October 13, 2025 — Police Oversight Panel Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:05] Okay. Hello everyone and welcome uh to another version of the police oversight panel uh meeting. Um so first thing is we are going to call the M meeting to order. We're going to go through uh a few things. So um we want to welcome everyone in the public and uh press if they're joining. Uh welcome all panel members on today uh indigenous day. So just keeping that in mind as we do our land acknowledgement. Um uh thank you everyone for being here. Um, and we're going to remind folks that expectations to have camera on uh camera on at least um minimum when we're voting

[1:02] just for full transpar transparency with our community members. Uh we have the Q&A section um active. So Selena is going to help us keep an eye on Q&A and if uh possible we we can answer some of the questions. If not we will have um open comment uh public comment and a little after halfway through our meeting. Um again uh we want to set a reminder that uh complaints may be submitted and the panel can be contacted in our website bouldercol.gov/services/polum oversight or our panel email police panel at bouldercol.gov. Um again another reminder our meeting

[2:00] are posted in our website so you can go back and look at past meetings and this one should be up in a couple of days. Uh same with our agenda. So um to start we can do a roll call for assistance. Um Selena or Sherry. Sherry >> um do we do land acknowledgements? Uh, no. I was going to do the roll call and then I can go the other way around. >> Nope. I'll do roll call. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, Bill said he's not going to be here. Alan >> here. >> Uh, AB seems like she's not going to be here. Turner >> here. Uh, Solog >> here. >> Um, Milan informed us that she's not

[3:01] going to be here. Uh, Lizzie >> here. >> We don't see Kristen. Jason >> present. >> And hopefully Curtis will be here in a bit. >> Excellent. So um let's go ahead and read our land acknowledgements. We acknowledge that our Apaho and Chian tribes were the traditional custodians of the land on which the police oversight panel and Boulder Police Department operate and we pay our respects to the to their elders past and present. Um with a special consideration today that we commemorate um we commemorate and we reflect on the history and colonization and harm and hopefully we with our work we can honor

[4:05] those that were here before us. So, thank you everyone and I think we are ready to roll. So, I'm going to remind the panel of our community agreements. Um, you can refer to them in our website and uh the first order of business will be the approval of our agenda. If everyone was able to look at our agenda, Tico, >> can I add something to the agenda? >> Of course. So, I I want to propose that we add to this the five-year ordinance review as a discussion. >> Okay, adding that now in my notes. So, let me get to it. Um, Chico, are you okay if we

[5:00] add that in panel updates and ad hoc items? So, that will be right after the independ independent police monitor report. >> That that's fine. Anyway, as long as we have it. >> Okay, we're putting it there. Thank you so much. Um, with the addition then with of Chico's topic, can we get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight, please? >> To approve and a second. >> Seconded. >> Okay. Uh vote please to approve the agenda. Everyone in favor say hi. Raise your hand. Make yourself visible. >> I. >> Perfect. Thank you, Jason. Okay. Uh next on our agenda, approval of last um month minutes.

[6:09] motion to approve. >> Lizzy, >> I had there were some some details missing. I wasn't sure what the panel felt about requesting that those be added in or not. I don't want to speak for anyone else. Um, but I noticed the exchange we had at the end of the meeting was not included. Um, does anyone want to propose that that be added? If not, I'm good dropping it. >> Okay. Great. Um I will agree with you LC but we it would be good to have that added just >> okay >> um the exchange we were missing is the references to a potential conflict of

[7:01] interest in the discussion around that um if everyone is comfortable with that and good with that I think we should add it in >> yeah we need to vote on better. >> Yeah. So, we need a vote. We need a motion to add the change to the minutes. >> I'll make a motion to change I'll make a motion to make the addition to the minutes and approve them. >> I'll second that. >> Thanks, Alan. >> Okay. Can we vote on that, please? Everyone in favor of adding that against uh >> Jason abstains because I was not present so I couldn't >> Thank you Jason. Um okay so

[8:01] moving on was this we're going to fly through this agenda today. Okay, community outreach and engagement. We have uh two topics and because of the amount of time that we have allocated to our further discussion in in the next uh a little bit f further down the agenda, uh we're just going to name that we have the event planning document that Bill has kind of worked and put together and also we have a conversation pending in the 5-year panel anniversary event. So um we in conversation with um with Bill and Milan, we are inviting everyone to have that conversation at the community engagement committee meeting that is happening this this Thursday, next Thursday, some Thursday of this next couple of weeks. Um so knowing that if you have interest in uh talking about any of

[9:00] those two or being part of those two please um come to the meeting Sherry >> um it looks like oh yeah um it looks like the meeting is scheduled for uh November 6th. >> Okay, perfect. November 6th then. So um next we have the independent police monitor report. Um, I did want to just give a quick update for people to marinate on regarding I was able to uh attend an event at the Museum of Boulder, and I floated the idea >> um of possibly the the 5-year uh panel anniversary event um being held there as um like a a lecture series conversation. Um and um I was told that they thought that their membership would be interested in that. Um so I was not told no. Um so just that is a a possibility to explore but it was also shared that

[10:01] um even though like February and March might seem really far away given where we are in the year and the holidays, it's actually not that far away. So I just wanted to let people percolate on that. But certainly if um if people have other ideas um come to the community engagement meeting on November 6th um or just email them to to Bill um so that we can hopefully have several options to choose from. >> Perfect. Taking note of that. Um okay, now we report. Okay.

[11:05] Sorry that took a moment. Are people able to see just the screen right now? Okay, great. Okay. Okay. the October 2025 uh independent police monitors report. Okay, looking at our data for September 2025, the panel conducted one full case review in September. Um and that case review um is still going to be pending BPD disposition and cases awaiting panel review are nine cases that were closed with the Boulder Police Department in September um include MI2025-032.

[12:01] A mother expressed concerns that her son's interactions with BPD in the days leading up to and including his tragic overdose death overdose death in fall 20124. During conversation with BPD chief of police, she sought information about her son's passing. Mother did not file a formal complaint at that time. Following their conversation, BBD leadership conducted a review of the relevant incidents involving her son and provided coaching to the involved officers in February 2025. In April 2025, mothers submitted a formal complaint regarding those same interactions. Because corrective action had already been taken in response to the incidents prior to the filing of the complaint, the case has been closed. The file is currently being prepared for the police oversight panel to review the case to consider any potential policy or training recommendations. Um the allegations include against

[13:03] officer one rule one compliance with values rules and general orders general order 2011 report writing failed to create an RMS report to document BPD interaction with Sun on October 13, 2024. Um, rule two, conformance with laws CRS27-65-106 did not initiate an M1 hold for Sun. Rule two, conformance with laws CRS section 27-81-11 did not take Sun into protective custody. Rule four, respect for others, laughing and or joking about Sun. Rule four, respect for others laughing while CPR was being performed on son. All of those allegations are closed against um officer one. Allegations for officer 2. Rule two,

[14:00] conformance with laws CRS section 27-81 1-11 did not take son into protective custody. Officer three, rule two, conformance with laws CRS section 27-65-106 did not initiate an M1 hold for Sun. Officer 3, rule two, conformance with laws. Um, CRS section 27-81-11 did not take Sun into protective custody. Officer 3, rule four, respect for others, laughing at or joking about Sun. and officer four, rule four, respect for others, laughing while CPR was being performed on Sun. Um, those allegations against officers 2, three, and four have been closed. MI2025-034 complainants are neighbors with Officer 1 in a jurisdiction separate from Boulder, and they have been engaged in

