something that I would tell my kid you know you're going to fall you're going to falling falling you know that that

[30:00] would put me in an oversight position right in this case and I guess that well you have been here since the banner had been formed. So there there there has been a lot of work done to get to this place where we are today and that's what we want to kind of care for. Uh, and this, as uh, Lisi said, which I think was perfectly said, like when this situation with the event happened and you showed up and no one knew, oh my gosh, we're here we are, so are we being supervised? And I think that's the line that I want to be super clear. And I think that's kind of the concern that Chico also was sharing in a way is we don't have um uh established in the ordinance that the city attorney will oversee or kind of be on the lookout of what the panel is doing, right? And um if there's an opportunity in which

[31:00] the panel needs advice, we will get it requested or not, right? like if there's something on the news or there's a report happening and here they're asking for the panel's opinion or the panel is in trouble which I think that's clear but I just want to be super clear in saying that there's no overseeing the panel from city attorney's office >> uh from a community gains that because >> from any perspective the the panel like We work as a board but we don't have the city attorney is not uh it doesn't have overseeing oversight authority over the panel and that's kind of the difference between the looking out and providing counsel or providing legal advice. If we request it, then of course it's your duty to provide us with legal uh advice, right? But it's not like I'm here and

[32:00] part of your daily duties is to take a look at what the panel is doing to see if they're they're in line, which will be kind of the overseeing piece of it, right? >> I I would I would say that, you know, it's my d my my role is to, you know, support and advise. I would not use the term oversee. I feel like that's too strong. That puts me in a position of like authority over the decision- making ability of the panel and um that's not not my role. >> Yeah. So, okay. Great. >> Last question. Okay. Quick. Why don't you >> um another clarification question or actually it's a request that if the question about the panel um is asked by someone outside of the panel that you consult with at least the co-chairs to

[33:02] have the side the perspective of the panel I may not be understanding the question. >> So I I'll go back to that event. So we were told by the acne that we couldn't have this um event because supposedly they had talked to uh people and so I would like that next time if you are consulted by the about as something that the panel is planning to engage in or an event or something like that that you consult the panel before the render an opinion. I I think it's important to to point out and and thank you for that question. Um that this panel has uh had multiple different attorneys in recent history. Aaron Poe was deputy city attorney who was involved with the panel for a very long time and then it became responsibility of Roberto Ramirez and

[34:00] then um reshuffleled job responsibilities at the city attorney's office and I said hey I want to um I would that sounds like a job responsibility that I would be interested in. Um so when I when I came on it just kind of coincided with the whole movie community event thing. I was not involved. I never said no. I never said but you can't have this movie. I was not never rendered a legal advice and said the panel cannot do this. I think it's coincidental. It's a coincidence that that thing happened at the same time that we reshuffleled job responsibilities at the city attorney's office. There are lots of people in the city who look at the code um and have to apply the code. But I was not involved in that. >> I did not I did not assume that. I that was not that was not what I was saying. I'm just it's just an ask like since now you're associated with the panel that um you make sure that you get the perspective of the panel before

[35:03] >> I will I I always strive to be as collaborative as humanly possible. >> All right, real quick. Yeah, I guess my I I haven't thor proposal, but um I'm curious about in the situations where the panel and the IPM may have different interpretations of the ordinance because I think there was a a conversation of like the content of the ordinance and the spirit of the ordinance and if you if if if the if you if IPM gets legal counsel from you that the ordinance is one particular way and the panel sees it a different way, then how is that um dispute Yeah, that's a that's a really good question, Curtis. It's it's a hard question. Um, I guess the way I would answer it is that the independent police monitor the panel should really be looking to the city attorney's office to render legal advice as to what the ordinance the code says and needs and really nobody no other entities because

[36:01] that introduces a lot of uncertainty and um can be really hard. Um so there shouldn't really be anybody giving should not be anybody other than me giving IPM panel legal advice and when I say me it's not like Chris Reynolds that you know we have a attorney's office 24ers um if I have a sticky issue you know I can seek the support of my colleagues I can seek the support of the used city attorney Keller Tate she's my boss um I do that right I don't I'm not just I'm island out there. I seek the advice by kind of like a we're a law firm essentially >> um in house. Um but yes, the city attorney's office should be the only entity that interprets ordinances and provides why you answer because you're talking about you know reasonable minds and disagree disagree about what roots mean.

[37:01] But my advice to the panel is um to look to the city attorney's office for what code means or what legal responsibilities are and really nowhere else. >> All right. >> Yes. >> Thank you and thank you Chris for being here. I know we we'll try to make up a little time but I think that was time well spent. Um, one last question actually. Just first, we do recognize you came into this situation at a weird time, like you kind of got dropped into this. I appreciate you calling that out. Um, just so we know because we've had a few different um, you know, attorneys assigned to us. What's your plan for like will you be joining meetings regularly? Should we sort of give you a heads up when we're looking for you to attend and get advice on something? How should that >> That's a That's another great question because the practice has differed. The current um current uh plan is for if uh