[15:00] conflict. Complainants allege that officer 1 shoots off fireworks and taunts them. Complaintants described the taunting as officer one standing in his front door or yard and looking towards their home, sometimes laughing at them. The monitor initially referred this case to conflict facilitation process but complainants refused participation. Subsequently, officer one was granted permanent protection orders. Um complainant filed for protection orders against officer one and were denied by the courts. The allegations are rule one conformance with laws deployed fireworks CRS sections 12-28-101 and 12-28-102. I recommended that that allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. Um and rule four, respect for others, harassed and or taunted neighbors. Um,

[16:00] the monitor recommended that that be unfounded and the department agreed. MI2025-036, Officer 1 conducted a traffic stop and informed driver he failed to stop at a stop sign. Complainant was in the passenger seat of vehicle. Officer 1 learned that driver was the subject of an order of protection that protected a woman and her children. Sergeant one stopped to assist and obtained the names of complainant and the juvenile passengers. Officer one confirmed that they were not protected parties and issued a driver issued driver a traffic summon. Officer one provided her business card to complainant. Allegations against officer one. Rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 200 discretion arrest standards and enforcement actions. Did not provide her name or badge number. I recommended that this allegation be unfounded and the department uh determined that was also infounded in accordance with

[17:01] general order 120. Um another allegation is rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 303 traffic enforcement did not explain the reason for the stop. I recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. and rule one, compliance with values rules and general orders, general order 100, unbiased policing, racially profiled the vehicle occupants. I recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. MI2025-040 PSU received an anonymous online complaint from a bicyclist who reported that a BPD vehicle almost struck him as it turned into an alleyway. The bicyclist reported that they fell or swerved and sustained scrapes on their ankle. Reportedly, the BPD officers responded sarcastically after the near

[18:00] collision. The location and time provided in the online report did not match the GPS of any BPD vehicle. Additional investigative steps also could not determine the identity of the vehicle occupants. So the allegation against unknown officer rule one compliance with values rules and general orders CRS section 42-4-1402 careless driving drove in a manner that caused a near collision with complainant. I recommended that this allegation be closed as employee unidentified in accordance with the general order 120 and the department agreed. And also rule four, respect for others failed to show care and were engaged sarcastically with complainant. I also recommended that that be closed employee un unidentified and the department agreed. Um, MI2025-042, officers one and two and Sergeant One were dispatched to an RTD station to

[19:01] remove complainant who refused instructions to leave given by RTD staff and security. Upon arrival to the trespassing and progress call, BPD members were advised that complainant had been following, harassing, and videotaping RTD employees. RTD employees confirmed that they wanted complainant removed from the premises. complainant refused multiple requests by BPD members to leave or potentially receive a trespassing summon. BPD members issued a trespassing summon with the support of RTD employees and the RTD customer code of conduct identifies harassment as a prohibited action. Allegation against officer one is rule five police authority and public trust violated the rights of complainant. I recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. Same allegation against officer 2, rule five, police authority and public trust violated the rights of complainant. I also recommended that that is unfounded

[20:01] and the department agreed and the same allegation against sergeant one rule five police authority and public trust violated the rights of complainant. Um, I also recommended unfounded and the department agreed and MI2025-043. BPD officers responded to a call that criminal activity, including fights, drug dealing, and sex trafficking, occurred in an RV encampment where people were illegally parked in a shopping complex parking lot. The lot included signs prohibiting overnight parking, and reportedly multiple store managers had instructed the campers to leave. Officers contacted the campers and instructed them to leave or risk getting ticketed. Although other campers complied, complainant initially refused to provide his name or identification. Eventually, he provided his identification and was issued a warning. Complainant did not respond to PSU's attempts to contact him for more details about his complaint. The allegation

[21:00] against officer one is rule five, police authority and public trust, violated complainant's rights by waking him up and or demanding his identification. Um, I recommended that this allocation be administratively closed in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. Um, currently we have three open 2024 cases. Um, SM204-003 remains in chain of command review. And at our last meeting with the chief, I spoke with Chief Redern and he said that they are um putting pressure on the members of chain of command to move that case forward. MI2024-078 um we are still trying to schedule this case. So panel scheduling is in progress. Um and MI2024-082 is in chain of command review.

[22:03] And looking at um the statistics for work were completed in September 20125. Uh the monitor classified 12 cases. Uh seven were identified as misconduct, two were identified as serious misconduct, one community inquiry, one community feedback, and one unspecified incident. I did not uh recommend conflict facilitation process for any cases. I observed five interviews. I had zero critical incident scene response and identified three cases as thorough and complete. And in total, BPD closed six cases this month. And as of October 7th, the open docket of cases is 43. 24 of those have been classified. Two of

[23:00] those were pending monitor classification and 17 of those are in um PSU preliminary investigation status. Um some of the other activities that the monitor engaged in in September, um there were three trainings that I attended. um language access in emergency management training, deescalation training and media relations training. um even though it feels very far away in September also did the what's up Boulder um in uh conjunction with panel members um attended the connect boulder quarterly lunchon I attended a meeting with Nuropa leadership in BPD um met with the Boulder District Attorney's Office community protection lead um and attended the 10th district public safety and criminal justice reform advisory committee

[24:04] um questions and I cannot see all of you. So Oh, now I think I can. >> Lizzy, I see you. >> Yeah, thanks Sherry. I noticed a few of the cases are not in the status I would expect for cases to appear in this report. There was um three that are closed in the report that we are pending our review and another that had not yet come to us for review. It's coming to us tonight. Um can you talk talk a little more about that for the full panel? I don't have a lot of information to share besides that I have elevated the issue to the city manager and we have a meeting scheduled between myself, the chief, the city manager and the city attorney.

[25:01] >> Okay. And is that for are these all part of the same something going on that we're trying to dig into or are there different pieces resulting from different circumstances? I I I saw a reference to one of the cases being part of kind of an ongoing discussion, but there were also three others that we we have already voted on. Were those part of that as well? >> It's it's Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. So to be clear, it sounds like these are being closed outside of typical procedures and we are now having to push back on that. >> That is correct. >> Okay, that is concerning. It sounds like you share that concern, but >> I absolutely share that concern. Just so we're super clear, plain language, the cases were closed before

[26:02] the panel had the the opportunity to review them, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay, Chico, >> is it worthwhile for the chairs to be part of that meeting so that we have uh because we we are we are stakeholders in this. So >> if those all those parties are are meeting Why shouldn't the panel be part of those discussions and in particular the the two co-chairs? >> I am more than happy to um share that request with Nura. >> Thank you, Chico. >> Um okay, any other thoughts or questions? Um

[27:01] there um Curtis, I see your there is a comment appears in the chat. I don't know if that's meant for everyone. >> No, I was just responding to >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh Sher, can you stop sharing your >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Thank you. >> So, we can go back to big picture. Thank you. >> Oh, >> okay. >> I had different screens, so I was able to see all of you and I didn't realize that, but thank you so much. So, let >> No, thank you. Um, okay. So, next, uh, let's, uh, go to our next item in the agenda, panel updates. Um so first of all a very friendly kind reminder of our ride along um and expectations regarding that. So the whole panel is expected to have uh one

[28:01] right at least one ride along um a year. So it is our understanding that there were some folks that had still pending their right along. Uh Sher um I don't think anyone in attendance right now um or I sorry I think everyone in attendance right now is um either has completed it or has it scheduled and on the books. So, thank you for those of you who have in the last few few weeks either accomplished your ride along or have it on your calendars. I appreciate that. >> Okay. Awesome. So, before we we move to our next item, I totally neglected to acknowledge that we have in our meeting Sterling uh Echo Ecu from BPDON. So, thank you Sterling for being here and Chris Reos uh Boulder City Attorney's Office. Uh so thank you Chris for being here but just those are the two other names you see in your screen.

[29:02] Um okay so our next item is a debrief on the special meeting request. Um it feels like a month ago has is forever and it's not that long ago. So let's do kind of a recap. Um Lizzy and I as co-chairs received um a request from three panel members to have a special meeting um when we um requested guidance to uh the city attorney's office or directly to Chris in terms of how to um have this meeting. So just to be clear, we were not we were not asking if we could have the meeting. We were just asking what are the things that we need to uh do to have this meeting in the best legal possible way without any mistake that could cause any trouble. Um so the answer for that request of kind

[30:03] of guidance and clarification and how to better host this meeting uh was what you everyone saw that we are we were not allowed to to meet outside this meeting. um in general that that was kind of um the answer that also triggered a legal memo that we all received that we cannot talk a lot about. So, but we can say that we receive a legal memo and um so anyway, so we wanted to provide a space uh to bring that topic forward. Um see if anyone have any question any concern maybe brainstorm regarding how do we move forward. Chico >> thanks for the background. I I think the the the other piece that as part of the reporting is that

[31:01] we we got uh the city manager is willing to meet either in groups of two or individually to discuss whatever. So that's something we need to wrap around with all this. >> Mhm. Okay. >> Um I think we talked a little bit about this in the um legal training, but if there was we we talked about like are the community um engagement meetings all okay or is it just this that we only have the go-ahad for? >> That's a great question. Turner. So there's different ways that the and good evening everyone. It's good to see you all. Um there are a few different

[32:00] contexts in which the panel is uh authorized to meet under the ordinance. This being one of them. Uh and then as well in a community engagement function and then um training and then can request a meeting with the chief if there's disagreement about a sustained allegation of discipline. Can can request that meeting. Um and uh so th those are and and that's out that is outlined in the um legal memo. Um so I would just suggest you know going back to that if there are questions about the current scope of authority to um gather in more than groups of two. And I I just want to also reiterate that um this meeting can be used to discuss what was wanted to be discussed at the special or emergency meeting. Um so I just wanted to put that out there as well that that can use the agenda for this meeting to you're the masters of your own agenda so you can put things on

[33:00] there. >> But thank you. Mhm. Yeah. Crystal, one of the question that I don't think we we have a clear answer to is the meeting with the chief. That's a quarterly meeting that is not a training and that is not a disagreement in the result of a case and we have been having those. So it would be great to have an answer to that one. >> Yeah, it's still kind of tricky. I would I would recommend and advise the 50 and he's like whoa. He's like that's almost >> Curtis. We can hear you right now. I don't know if you're there. We go. Um meetings with the chief focusing on learning as much as possible and then I can reasonably argue if it ever came to pass uh that those are training. But I I recognize that that is um perhaps not the strongest argument that

[34:00] I've >> ever made in my life. Um, so I that's what I would recommend is the meet for the meetings with the chief putting things on the agenda that you want to learn about and then um can say it's in the ballpark of training. There was just no basis in the code for a special or emergency meeting whereas I think there is some basis in the code for meetings with the chief as long as they don't get too far a field away from >> trying to increase the panel's knowledge. Yeah, I think I mean honestly I I I don't personally like that because it's more the chief learning from us too. So I I wouldn't frame it always as the panel learning from from Boulder PD. We have a lot to give to also um and that the exchange is is what enriches the conversation. So um anyway, so I don't know if um how the panel members feel about moving

[35:02] forward with the need of that meeting. Uh I know that the panel members that requested the meeting, some of them are here. So I don't if you want to chair or we can just uh discuss about adding those topics that were of interest to talk about to our next uh old panel meeting if if you choose to do so. Tickle, >> I was going to say something on >> the city manager's proposal of meeting with us individually and in groups of two. I appreciate that we've got the open meetings laws, but there's nine of us. You're going to have nine opinions, and that's not the way the panel should way the panel should operate. So in my mind I would rather that if there are

[36:02] any issues that we have as a group either we send in written submissions or we talk about them we compile a report and say this is the report these are the issues that we want to discuss with the city manager's office then we can even make a vote or vote to say the two co-chairs are going to have a meeting with the city manager to talk about things that we've mandated them to talk about, things that we've agreed as a group instead of going in two by twos or one by one. I that's that's unproductive in my mind. >> Mhm. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I'm going to go

[37:00] to the meat of it. Here's my thought. Uh, I don't think that the or the spirit of the ordinance was for the panel not to be able to meet. That is not at all what the intent was. when the even when the original ordinance was written there was always uh the contemplation of the panel being able to meet that's where the meeting with the chief came from we have been meeting with the chief quarterly since the beginning the very inception of the panel that's um how some of the important decisions that the the prior panels uh made were actually coming from special meetings um I don't think that's the intent or was ever the intent ent of the ordinance. Um, one of the things that were presented as an idea was that we should align the modify the bylaws to align them with um with the with the ordinance. I think that the bylaws are a

[38:00] reflection of the intent. So that's why the meeting and the way that those meetings can be um we can have those meeting ask for those meetings are outlining the bylaws because when that was the intent of the whole ordinance updating of the bylaws process so the way that I see this is two ways one we changed the ordinance two we changed the bylaws I think we should change the ordinance that's my opinion uh I would love to hear thoughts on uh if what what what are people thinking? If that is something that we should consider and if that's something that we should consider then maybe the next step is to create an ad hoc committee that can meet um that's contemplated in the bylaw not in the ordinance but here we are so that may be something that we can talk about and and do to actually fix this. Tiko, >> I I think we are on the same page and

[39:00] hence the reason why I said we add the five-year review as an agenda item to talk about >> okay >> everything and what we want to see going forward. >> Okay, perfect. Um, so then let's move forward to to to the five-year ordinance uh review. Any thoughts on the special meeting? any I I want to provide the space for anyone to um share. Alan, >> oh usually when you have a special meeting, there's criteria that get set up for you know what can be brought up at a at a special meeting and I think maybe Chris probably knows that you know there's a definition of what a special meeting is and what can be discussed at special meetings. you just can't call special meeting. And so why is it that we just can't discuss a particular topic at a regular meeting?