[38:03] I or a member of the city attorney's office be at all meetings like this. So um probably not other like committee meetings, probably not meetings with the chief um but all all panel meetings like this. You'll have an attorney present um absent weird circumstances. >> Cool. Great. Thank you. >> Great. Can I can I ask something? >> Okay. So, just Oh, go ahead, Chico. Go ahead. >> Yes. So Chris, ju just to be clear again because I'm I'm a bit uncomfortable with this setup is quite new and I've been doing this a while and my preference would be that when we have our closed door session meetings, you are not there. If we we run into a legal hole that we

[39:02] need to consult you, then we can call on you. But sitting in on our deliberations, closed session deliberations, I'm very uncomfortable. This is a public meeting, so this is a really close session. >> You guys go to sessions during >> Yeah. Um, I I appreciate that, Chico. I I understand. I think that that perhaps goes back to some trust building that needs to occur. Um, it would be unusual for the city attorney's office to be cut out of any business of the city, which this is business of the city. >> But we've never had you sit or you or someone else sit in our meetings like this, public meetings. So, why would that start? >> Yeah. Can Can I go sometimes?

[40:00] She came. >> He came sometimes, but not only Eric's always in attendance when she was aside. It seemed to be personal preference. >> Um, okay. Would that count as myself as well since I'm not texting attorney or part of BD? because I've always attended all trainings and I think let's maybe we're getting short on time to kind of hash out some of these issues. So, I really appreciate you raising that concern, Chico, on that. Uh perhaps we can return to it. Um I think we might have some different opinions on the panel on that if we could talk it through at some point, but um is everyone okay returning to that perhaps next month? Uh all right last thoughts I'll go to the okay uh with that we will go to the IPM

[41:01] report >> I think there is one agenda item yeah the five year final anniversary event but I think that was kicked to the remediation >> uh bill do you have yeah we did need to cover that but we are really short on time. Do you want to do a quick something and we'll talk more in the next >> let's just throw out the fiveyear anniversaries coming up of the panel shouldn't plan something. So that's about all we have left >> put it on our agenda for our next month's meeting and have a deep session. >> Okay. And that'll be February next year. Is that right? Or when >> February would be when the the panels officially Yeah. our official fiveyear end. >> Okay, so we have a little time to plan, but that goes fast. >> Okay, cool. So consider ideas, be ready to discuss.

[42:00] >> Yeah, I might send questions. >> There you go. >> I've all right. Now we will go to charity for the cam report. >> All right. Uh the September 2025 independent police monitors report. um providing some of the case file review data from August of 2025. The panel uh completed one full case review. We are waiting on zero cases from PD and there currently are 11 cases

[43:04] that the panel uh is expected to review. One of them is scheduled for uh later this week. And I just heard from PSU today that there's another one expected pretty soon. Uh MI2024-065. The complainant alleged that she was racially profiled and followed while grocery shopping by officer one who was working security. She reported that she saw him watching and followed her across several aisles while she shopped and placed items in the bottom of her baby stroller. Allegations against officer one. Rule one, clients with values, rules, and general orders. General order 101, unbiased policing, racially profiled complainant. Uh the panel recommended uh the

[44:00] disposition of not sustained with a recommendation for coaching. uh the department determined that the allegation would also be not sustained. Uh for the rule four respect for others followed complainant allegation panel also recommended that the disposition is not sustained with a coaching recommendation and the department determined that the allegation was not sustained. The panel members also commented on the lack of timeliness of the investigation, the quality of the interview of officer 1, and the lack of a timely request for third-party video footage. The panel recommended that officer one received training on bias, ideally focused on bias as it relates to working security in stores. AB, is your hand up? Did you have a question now?

[45:01] >> Yeah, I just had a a statement about that. Is that okay? >> Is this the right time for statements or usually that happens at the end? Um, >> okay, no problem. I'll wait. >> Okay. Um, the chief's response was, "I'm aware that the grocery store has a policy that police need a court order to get copies of their video surveillance, and that would not have been appropriate in this case. The timeliness of this case is an issue, but that would not have made a difference regarding the video as a court order would still be needed, and we don't have standing to get one in this case. One current issue we are dealing with and I'm in contact with city manager about is the rising number of complaints mostly not substantiated coming into PSU many from the same complaintants. This is resulting in longer wait times for investigations. We are cognizant of timeliness and working on improving systems and policies to assist in finishing cases faster. The PSU sergeant who investigated this matter has left BPD and thus there is no

[46:01] opportunity to address the timeliness of this case with him. I'm not sure what this is referring to as there is no indication that the officer acted with bias in this case other than the complainant's allegation which was not sustained. The investigation revealed nothing about the officer being biased and I am not directing coaching on something that we have no proof occurred. In general, BPD officers received training on bias and working offduty at a grocery store would be covered under that prior training. Absent any indication that officer one engaged in biased behavior or even culturally insensitive behavior, there is nothing uncovered in this case that necessitates coaching. Uh MI2024-076. Officer 1 responded to the skate park area under the library due to a complaint that people and their belongings made it unusable for skateboarding. Upon his arrival, officer 1 inaccurately informed people that they

[47:00] were trespassing. A man challenged officer one verbally and then grabbed for the officer flashlight and or armed. Officer one initiated the takedown of the man. During the ensuing struggle, officer 1's body worn camera dislodged. Additional officers responded and were able to handcuff the man who was arrested for secondderee assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer. Witnesses and the man complained that officer one used excessive force on the man. Allegations. Officer one, rule six, use of force, kneelled on andor used hands on the throat of the man. The panel recommended that that allegation be either not sustained or unfounded and the department determined that it was an unfounded allegation. Uh, rule five, police authority and public trust falsely arrested the man. The panel recommended that the allegation be unfounded and the department agreed. Rule five, police authority and public trust inform the man and or others that they were trespassing. Uh the panel

[48:00] recommended that this allegation be sustained and recommended supervisory counseling. The department determined that this allegation was not sustained. Um still for officer one, rule one compliance with values, rules, and general orders. General Order 200 discretion arrest standards and enforcement action failed to provide name and/or business card. Panel recommended this this allegation be sustained with supervisory counseling. The department determined that this was an exonerated allegation. Um rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 240 incar cameras, bodywn cameras and personal recording devices deliberately removed his bodywn camera. The panel recommended that this allegation be unfounded and the department agreed. Uh there's an single allegation for commander one rule one compliance with valid rules and general orders. General order 120 professional standards unit and supervisor investigations did not

[49:02] document complaints about this incident in accordance with general order 120-4. The panel recommended that this allegation is sustained supervisory counseling and the department determined that this allegation would be not sustained with coaching. Uh the panel members who reviewed this case were disappointed with the conduct of BPD from start to finish. They observed that even after the scene was controlled, BPD members clearly engaged with an us versus them mentality demonstrated by officers not engaging in a relational way, not admitting fault or apologizing for officer 1's initial misstatement about trespassing, not providing business names or not providing names or business cards, and not taking the complaints and concerns of the bystanders seriously. For nearly 20 minutes, the man and other bystanders repeated questions to the Boulder Police Department members about the trespassing issue, and none of the many officers engaged with them or answered these

[50:00] questions. Panel members questioned the department's overall attitude towards the unhoused community. They wondered whether BPD members viewed unhoused community members as people who deserve consideration, care, and service were only a problem to be managed. They further questioned whether BPD leadership extends their expectations of respect and customer service towards community members who are unhoused or in crisis. In future incidents, the panel recommends assigning one BPD member to engage with community members to explain and answer questions and provide names and business cards. The panel reiterated their desire to meet with members of the hot team and to learn the proactive measures the hot team takes. The panel recommends BPD leadership review the hours and availability of hot team members to ensure that they most efficiently align with ser calls for service involving Boulder's unhoused community members. The panel also questioned the conversation between the sergeant who spoke with the man at the hospital.

[51:00] They recommend that sergeants better explain why they are only focusing on the use of force aspect and understand that after being subject to use of force, hospitalized person in police custody is likely to initially be uncooperative. Panel members urged sergeants to listen and ensure that the person feels heard instead of rushing the conversation. Uh BPD Chief Redern's response was I took note of multiple recommendations, opinions, and assertions from the panel in this case in addition to their recommendations for just MI2025-00005 has been closed. MI2025-023. Officers one and two were dispatched to assist an ambulance because a family member was interfering. On arrival, officers approached the ambulance where an EMT instructed complainant to not enter the ambulance. Complainant began to step up into the ambulance and

[52:00] officers reached to grab her arms. Officer 2 secured her arm and complainant resisted by flinging her arm and contacting officer 1's chest area. The officers each held her by one arm and officer one engaged with her in Spanish. Officers advised that they could arrest complainant but chose not to. The incident ended with complainant's son riding in the ambulance with her husband. The monitor recommended that the case be exonerated in accordance with general order 120. Uh, officer one, rule six, use of force, grabbed complaintant panel recommended that this allegation be exonerated and the department officer one rule one compliance with values rules and general orders general order 101 unbiased policing discriminated against complainant. Panel recommended that this allegation be sustained with supervisory counseling and the department determined that it should be unfounded. Officer two, rule six, use of force, grab complaintant. Again, the panel

[53:01] recommended exonerated and heart agreed. And regarding the general order 101, unbiased policing allegation for officer 2 discriminated against the complainant, the panel remended that the allegation be sustained with supervisory counseling and the department determined that this was an unfounded allegation. The panel found that neither officer showed appropriate sensitivity to the complainant's distress over her husband's health. They emphasized that police interactions can be especially stressful for immigrants, potentially triggering fears of deportation, and called for greater awareness, patience, and trauma-informed approaches from officers. A key concern was the officer's decision to ask the minor daughter if her mother had been drinking, which was seen as inappropriate and disrespectful. If intoxication was a concern, it should have been addressed directly and discreetly with the complainant. The officer's conversation about a potential complaint came across as dismissive, undermining the seriousness of the

[54:00] community concerns. Additionally, the PSU sergeant's phone call was f was viewed as further disrespectful with the panel noting that BPD appeared to prioritize the rule six allegation over the complainant's discrimination claim. telling her the outcome was already exaggerated, suggested that further dialogue or litigation was feudal. Uh, Chief Redern's response, which I have significantly condensed. And due to the nature of the panel review in this case, especially the allegations that the officers engaged in discriminatory behavior when the available evidence showed the contrary, I consulted with the city manager and city attorney and shared this case with them. I requested that due to the serious nature of the allegations and potential impact on these officers careers, we contract with an outside entity to perform an independent review of this case. They agreed uh the 21st Century Policing Solutions 21CP review and recommendations. This independent review of the April