[40:02] That's I don't I don't see the I don't see why we have to have a special meeting to discuss whatever whatever this threeperson tribunal decided that they wanted to discuss separately from a regular business. Uh well I guess I can take that. I think it's my understanding that there there's a couple of things. One time timeliness. Um uh I think there was a certain s sense of urgency on addressing uh a couple of things that people were experiencing in the meetings. um and waiting a whole month was maybe a stretch. So there was a sense of urgency and the uh a reaction to to what happened. Curtis, I see your hand.

[41:01] >> Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. I think that urgency uh like you mentioned was a thing and then also just the fact that the panel is independent and has it's you know uh as an independent body uh wanting to be able to discuss things that are specific to the panel without um the other three branches of what this thing coexo exists as um involved in that conversation. uh so we could try to find uh a a a consensus and possibly reach towards the same solutions as an independent uh branch. >> Adam, >> well just to follow up on that, I think there's this kind of misnomer about being independent. We're really not that independent. In fact, when we go forth to do this review of the ordinance after 5 years, you know, it's not like we're a

[42:03] creature of the city council. So, we have to go through the city the city manager's office to affect changes and uh you know, it's not like we're the planning board or we're not like the board of the board of adjustments or the the arts commission. we're kind of buried within the bureaucracy and we are um you know a creature of the city manager's office and so for us to be consider ourselves independent that's why we have all these restraints and all these constraints about having meetings and giving permission to do this and that is because we we're kind of under the within the structure of the city government as opposed to being an being a an arm of the city council, for example. It used to be an arm of the city council, but it for whatever reason it got pushed down into the uh into the city manager's

[43:00] office. And so I I I bring this up because I don't know if we want to, you know, keep get our hopes up too high that we're going to just be able to go out there and be activist and be able to go and, you know, change the ordinance how we want it. there's still this box that we're sort of surrounded by. We're we have a fairly thick set of boundaries compared to some of the other uh boards and commissions. And so, you know, my reading of it is is that is that uh you know, we have a very specific function to advise the city manager, advise the advise the uh chief of police, but we're we're sort of limited as far as anything else. Like we can't be we're not community activists where we can't be necessarily we can be gatekeepers for what the for allowing people to figure out how they can um file complaints or participate in the system in some way.

[44:02] But I think that we're when we use terms like we're making decisions independently or we should be able to meet independently. I think that's we need to be on the same page as to what that means. So I think that you know this whole thing with the with the with Katrina's movie that's a kind of a prime example of how something that innocent could have been repositioned properly to be a outreach for the for the for the panel as opposed to this community conversation about police reform or whatever. And so I think that uh it's just a matter of you know how we what we can do to stay in our lane. Mhm. So the way that I see it, Alan, and the

[45:00] way that we and again like the the historical knowledge that I I have and experience um I don't think that we we the the inception of the panel is to be independent and we don't actually advise the city manager and that's where we're independent. So I I think yeah I think it's it's important to to have clarity on on on the roles but but we we are an independent body. We and we don't report to the city manager directly in the way that the panel functions or make decisions. So I yeah so I think we we need to talk a little bit more about that. Uh Cordis, I see your hand. >> Yeah. I'm having a little hesitancy of jumping in uh because I jump came in late on this meeting. So where are we at right now on this meeting? >> Just >> uh

[46:01] So do you mean in terms of the agenda? >> Yes. >> So we we did uh some re short um revision of community and outreach and engagement activities. Then Sherry went through the IPM report >> and now we were we were >> in the number nine which is basically panel updates. uh ad hoc items and we have 30 minutes allocated to this conversation. Got >> part of this this section uh is uh the debriefing on the the special meeting request the five-year ordinance or system review and the debrief with the meeting with the chief and the legal traininee if we have time for that. >> Um and after that we have public comment. So just so you know where we are. >> Okay. So can I just ask some clarifying questions? Maybe these will go to the >> we were um three members had had requested to to meet independently or

[47:00] asked how we would how we would meet independently and that was um ultimately you responded as we can't do that because of the um meetings can only happen if they're educational. Is that what I'm to understand? if it's a educational thing for the panel. >> So the meetings can happen in a few different contexts. So like this is one right here that we're in. This is the main meeting of the panel. Uh the panel can attend trainings which um that that's another way that the panel can meet. And then as well community engagement functions and there's two different primarily two different community engagement um ways the panel could meet depending off which provision of the community engagement uh section of the code uh the purpose of that meeting is for and then in addition uh the the panel can panel members can meet up to two individuals

[48:00] so that we don't violate the Colorado open meetings law um but Th those are currently uh essentially the extent of the authorized types of gatherings that the the panel can have under the ordinance. >> Okay. And and and I'm to understand that you're stating that the meeting with the chief falls under training. >> What are the types of meetings that the panel's authorized to have? That's the closest one. >> Right. So, the meeting with the chief is being classified as a training meeting. >> Based off of my review of uh chief uh meeting agendas, you know, taking the last one, you know, the principal item on that agenda was learning about the homeless outreach team. And so, that's why I'm saying I could car comfortably characterize characterize it as a training. and that I would I would advise again future meetings with the

[49:00] chief to to focus on um increasing the panel's understanding of some issue or topic um and and not go outside of that. >> And what about the previous meetings prior to the um homeless outreach team? Were those also trainings? I haven't reviewed all of the agendas there, so I can't I can't say which meeting would be classified which way or if they were outside the scope of the ordinance. >> Okay. I I'm I'm just feeling that um with that type of interpretation if we are talking right now to uh I guess um brew ideas of how we could have such a meeting then my question would be is there is there a way that we can still independently meet as the panel and in our agenda have um items within it that could constitute

[50:02] as training. >> Mhm. >> So that a uh that dialogue can be had. There aren't any as long as it's reasonably related to civilian oversight of Boulders Police Department, there aren't any limitations as to what you can put on the agenda. Um here uh if you're asking if whether or not you can exclude um anybody from a public meeting, you can't do that. The only time that you could do that is if it was in a closed session to discuss confidential matters involving a case review. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Adam,

[51:01] >> just another question. What are the uh would be the noticing requirements and the uh the public disclosure requirements say for an agenda that would have to be made. From what I understand, what I gleaned from the conversation that we had back and forth amongst ourselves is that there really was an agenda and there was no there was no uh um notice or anything which would in my view preclude a public meeting. And so how was is there like a general city rule as to what constitutes notice and what constitutes what uh would go forth for the meeting to be about the the city always strives to give as much notice for every meeting as possible. I believe the Colorado statute requires 24 hours of notice before uh any any public meeting. Um

[52:02] I haven't looked at the statute specifically to see the time frame, but I believe that that's the case that it's 24 hours of notice. Um, and as far as, you know, the notice of a specific agenda, I'm not aware of uh any requirement in Colorado's open meeting law that's that says that um public bodies have to post in detail their agenda. The the point more is to let the public know that a meeting is happening. Um, but you're testing my knowledge of that particular statute. I I'll go and take a look um later this week. So then as followup to that if you know in our case we had three we have some maybe it's an OA where three people can call a meeting and so the the idea is is that uh if it were

[53:01] privileged information like about personnel or budgets or lawsuits or whatever then if that was not disclosed and all of a sudden public started showing up to the meeting Then would that be so then the so then the panel would declare this to be a private meeting because we're going to be talking about a lawsuit or whatever that would be covered under the uh meeting law. >> So the hypothetical is that there's a the panel wants to convene a special meeting which is currently not authorized under the ordinance or outside the scope of the ordinance. But if hypothetically it was going to do that and then in the special meeting that's not currently within the scope of the authority whether or not the panel can then go into closed session. >> I mean I feel like we're getting into like hypotheticals upon hypotheticals. I