[55:00] 2025 incident involving Boulder Police officers finds that the officer's actions were necessary, reasonable, proportionate, and compliant with Boulder Police Department policy, Halia accreditation standards, and the principles of 21st century policing. The officers employed only minimal force and escorting technique defined as light or moderate pressure to guide or hold a person after the complainant physically resisted and swung her fist toward one officer. No higher levels of force were used and the situation was deescalated within minutes without injury, arrest or escalation. Um, one, actions taken were consistent with BPD policy and nationally accepted policing practices. Two, the minimal level of force used effectively resolved the situation. Three, no evidence of bias or discrimination discriminatory behavior. And four, body warn footage supported the officers and AMR staff. No corrective action is needed. The incident demonstrates appropriate application of policy and proportional

[56:00] response. Training note, consider reinforcing cultural awareness for translators, specifically on the use of formal versus informal pronouns in Spanish. Policy suggestion when investigative records include non-English content require official translation into English for completion. The review found no evidence of bias or discriminatory intent. While the complaintant expressed concern over the use of informal Spanish pronouns, the investigation determined that this did not amount to a violation of the unbiased policing general order. The language used was not hostile hostile and the officer's tone throughout the encounter was calm and measured. BPD training standards which include ABLE certification, crisis intervention team instruction, the critical decision-making model, and Perf's IAP program were reflected in the officer's adherence to deescalation principles, cultural awareness, and proportional response. In some, the evidence supports that the officers acted within the limits of BPD policy, their training,

[57:00] and nationally accepted policing practices. The minimal use of force effectively resolved situation without unnecessary harm and body warn camera evidence corroborated the officer's accounts. No further corrective action is recommended. MI2025-037 is closed. There remain um three cases that are opened but uh were classified in 2024. Um, SM2024-00003 is in chain of command review. Um, as you just heard, MI202465 is closed as MI2024-76 is closed. Uh, and we're scheduled to review MI2024-078 this week and MI2024-082 is in chain of command review. In the month of August, uh the monitor classified 14 cases. Five of those were

[58:00] misconduct. One was a community inquiry. Uh four were community feedbacks. Three were unspecified incidents. Um none were were u classified as conflict facilitation process. I observed one interview. There were zero critical incident scene responses. I deemed one case thorough and complete and BPD closed five cases. As of uh September 5th, there were 43 cases that were on the monitor panel docket. 25 of those cases are classified, 11 were pending monitored classification and 17 were in Psu preliminary investigation. Um, in August, some of the events, activities, and trainings that I was involved with involved, um, participating in the center for people with disabilities, help make Boulder more accessible forum, um, volunteering at the governmental contract opportunities expo at CU, uh,

[59:01] conversation with Nuropa University Dean of Students, uh, attendance at Boulder Together Homelessness Policy Roundt, also bridging the divide, hosting crucial conversations between diverse communities and law enforcement training. uh community civic dialogue with the Boulder District Attorney, community connectors and residents and the police oversight panel gathering, the uh public safety and criminal justice reform committee for the 10th district um city council campum and I was able to um speak about our concern about the sealed records and how that impacts police oversight um with Colorado Senator Judy Amab um city of Boulder's new intergovernmental affairs officer and uh Juny Joseph's chief of staff questions. I know AB had one that she's been waiting for.

[60:03] >> No, it it's okay. I'm good. >> Oh, okay. I have a question for Chris. Um So here here's what we have been talking about, right? Um and so in the case MI 2025023 which uh is the one that the chief took the case to the city manager and to see attorney. Um and right there is uh engagement of another uh independent entity revising that case or or going over deeply going over or something like that. Right? So my question is in in

[61:00] this particular case where where we see all all these factors right like I understand that what we saw was not clearly stated in in our you know the part that you the discuss the discussion that we had when we were reviewing that case. So it's not everything structured there and in this case there was no opportunity. So there was opportunity for everyone to go over it again. There was no opportunity to hear what we saw that didn't make sense and why we did those recommendations. And I think, you know, kind of I I here's where I see some conflict because I understand the importance of the officer's career and why the chief made that decision and I also understand the importance of this panel and the things that we bring

[62:03] to to inform the way that the recommendations that you know the group of people provides. ask. So, how do we go about this? Or is there any because at the end of the day, the city attorney, it it's your duties to the city, right? And and and it it's hard for me to to to reconcile those things. >> Well, this is part of the city, too. >> Yes. and we had different visions and everyone got a second chance to go and say hey this is can you look at this again we didn't we didn't have a chance to say okay let me explain let me let me tell you what we saw and let me tell you why the whole panel that the whole panel that reviewed that case agreed that the the cultural incompetence was evident and

[63:00] and again I think so so how do this type of thing or is that something that it you know you had your chance you review the case you you had your opportunity to say what you thought and that's it >> I think that perhaps and you know Sherry feel free to chime in but um you know the panel does have regular meetings with the chief you know so this might be an opportunity >> um you know to to talk about that at one of those meetings >> I think we'd have to go to a close session for individual cases >> right No, I mean we have to be careful. >> Yeah, we couldn't do specific information to identify folks. >> Yeah. No, I see. >> Yeah, >> I see. >> But I mean the ordinance does contemplate that there would be disagreements between the chief of police and the panel when it comes to case outcomes. >> Yes. >> But I think your question is if if he ceased outside counsel, why didn't that outside counsel come back and talk to

[64:00] us? >> Yes. Well, >> it's he he saw a independent review of the case, not outside like legal counsel, >> right? >> So, could we >> still >> get an independent review of the case, >> you know, >> probably not? Yeah. >> Yeah. So, and and and also I I feel like Well, anyway, I I I see your point. This is definitely something to talk about with the chief because of there there's a >> deep lack of curiosity before engaging some something else if you share more with me. Right. Um yeah. Okay. Has his hand up too. >> Oh, sure. So again this this this is where the system was designed that we are all independent and each each entity does their job. So if we get to a situation

[65:00] like this in the past we've actually gone ahead and said we don't agree with the chief's resolution. We've we've even issued out a policy statement or some press release or something like that to say we don't agree with what was was decided. So we have the power to disagree with what the chief has said questions. So I was just going to point out too that these are condensed remarks if there's um a larger response and more thorough that the chief gave that's in the material. So I'm not sure you I mean I don't think it addresses all of your concern. I don't think it addresses your concerns but it is a more thorough response of um him

[66:03] engaging with what went on. If that's of interest to you, like I think that before the conversation with him comes up, it would if that's something we all feel is important to extend conversation on this case further, I would say we should have all read the larger and longer. >> Thank you. >> Okay, did you want to go next? Um, yeah, it's kind of an um I'm really concerned about and and that is probably something that will bring back to the chief at some point, but I'm really concerned about the response and the lack of awareness and what the panel thoughtfully uh every single time we have something like that, the panel, whoever the people are working on it really thoughtfully write recommendations, especially around biases because we know that um that it is not

[67:05] something a perspective like that's always what do I want to say police officers come from voicing and we come from community and so the perspective of the community is often rejected by or not often but has been rejected in the past when he was very thoughtfully uh verbalized um by our uh panelists and and um and I'm a little concerned that it's so a lack of curiosity. What do you see? Um and and uh and a desire to learn and to be better. So, I'm concerned about that and I would like to um

[68:00] yes, I would like to have whoever the other panelists who worked on this case to be able to respond to be able to before it's uh that's it and we're not considering your perspective because I I'm really concerned about that. Not sure if I feel like I'm not explaining that very well, but um with biases, I think we this this body of oversight should listen to the panelist um a lot more like PSU um IPF um battalists with because we're a very diverse group should be listened and curiosity It should be the first um the first step when we disagree. >> Um I have one question.

[69:02] Did I hear so in the beginning when you were going over the pipeline we have 12 cases that are ready for panel review and waiting for panel review? >> Yeah. panel voted for. There's one case that's scheduled this week and a PSU sergeant reached out to me today to ask who was assigned to a case which is usually what happens right before a case gets >> okay >> the 12 case what was the status of the 12 cases then >> just cases that the panel has voted to take >> that are still with PSU >> or in chain of command or somewhere in >> you had said they were done with ESU okay so there's only one case waiting to be scheduled >> one case is scheduled and one case I expect to receive it the next day or so. Okay. >> And that's scheduled. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> We we've seen that. I is it me or it seems like recently there's been like a drop in cases.

[70:00] Like we don't see as many cases as we used to. >> Um I think it just goes sort of in es and flows of taking lots of statements there. they have a lot of cases in preliminary investigation and that's where they've been focusing. So yeah, could we maybe look at data about the number of complaints and the number of cases that we received? Um I just can that's I would like to see a comparison of the number like over year to year or something like that of the number of cases the number of complaints and the number of cases reviewed by this panel. >> Yeah that that is going to be really challenging just because of there have been new classifications like unspecified incident wasn't a classification in 2023. So there's a there's going to be some challenges with like apples to apples comparison and like a previous monitor classified a lot

[71:01] of cases as community inquiries that probably should not have been classified that way. Um, so there's just it's very easy to track the misconduct or serious misconduct year to year to year, but then those those others are just not not the same every year because we've added some classifications and in we have the number of complaints that we receive and the number of complaints that go to the panel, right? >> Yeah, that I'm saying is easy to track. Um, but that's that's only a part of what PSU and myself do. Um, like in January of 2024, if you remember, like I had found out that um PSU had some cases that they weren't putting in the system. So they they agreed that starting in 2024, all complaints that they receive, even if they're very minimal, would go into

[72:00] the into the system and track. So before that, some of those cases just withered because it was an anonymous complaint or something like that. So, I'm just saying that the >> because they're getting better about tracking and categorizing, it's harder to look backwards and see where I just would like to see a little bit of those numbers um because it seems like we're not getting as many cases as we used to. And it might just be that nobody's complaining and it might be that complaints are fed quite differently. I would like to know that. I have noticed the same a bit. It has felt and it may just be what I've signed up for, but it I I have done fewer reviews lately. So, I would be curious if we could try to figure out is it is it a workflow issue? Is it we are getting fewer complaints, which could be a good thing, or it could be that people aren't coming to us, right? It's hard to kind of diagnose,