[54:01] just don't know how. >> Go ahead. My what my point is is that if we just call three people can call a special meeting and we don't know what it is and we show up and it's something that is disallowed or something that we're not allowed to do or it's not properly noticed then then to me that's more problematic. And so, like, for example, if I were to if three people called a special meeting and they didn't tell me what it was about, chances are I wouldn't show up to it. And and or say, "I'm not in favor of having a special meeting unless you tell me what it is." So, I just see this as just being way problematic. Curtis, >> uh, yeah, I I wanted to ask, um, you're you're saying that panel,

[55:01] and I'm sorry if I'm not using the legal terminology that you're using. Um, but I'm just trying to get a clear understanding, I guess, in layman's terms. You're saying that under any circumstances can only panel members um have a meeting? I feel like I'm wording that wrong. But you're saying under under any circumstances, the panel cannot meet essentially without the monitor. It's hard for me to to imagine a scenario when that would be a lawful meeting. Um because the only way the panel can meet is uh as we've talked about a few times here is uh uh you know public meeting training uh request a meeting with the chief if there's a sustained allegation of misconduct that the panel disagrees with. Then also there is close session

[56:00] but close session is for a specific purpose to talk about confidential case information and the ordinance states that all meetings of the panel are going to be public. Um >> right >> so yeah so there is no way to exclude anyone let alone let alone the monitor. >> Okay. Okay. I I would suggest I would suggest that if there is a desire of any panel member um you know want to talk about something to do with the monitor and not have the monitor there then that might be a good idea to reach out to Nuria and request either a one by one or a 2 by two meeting with with Nura because there isn't a requirement that the monitor be there. Um I feel weird talking about Sherry in the third person right now but um that that would be my advice in that situation, right? Um because I I don't see a way where the full panel can meet and exclude anyone. >> Yeah. Um do you have a followup, Cordis? No.

[57:02] >> No. No, I don't. Thank you. >> Okay. And just so so I want to I want to be clear and because we're in a public meeting and this is recorded and it's is here for the record. I I want to be super clear. So there was a request that three panel members sent to the co-chairs according to the bylaws that the panel approved last year. The bylaws were approved after the ordinance was approved. So that request fell into what the panel members were trained on and the panel members knew to be the way of going about this meeting. The reason why the co-chairs reach out to Chris and the city attorney was specifically to be clear in what were the steps to publicize the meeting correctly. So you need to and this is what I was expecting when we reached out was oh you need to publish the meeting 48 hours in advance you need to have and everything is

[58:02] outlined in the bylaw. So there was never an intention of doing anything outside the ordinance or outside the bylaw. So no one here was trying to have a meeting outside what it was approved on the bylaw. So I want to be super clear on that. There's no there was no agenda sent and there was no invitation sent to the meeting. The as the farthest that we got was to try to schedule the meeting and find a date in the proximity that was was possible at the time which was I think it was a couple of days a week or so um in advance. So I want to be super clear we we are responsible of the work we do. No one here was trying to have an illegal meeting. Nowhere here wanted to go behind the backs of anyone. The request was sent to Selena. Sherry was copied on it when we requested to reserve a room knowing that that meeting

[59:02] needed to be up open to the public and publicized in the website. So we were taking all the steps that we knew to be the right ones at the moment. only when we submitted that question to the city the manager's uh office the city attorney's office is when we were told that we were not allowed to meet. So just want to be super super clear no one here was trying to have a meeting behind anyone's back. Sherry and Selena as always were notified that there was a a there has been a request to meet. uh we requested uh their support to reserve a room in the public building and we were taking the steps to do everything we needed to do to make this meeting happen in the in the best possible way. So there was no intention and also there was no agenda because we couldn't have

[60:00] the meeting. uh if we were if we were um at that time if we would have been able to have that meeting an agenda would have been uh out with the invitation to attend that meeting. So just want to lay that very very clear uh and make sure that everyone understands that that was uh the intention and that was what happened with that meeting. Uh Sherry knew that there was a request. Sherry knew that the co-chairs were agreeing with that request and the reason why we wanted to have that meeting is because we identified there was a need for the panel to connect. There was a need to the to the uh to the panel to discuss topics that we didn't have the time to discuss in an old panel meeting and there was a need for us to talk about how we are going to communicate. The basis of that meeting was communication and how we were interacting with each

[61:00] other there. It has nothing to do with any other thing than having uh kind of an open conversation in how we can best conduct our meetings. Uh we were seeing tension happening in the meetings. We were seeing people were not really happy with the way that the answers that we were getting and we were trying to provide a space for those things to have um to be talked about in in a group setting uh and not to go around talking one by one or two by two without knowing what you know everyone else was talking which is what's going to happen with the meeting with NIA. So again that was the intention of the meeting. We didn't want to start reaching out to people one by one. we wanted to gather all together. Uh we appreciate of course um the three panel members that sent the request because we're they were also voicing the need of having an open conversation with everyone where we can just lay out you know and provide space to figure a way

[62:02] to improve our communication and to prove uh and to improve the ways that we were we were going about or the things that we you know people might think they need that they weren't getting in order to do our job properly. So, um, anyway, just wanted to put that out there. Very clear, very plain language as possible. So, so we're we're clear on that. Um, okay. Uh, Chico, you suggested this topic for the five-year review. >> Yes. >> So, I want to give you the floor. Thank you. >> And I'm going to start with a very philosophical thing which will make people uncomfortable. And it's okay to be uncomfortable. Friction is good. Being monolithic is bad. We all don't think the same. I I know that now diversity is frowned upon, but it we are supposed to be different. We're supposed to think independently.

[63:00] And I remember what one of the original founding members of the panel she was very adamant and I won't mention names you can investigate on your she was very adamant and it struck me and up to now it has it resonates with me that laws are made laws and rules are made by people. If they are made by people, they can be unmade. So, as a result, we have a 5-year review that's coming up, right? And I can site four reasons or four things that don't sit well with me, right? And it's it's how we want to take this. Um, it's up to us. And one of the things that um

[64:00] I I I I don't kid myself about police oversight. I I I know that police oversight wherever you go is a flawed system and I don't care being quoted is a flawed system because we are complaining to a body that we expect them to make a decision. the same people we are complaining about and we write a recommendation and we expect them to act and the question now is what if they don't like what you've recommended what so what happens so there in itself is a conundrum of which now you have as a society we have to resolve and say this is the way we if this conflict were to arise this is the way we are going to resolve it. So there will always be conflict because of the way the system is structured. There will always be conflict time and time again.

[65:02] It's okay to have conflict. It's okay to disagree between our recommendation and the disposition of the chief. It's okay. It's okay. But the question now is what avenues do we have or as a society or the ordinances? We've seen that there's this lacuna as the lawyers will say whatever that word gives. There's this. So how do you resolve it? So that's something that should come up now when the five-year review and as a society us the panel belongs to the people to say this is the way we are going to this is the way we want this resolved that's number one. The second one is uh we had a we we all know where we we know how this is working.