[73:00] but I would be curious to see if that's actually what we're seeing or if it's just an impression. I'm not sure exactly what now I feel like I'm not sure exactly >> I guess like how many panel reviews were completed in the last month and is that the same as the pace we've been on >> that's always been variable since I've been here there are months since I've been here where we've had like five and then months in a row where there's been zero >> so that like it sure >> my experience has been it it feels like >> we've been on a trend a slowing trend and I'm curious to explore if that is real or just maybe we're at an ab and it's perceived but >> we are definitely at a lower point of getting taste reviews from PSU. >> Okay. >> So, I mean I can try looking into that but it's been >> just quite variable since I've been here. >> Do you think we'll probably have a burst coming through maybe as they catch up or

[74:00] >> I hope so. >> Yeah. Okay. I I've signed up like every time I have case reviews I always signed up for at least one often two or three. >> Yeah. >> And and I reviewed one case in the last few months and so that concerning to me because >> I think part of it could also be like what you guys vote on too because it seems like some people vote to take every case but like some of these meetings like a lot of the cases that get voted on don't get voted for calendar review. >> Yeah. I still get I still take cases on >> people take cases but like if there's like sometimes there'll be like 10 cases that represents and then like two cases get voted on for the review. >> So I think that that's from a that's my perspect my observation. Yeah. >> Seems like not not as many cases are being voted by panel. >> Yeah. I would guess if I would look back

[75:00] through my reports that that first one of the first pages of my reports every month where it says cases for pan awaiting panel review that that is between 8 and 13. So >> that's what I was blacking out earlier cases awaiting panel review that just means anywhere in this in the timeline from hey the panel has voted to review to panel has reviewed. That's not It doesn't literally mean it's ready for panel review. >> Right. >> Right. But that that number like I said it usually I think if we look back it would be between eight and 13. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh any other thoughts, questions? Okay. All right. We are behind. Um perhaps we could go to sleep on me. Is it is it public comment next? >> No, we have uh panel updates, guest speakers, right along reminder of

[76:01] training should >> Oh, >> I think we should doing public comment. Anyone object to public comment? No. Okay, great. >> We only have one, >> but it's deemed public com. >> All right. So um apologies Victor to that we are going to public comment so late but we really appreciate you being here. Um we are going to unmute you in just a moment. You know the drill. Uh do we have a timer? I think right bear with us for one moment while we get set up. All right. Uh, Victor, we're gonna unmute you. You have two minutes to share whatever you'd like with the

[77:00] panel. >> You're now free to unmute. >> Uh, so I'm going to ask the co-chairs for my extra time. So, you can just strike that two minutes. Are you going to grant me my extra time? Um, that's a yes. like if you'd like three minutes, we're happy to do that. >> Okay. Um there are two security officers in Whole Foods. So you have the offduty person and then the store has their own security officer. So I'd be curious to just circle back to that. Um I just noticing I haven't been to a meeting in a while, but it seems like um just like a dangerous trend for the chief to be so involved. Um, you know, I wonder what Alistar would say to some of these things cuz he always had sort of a different perspective. Um, but what Chico said is 100%. So to the panel members there, you know, don't lie on your backs and take this, right? Like be curious and

[78:02] say, I wonder what I'm missing here. I wonder if I should speak up about these things. um for the chief to go to an outside agency. Have you looked up 21 C 21 CP? Anyone raise their hand if they know anything about 21 CP? They have seven former chief of police on their advisors, right? It's like me going to I don't know going to that advisory board. It's not an outside commission. They are so tied in with law enforcement. It it's like the who's who of of law enforcement, right? So to say I'm going to go to 21 CP and get an outside opinion. That's not an outside opinion, ladies and gentlemen. That's direct from the source, right? Um they have seven former chiefs of police on their advisors and other things as well. So of course they would collaborate with whatever uh be said. So that's just suspicious. That's just kind of suspicious right there.

[79:02] Sure, there are careers that line, but nothing was sustained. It's just an allegation, right? So what's so what's to be scared about of an allegation that's never going to meet come to the public light anyway? It's not going to be on the record if some panel member says that. So I just don't understand why why so defensive if it's just something that we're talking about as a you know a casual discussion. And again, the dangerous trend is why would you want to undermine the panel, right? We're here giving our opinion. your citizen volunteers and does a city council know about this? Does the public who has your confidence does do they know about this? Does the community know about this? Would they feel the same way if they knew this information was happening? Um, but also to Chico's point, you know, about a statement just to draw some light on that. And I know it's been a while since

[80:00] there's been drama on the panel and it's nice to be just like, oh, it's all peaceful and cozy, but it's not supposed to be peaceful and cozy, right? So, if you don't get uncomfortable, change isn't going to happen. So, you might have to get uncomfortable in those seats. You might have to do some things that you may not want to do, but that's why you're appointed in these seats to speak up when you see things that you think maybe I don't know if this should be happening or not. So, I'm just challenging you to think about this in a different way and and dig a little bit deeper on that. Um because this wasn't happening before. So that's all I got to say and good to see everyone. >> We really appreciate that, Victor. Thank you for being here and thank you for your comments. Um, does anyone want to respond or add to that?

[81:02] >> I second what Victor said. >> Yeah. Thank you, Victor. Thanks for being here. >> Okay. Thank you. You have a good night. >> All right. Um, with that we could take a brief break. Do you guys want to do is it usually 10 minutes? I never remember. >> Five minutes. Five. >> Five minutes. Back at eight. >> Yeah. >> We'll get started and through the rest of this. >> Okay. >> Um, okay. Welcome back everyone after very welld deserved uh eight minute break. Um okay so we next in our agenda we have a panel updates uh the ride along reminder I guess that's yours. >> Yeah I just I know that a lot of people last year got their ride alongs in sort of at the last minute. Uh, so people's ride alongs are expiring if they haven't

[82:01] had them done. And I think only like four people have provided information about their ride alongs on the >> just about on the on the the place that Selena has put in. So I've been including that in the weekly meetings. So please look through your information because I don't want a situation where you know come October people haven't proven that they did a ride along the last 12 months. Mhm. So, if you need help, we can probably, you know, with Bethon's help or something, figure out when people did their ride along, but please look through your your emails, your calendars, and let's let's get that established. And then, of course, whenever you do do a ride along, make sure that it is noted or email me and the co-chairs so that we have record of it. Just to add to that, uh, I emailed Bethany and they they were very busy with ride alongs because of school studying and because new stuff. So politely invited me to wait until later

[83:01] in September. Oh, okay. So if people have been trying to schedule like myself to be a little bit thank you because they are Yeah, there they are. super I'm reaching out again but clearly stated that September was easier so and we're in September now and we're in September now so yeah >> but if we've done a ride while >> okay you are one of the people who is good it's more of the the more established panel members a lot of them did their ride alongs last year and I think September or October so they're expiring >> so like you say they're expiring like I did mine in August Just I'll have until the date next year I did mine to do it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You're good. And you're >> I'm schedu legal training.

[84:01] >> Um based on feedback from the uh survey, October 6th is the date for legal training. So that I sent out a calendar invite for everyone. Um, and so it's on your calendar. Please make sure that your schedules are clear for that. And the co-chairs have agreed to help uh create or play some role in that that legal training. So the four of us should get together scheduling and meet up. >> See quick. Okay. Excellent. Uh so we did public comment and then uh we're going to go to close session so we'll should be back in about two minutes for close session. Oh >> yeah session noted and we're ready to go to close session. >> We have to vote. I'm rushing through this. I have 20 minutes to vote. Everyone vote. Vote to the

[85:01] >> Thanks. Good. And we can now go to close, please. Okay. I think we are Okay, we're back. Chico, can you hear? Okay, good. Um, and maybe a reminder if if you could could turn off your turn your camera on just for voting, please. Why? >> Oh, just so people can see that it's it is you voting. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. Um, so we're back to uh case review voting and we're going to start with um SM 2025003 uh officer one rule one compliance with uh values and rules and general orders.

[86:00] Rule two, conformance with law rule eight conduct. Um, and that would be it. Do you want to Are you doing vocal? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um, Curtis >> voting for the case. >> Which which 003? >> No. >> Uh, Chico. >> Yes. >> Um, Bill. >> Yes. Allan, >> no. >> AB, >> no. >> Um, Turner, >> no. >> Solidad. >> Yes. >> Viva, >> yes. >> Lizzy, >> Kristen, >> no. >> Okay. um

[87:00] SM 2025004 former officer role 8 uh conduct. >> Um Curtis, >> can I ask some clarifying questions? >> Didn't guess. >> Uh Chica, >> no. >> Uh Bill, >> no. >> Alan, >> no. AB >> no >> no >> yes >> yes >> Lizzy no >> Kristen so both of those were no Y Okay. Okay. uh MI 2025

[88:00] 038 officer one rule six use of force rule five policy authority and public trust rule five um another rule five and a third rule five sergeant one rule five policy authority police authority I'm sorry and public trust um okay ready to vote Curtis >> yes >> Chico Yes, >> Bill. >> Yes, >> Alan. >> Yes, >> Ed. >> Yes, >> Turner. >> Yes, >> Solidad. >> Yes, >> Van. Yes, >> Lizzy. >> Yes, >> Kristen. >> Yes. Okay. M25039. Um, officer one, right? One, compliance with val rules and general orders. Officer two one uh compliance with

[89:01] various rules and general orders. Is that it? Uh, Curtis Chico, >> yes. >> Bill, >> Alan, who? >> Yeah. >> Turner, >> yes. Solidad. >> Yes. >> Milan, >> yes. >> Lizzy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Okay. MI 2025 040 allegations and uh unknown officer. Rule one, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. Rule four, respect for others. >> Curtis. >> Chico. >> Yes. Bill, >> no. >> Alan, >> no. >> AB, >> no.