[66:00] Initially we had we were independent. Now we fall under the city manager's office right and in the city manager's office we have the same attorney Chris and his office advising the monitor and advising us. What if what of situations where the two parties don't agree because ideally we are supposed to be independent or act independently. We have one person advising us and time and time again, bless his soul, bless his heart, he tells us that he will act independently, but he works within a system with shackles. So that's that's something that needs to be reviewed going forward. So the this the other issue we've talked about is um now we are going into semantics and

[67:01] definitions of regular meeting special meeting, ordinary meeting, extraordinary meeting. Yes, there's a flaw. So now we have to go back and say if at all we need to have some meeting what whatever you call it whether special ordinary whatever we have to have a meeting not wait for a month to discuss issues. So how do we go back to revise the ordinances to accommodate. So these are the four reasons in my mind why the ordinance needs to be reviewed. And I'll leave it up to folks to opine and discuss

[68:13] Okay. Thoughts? Anyone? Just going to push people because this is it. This is the space we have for now to have the conversation. So, uh Jason, I see your um message. Um, Curtis. Okay, Curtis is now okay. Do we just want to gather people's thought? Do we want to have a break now? Come back, take five minutes to reflect on it. Do we want to wrap up this conversation and then go to a break? >> Lizzy, thoughts? Curtis?

[69:01] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm okay for a break, too. But if we're speaking before that, I I would like to share something. >> Are we going into break or >> uh give me a second, Lizzy? What What are your thoughts? >> Share this thing. >> Yeah, it's a tough question. I know we're over and it sounds like we have one panel member who's ready for a break. perhaps we could break give folks a chance to gather their thoughts especially since this wasn't originally on the agenda but it's a medy and important topic so and I really appreciate your thoughts Chico to start us off maybe we take our quick break we come back we have a quick discussion um and share thoughts >> okay sounds good so it's 7:42 50 50. Okay, 8 minutes and we're back. We're going that be by a break super quick.

[70:03] Like we have looks like we have everyone back and we are recording again. So we will jump back in. Um, we were in the middle of our discussion prompted by Chico's comments of thoughts we wanted to share regarding the potential five-year review of the panel's role and ordinance. Um, so I want to open the floor at this point for any other thoughts and comments and also remind folks that we are all welcome and encouraged to schedule meetings um, one-on-one or two-on-one with Nura to provide any feedback directly as well. This is to give us a forum to talk about it together um, and share ideas, but you're also welcome to do that individually at any time. Please do. So, we'll open it up. Curtis, I know you had thoughts. Did you want to go first?

[71:02] >> I think Curtis actually >> Oh, >> might have jumped off or maybe some something. Um, so he's not here at the moment to be able to speak. >> All good. Thank you for pointing that out. Any other thoughts? Go ahead, Ter. >> I'm just wondering what this um like five-year review looks like. Like is that going to be um are we going to use like one of these meetings for that? And are we going to just like make suggestions on what we want changed with the ordinance um and stuff? Um, so I believe the review is actually something that Nura has the ability to do. I think it's every 3 to five years

[72:02] as needed. Um, and that's in the ordinance. So, it's it's less something that the panel would be taking on and facilitating, but and more something that Nura has decided to do given that we're at the five-year mark for the panel and is inviting our participation in and our feedback. >> Go ahead, Alan. Um, my suggestion would be to kind of following up on Terra's ideas to, you know, maybe set some time aside at one or two of our meetings or when, however long it's going to take or um maybe two of us could meet and kind of go through and uh or maybe the chairs go through and kind of figure out nar kind of narrow down some focus for it. So, it sounds to me like uh meeting requirements is something that uh is of

[73:01] interest and sounds to me like uh I don't know. It seems to me like that is sort of a broad topic is of interest. So maybe we could come up with a kind of our own idea that we would kind of go in with a united front to um to Naria and say these are some things that we think we've learned over time and could make the process work smoother or whatever it is as opposed to just this free-for-all thing. >> Yeah. Thank you, Alan. is your proposal that we have I guess I'm thinking through our options here and maybe one or two is what you're thinking. one, we use time in a future all panel meeting to have a more robust and sort of planned facilitated discussion within the panel um to talk about this in more detail and then

[74:00] perhaps take a summary to Nuria of the panel's collective feedback um or potentially consider ways to meet outside of this all panel meeting to discuss this topic which I think would be a question for Chris. Um, I think it brings up brings to mind we've previously held meetings for subcommittees that we create ad hoc committees for specific projects and purposes like this one um and have held those meetings. So I guess first question Alan is one of one of the two of those what you were envisioning. Um, you know, I think I think uh it could this is one one of those things that could be couched as a as training because what we're going to be doing is going through the uh going through the uh ordinance and I'm presuming we could have you know Chris or some other facilitator help us go through this particularly unpacking

[75:00] this meeting part which seems to be the the sticking one of the big sticking points and the the community outreach also seems to be kind the sticking point and doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of you know there's a lot of it's kind of boilerplatey kinds of stuff but those I would say those are the two kind of pressure points and also what is it what what do we mean by independence I think uh that's a that's a those those are three discussion items that I can see as something I could learn something more about other than you know taking my layman's uh perspective on or listening to all your layman and perspectives about what you think things are because, you know, I think we've all kind of figured out that we're in this box, this in the city manager's box. And so, how can we do what we want to do within the limitations of what what we're what we're presented with inside of uh with our purview because,

[76:00] you know, we get too wacky and too renegade. You know, we got to get this by the city council. And if we start doing too much wacky stuff, they're not they're just going to tell us to go away. And so I think we have to be thoughtful. I think we have to be targeted. I think we have to be I think we have to be strategic about what we're asking for. And it may not be everything we want. I'm thinking it's going to be just this little these couple incremental things that get changed just because I know I know how that's how the city government works and and so I think we have to kind of figure out okay we're going to you know ride with ride to the sunset happy or we're going to ride to the sunset uh you know downtrodden. I think those are those are kind of our our options. So, I'm not, you know, I'm not, in fact, I'm going to I'll ground everybody who wants to do too many wild things because I don't think that's a worthwhile conversation.

[77:02] >> Thanks, Alan. Go ahead, Chico. I just wanted um to put things into perspective and I I think we have to be clear and know that any ordinance review is done by the city council. It's not the city manager's office. The city manager will just drive the process. So let's be clear on that. Right. So, so with that said, I would expect that Chris and his group, they'll act as technocrats to lay a blueprint or a road map of what the process will be. Once that process is laid out, it's up to us now to deliberate as an independent body and we don't have

[78:01] to submit the our comments to the city manager's office because that's not the way the ordinances review have been done in the past and I there I beg to be corrected because the ordinance review members of the public will also chime in. So we will just be acting as a as a stake as one of these stakeholders. So we don't have to report to the city manager's office. Again I I stand to be corrected until we hear from Chris maybe at the next meeting comes up with a road map of saying this is the way the ordinance process will go about the review. Then we can sit back and say now as a group how do we feed into this process? >> Um Lucy, can I jump in? So just so to be super clear, the ordinance, what the ordinance says is that the city manager

[79:02] can do a review not of the panel, not of the ordinance, but the of of the oversight system. So is reviewing the system of civilian oversight that the ordinance put in place. So is the whole system is the the three things the how it works with BPD, how it works with the monitor and how does it work with the with the um police oversight panel. So just so we're super clear. So one thing is that system and that revision that Nura will conduct. I don't know how I mean you know to be determined. I guess she will have to determine how she conduct that review and then we are invited to provide feedback of course. Um and then there's a separate issue I think that is revising what pieces of the ordinance we

[80:01] now know that were very poorly written or you know or allow an interpretation that is literally against the intention of of of the system but uh of the panel system. So, so I th those are two conversations and I agree. I think it's it's it makes sense for us to provide a feedback as a as a group. Uh and I think to your point to what we were asking, I will I think this is what an ad hoc committee can do. And if someone is willing to put the work and and and you know and and do this specific task, I think that will be a very very purposeful uh use of our time. >> Thanks. Go ahead, Chris. >> Thank you. And I was just going to point to the code as you did, Lizzie 2-11-21.