[90:01] >> Turner, >> no. >> Solidad. >> Uh, yes. >> Oh, yeah. >> Lizzy, >> yes. Kristen, I have no idea what that was. >> Oh, I just I wasn't paying attention to Oh, I think it's a >> Yeah, it's a um Okay, so those uh are the cases and the rest are community feedback. We have two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. We technically need to vote on 41 and 42. >> Um or >> I don't think so. We don't go through the process of voting. >> We haven't vote on

[91:00] you voted to take it. You wouldn't be able to see it. >> Yeah. Okay. It's just they're on here. I was showing pass. >> Oh yeah. I >> Okay. Should we at least say that we have two cases that we >> Oh, you're right. >> Uhhuh. >> I don't think just announced. >> Okay. So, just you know to to leave it on record that we have three cases uh MI 2025, 037, 041, and 042. and the three of them are unavailable um for the panel of review because of um compliance with state law as the cases are sealed. So getting that on the record, >> I also want to put on the record that we have more and more community feedback and inquiries that are in classified that we cannot look at. And I just want to say that some of them warrant um the

[92:03] channel to look at them at least or have the choice to uh review them and because their community feedbacks cannot we cannot and uh I I'm assuming Sherry that you don't want to consider reclassifying and and reclassifying some cases. Um so I just want to make a a note that we are getting more and more of those and that's a concern for me. We've seen um some potential biases and some of them that were classified that we didn't get to look at especially around our house community. So um I'm concerned about that. I just want to put that on the record. >> Thank you. Yeah. And can you can you refer to what you mentioned before in terms of um cases that when the complainant is

[93:02] called? >> Yeah. Especially I'm thinking of particularly a case where the a female complainant uh filed a complaint and when uh the police standard unit called and it was a police officer calling her um she said she didn't want to make a case anymore. To me, that's a red flag and it's it's very understandable that um some community members from certain communities are, you know, potentially uh um what what's the word? Um don't have, you know, necessarily good good relationship with police. Um will not want will feel intimidated. um they're called by a police officer and will resend their complaint and that in and of itself should be a red flag for us to look at the case or at least have the choice to take it.

[94:04] Thank you. Um okay, now we have to assign the cases that we just selected. That is true. Okay, that's your J. That's me. Okay. So, I only have two of the on my right 38 and 39. So, volunteers to review MI 2025 038. Busy, Chico, AB, Curtis, Kristen, and Milan. >> I I'll step you'll do. Okay. Yes. Uh, okay. MI2025039 volunteers turner visit. I want to see

[95:02] that. So, and one, two, three, four. What? Uh, well, we'll we'll have to figure out who's going to be on that. Uh, so it's Milan, Lizzy, myself, and Turner will have to shadow the first case with Is that >> You can hopefully shadow. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But I I can't do this one, too. >> My understanding is that the two of you are not supposed to mirror the same. >> Why? >> Because of your relationship. >> We don't have a relationship. You talk about Okay. >> Okay. And I'm sorry. What What's that about? because they know each other. Um that's what was that's what was shared with me and I thought I shared >> not review cases with so >> I know so should I not review cases with so >> we can talk about it I think it would be

[96:00] better to talk about it outside of this meeting >> we have a council here >> need the facts >> yes are you guys comfortable talking about this I don't would you prefer to talk about this another time >> sometimes Sometimes when there's like a conflict of interest question, a group setting is not the best. >> I That's why I was suggesting we talk about it at a different time. >> And I'm so curious about what's going on right now. >> So I want to be part of whatever you're talking about another time because I want to know. >> So do I. [Laughter] >> So serious. >> Excuse me. I'm gonna close sessions. >> Is there Chris? Is this something that it should go to close session? Can we go to a close session to talk about this? >> Why are we talking in private about it? >> Well, it's a public meeting right now. >> Yeah, we're we're in a public meeting. We don't know what's what's issue is.

[97:01] We're trying to decide what the appropriate >> very customary for conflict of interest questions not to be discussed in a in a group setting. at least the initial legal advice part of it. >> Okay. And who and and and who are you again? I'm so sorry. >> It's hard because I'm not there and I'm just seeing I'm the the screen is so small. >> That's okay. I'm Chris Reynolds. I'm an attorney with the Boulder City Attorney's Office. I'm your lawyer for the panel. >> So Oh, so you just pipe in and tell us stuff. Do we can we ask you for thoughts or do you I'm I'm just curious. Yes. Yes. Always. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, are we What do we want to do here? Do we want to go private for a second and chat about this so we're all clear? >> Does that seem c what we want to do? >> I would rather this not be discussed in a group set.

[98:00] >> This is not a group conversation. Why don't we why don't we vote for the cases we want to be in assigned and then that can be worked out and changes can be made if necessary that >> sounds great. >> Okay, so we're back to 039 volunteers. Do we have that all? >> Yep. >> So did we pick So we didn't pick everyone. We only picked the four people. Did we miss some people who wanted to volunteer? >> Did Did everyone who volunteered like am I on this one or No. >> No. >> No. But do you want to be on it? >> Well, I thought I raised my hand to volunteer or was that for the other one? >> Let's do this for the other one. >> That was for the first one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I got confused. Do you >> want to read out who's volunteered for both cases and just make sure everyone's good and then >> I think we're good.

[99:00] Yeah, >> everyone that's signed. >> Okay. >> Okay. We need a motion to adjourn. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. So we are adjourning. Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you.