[81:03] That's the code provision that talks about the system evaluation every five years and it's just the city manager is the one who basically drives that process. Um so I would just recommend to anyone who's interested in learning more about it is is reading that section of the code um to understand what the the scope of the evaluation uh would be. you Chris. Other thoughts on and I really appreciate Solidad you kind of delineating those two topics that we're talking about. We have panel participation in the five-year evaluation review process that Nura will be leading and then separately we have kind of panel feedback that I think could could contribute to that review but related to specifically the ordinance and some of the gaps we have identified. Um any thoughts on either of

[82:02] those two issues for today or thoughts on an ad hoc committee how we might move this forward and >> I would recommend so there's different ways that that the panel could could do this um to start though I would kind of wait for Nuria to announce an evaluation so that she can give you this kind of road map that's been referenced since it has never happened. Um, we might be putting the uh getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. It's good to talk about ideas of perhaps, you know, ordinance changes and all of that that we might recommend, but I would submit that waiting until it's announced and learning a little bit more additional information from the city manager's office for how the evaluation will be structured could help us help the panel um develop its plans. But then, you know, for if the if the panel wanted to get a head start on

[83:02] uh ordinance suggestions for revisions and things like that, I would recommend appointing um two members of the panel with some guidance for them to meet to get into the weeds and specifics and then that they could bring back to an all panel meeting what they've kind of drafted up for discussion. I would not advise uh committee meetings of more than three panel members for that purpose. Okay. So two two panel members only would be meeting for the committee component. All work with more than two panel meetings would remain in the all panel meetings. More than two committee members >> essentially. Yes. Okay. Um, and just for clarification in case anyone had questions, we did get a a sort of invitation from Nura last

[84:00] month to begin providing feedback for the review. So there may I think you're right, Chris, that there probably would be a future like more official roll out of of the review happening, but I think we're we've also sort of been invited to provide feedback at this stage. Um maybe we could get more direction from Nura on what's most helpful but just just pointing that out. Um go ahead Chico. >> So I was going to say that yes we wait for the road map until it's announced. Then the next question is the same adoc that we are thinking about two people. What resources are going to be availed to this group? Cuz last time around we had this review. We had an external consultant who came and helped us stay online. So is that something that we can request again? >> Are you referring specifically to the ordinance re like?

[85:00] >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um I I think please group correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know that an official change the ordinance update the ordinance process has been proposed or launched. I think perhaps that could come out of the review as a action item. Um but I don't know that we're there yet. I think any subcommittee we would be putting together now would be to talk through whatever you all are wanting to propose. But my impression is talk through the feedback that we would want to provide as a group to Nura as part of the review evaluation or I think as part of if this is something the panel wanted to do advocating for an additional edit or update to the ordinance. Go ahead muted. Um just just

[86:02] I'm a policy person. So that's where what this is coming from. When you want to change the law, anyone can change the law, which is this case. So is is the city law in the same way that we we're not I don't think that the the goal is to change do a massive change in the ordinance. is this we identify that the the fact that all the meetings that could potentially help the panel do their job were not specified in the ordinance even though and just to want to say this Tiko because when we were writing the ordinance we not only we had a consultant writing the ordinance with us we also had Erin Po from the city attorney's office working with us so this is a huge mistake And it's a huge mistake with two words that need to be added to the language of the ordinance. We're not doing a massive change. We

[87:00] will be doing the channel the the panel shall meet once a month and all these other times and this the way that they are done is in the bylaws which is are already in the bylaw. So it's not a huge change. So I think coming back coming up with that that language is fairly simple and it shouldn't be something that is a like exclusive prerogative of the city to do. We can do it. I can do it like anyone can actually submit a change in the law following whatever procedures that the city has and city council will vote for it. So I I don't think it's a big like it's it's not as big as uh providing all the changes or or providing all the feedback to to the system in my opinion. So >> can I just push back on that? >> Yes. >> And say that in my mind >> Mhm. >> we need a big overhaul. In my mind the fact that we are at the

[88:02] we are falling under the city manager's office. How's that working for us? You tell me. >> Yeah. >> So, so if we have other boards and commissions that are separate and independent reporting to the city, you tell me. >> Mhm. >> So, there are issues like that of even the same adjudication of saying how do we resolve differences between the what we recommend and what the disposition is from the other side. Those are big deals which our community is entitled for us to have answers to and in my mind this this is a big deal if you don't do it after 5 years when >> yeah no I hear you and I just want to put out there that the reason why we took this ordinance took this the police oversight panel out of the realm of the

[89:00] city council was so it wasn't politicized size and there was this commitment from the city manager's office to keep the panel independent uh and not to be trapped into the politics of the politicians that you know were in the city council and that's what kind of brought the panel to the debacle that we were when you know we went on strike a couple of years ago. So no system is perfect and we have to figure out. I agree with you. But that's why I think that we have a big thing to resolve and then we have a small thing to resolve and I think the panel being able to meet is is is absolute need that has to change. So anyway that that to say that I agree with you too. >> Thank you both. Um recognizing we're getting short on time. I think we have a relatively we can make up some time in the agenda for sure, but I want to keep

[90:01] us as on track as possible. If we have any other thoughts, please share them. Other than that, I'm interested if we have any motions for next steps on this issue at this time or do we feel like we fulfilled the need today for the discussion for now. Go ahead, Chico. >> I I'll say we leave it on as an agenda item for next month until we wait to hear from Chris and the city manager. >> Are there specific um questions or topics >> the road map? So, we leave it as an open agenda item for next month. By then we would have clarity on how this whole thing will shake out in terms of how it will roll out. It's the roll out that we need to know. >> Got it. Okay.

[91:02] >> Go ahead, Chris. >> Thank you. Just the city manager controls the five-year review process. So, I'm kind of waiting just like you all are. I can talk about how ordinances can be changed the process at city council, but I don't control the the five-year review process. So, I just don't I want to make sure that expectations are clear clear and um you know what what my role is. Um I'll be you know maybe I will learn more between now and the next meeting about what the city manager intends for the five-year review. Um but I can't like I can't I cannot bring like a road map of what it's going to look like. So, I just want to make sure that the panel knows that. >> Thanks, Chris. Um, I'm getting a note that someone's hand Oh, it's Curtis. Okay. Sorry, I couldn't see your hand at first. Go ahead, Curtis. >> Yeah, Chris. I'm just curious if the city manager can reject our request for a five-year

[92:01] review. Can I jump in just a I fair question and would love to know the answer in general, but just to make sure there's no um misconceptions. Nura actually brought this issue to us and said, "I think it's time for this review. I'd like to conduct it." Um, Soladad and I discussed it with her briefly because we had a a regularly scheduled co-chair meeting, but she had brought this to our attention and and is advocating for it. Is that Do you So, do you want to any info Chris you want to provide as well? Please go for it. >> Yeah, that's that's good. Thank you for that. >> Thanks. >> Perfect. All right. do. So, we are hoping to request some additional information from Nura about how this may proceed so that we can be as collaborative and helpful as as possible

[93:01] um in providing input and participating. Um do we need to vote on that or are we comfortable agreeing on that with consensus? Is that a panel vote? No. Okay, we are consensed. We'll assume. Okay, we'll add it to the agenda for next time. Thank you all for a great discussion. Um, all right, with that, uh, I don't believe we have any members of the public with us. If we do, we have time for public comment. A bit late today. Do we have anyone in attendance? Nope. All right. For any p any uh members of the public who are listening to this in the future, please join us. We'd love to have you at any future meetings. Um you're always welcome and we give time for public comment to anyone who is in attendance. So please join us and share your thoughts with us. Uh all right with that we will go into our regular business. We have the option at this time to motion to go into close

[94:02] session to discuss cases. Do we have a motion >> to do so? I'll >> motion. Um, second. >> All right. All in favor of going into close session. Jason Curtis, mind giving us a verbal or perfect. >> Thank you. >> All right. Okay. Um, with that, we will go into close session uh for no longer than 20 minutes. Probably shorter today, I would guess. Awesome. All right, I'm gonna move you over to um the close session.

[95:04] All right, we are back from our closed session. we will move into our case review voting. Um so I'll take us through each of the cases numbers and then um we will do our roll call vote. So starting with give me one moment here lost my summaries. All right. So, skipping 042 and 043 which are not available for us to vote on, we will start with MI2025-044. Um, this includes for one officer, one rule four, respect for others, one rule five, police authority and public trust.

[96:01] >> Okay. Um, Chico. >> Yes. >> And Allan. Alan, you're muted. Alan, if you're having issues with sound, you could give us a thumbs up, thumbs down visually, perhaps. >> No, no, I'm not having trouble with no vote. Alan, >> do you have your vote for MI2025-044? >> No. Um, Turner,

[97:02] >> yes. >> And Solod, >> yes. >> Um, Lizzy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Uh, Jason, >> yes. >> And Curtis still is not in the meeting, correct? >> Okay. He did text back. He's not going to join. So, we're good to go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. So, that sounds like a yes. >> Yep. Okay. >> All right. Next case is MI2025-045. Uh in this case, we have one allegation against one officer, rule four, respect for others. >> Okay. Chico. >> Yes. Um, Alan, >> yes.

[98:00] >> Uh, Turner, >> yes. >> Solidad, >> yes. >> Lizzy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Jason, >> yes. >> All right, that's another yes to review. Uh our next case is MI2025-04X. PSU number is pending. Um this is EVT number 1483. And in this case we have uh one allegation against one officer uh rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. Chico, >> yes. >> Um, Alan, >> yes.

[99:01] >> Turner, >> yes. >> Solidad, >> yes. >> Lizzy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Jason, >> yes. >> All right, another case is a yes for review. Um, next up we have MI2024-04X. This is EVT 1486. [Music] >> U, here we have three allegations against one officer. Rule one, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. A second, or actually all three, rule one, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. >> Okay, Chico. Yes, >> Alan. >> Yes, >> Turner. >> Yes, >> Solidad. >> Yes,

[100:00] >> Lizzy. >> Yes, >> Kristen. >> Yes. >> And Jason, >> yes. >> All right, another yes to review. Um, our last case, MI2025-04X. This is EBT 1392. Uh in this case we have one allegation against one officer rule five police authority and public trust. >> Chico. >> Yes. >> Alan. >> Yes. >> Turner. >> Yes. >> Solidad. >> Yes. >> Lizzy. >> Yes. Kristen. >> Yes. >> Jason. >> Yes.

[101:01] >> All right. We will also review that case. I don't know if that has ever happened before. We are reviewing all of these cases that came before us. Um we'll move into volunteers for staffing our case reviews. Um, starting with 044. Do we have volunteers to review? We have Jason Chico. We have a third and volunteer. Someone who is not here tonight since we have so many cases if we don't have a third. So that's fine. Um, Soladud, do we want to choose someone now or review maybe the gaps at the end of the meeting and assign some folks? Okay. >> I'm just wondering, can I um even if I'm waiting to be train

[102:01] shadowed on my on this other case, can I still take this? >> I would think so. We should be able to get your shadowing done by then? That seems fair to me. And if if not, we can just then co-chairs can assign someone to >> Okay. >> And then you this could be a case that you shadow. >> Yeah, that's cool, too. >> Perfect. All right. I'm going to go ahead and or did you want to volunteer for this one? Okay. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Next case. MI 2025-045 volunteers. >> Um I have a question. Are we if these cases are related? >> I would re I would recommend that the same people review the >> the so that that's kind of the bulk of this the next three cases. >> Well, the third the the third case is totally unrelated, >> but great point cases. You're right.

[103:00] >> So 1482 and 1483 should have the same panel. >> That would be my recommendation. It would be much more efficient. Okay. Um, I'm good volunteering for those. >> I will. >> I can. >> Perfect. I've got Kristen. >> Any others? And we've been trying to do four panel members just for scheduling. So, I can always add a fourth with someone who is not here. Solidad. >> All right. Perfect. Anyone else? >> Sorry. Lizzy, Kristen, Soladad. >> Yep. Just those three for now. We'll probably >> Okay. And then duplicating that for uh EVT1483. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, MI2 2025045 and >> the first. >> Okay.

[104:00] Thanks. >> All right. our second X1486 >> uh volunteers. >> I can do that one. >> Alan, thank you. Solidad one more or we can use our reserves. >> Uh yeah, I think we should assign people. >> All right, perfect. We'll sign two there. All right. Um, last case, MI2025-04X. This is 1392. >> Okay, I can review that one. >> Do this one as well. >> You can add Milan to it. I have permission for one case. >> Nice. Yeah, she did say that. All right. Anyone want to be added to any of these who has not already been added for this case or any of the others? Everyone good? All right

[105:01] with >> I'm sorry maybe I missed this for so for 1486 I have Allan and Soladad. Was there somebody else or is that co-chairs are going to assign people later? >> We're going to assign two more. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. Of >> course. All right, with that I think if we don't have any other business we will adjourn. Little bit overtime here. Sorry about that. But thank you all for hanging in there with us. Um thanks for a great meeting as always. Have a great night. Uh do we need a motion to adjurnn? Yes to >> excellent second. >> Second. >> Perfect. Do we have all in favor of turning for the night? Excellent. All right. Have a great night everybody. Thank you all. Thanks for being here. >> Thank you.