December 8, 2025 — Police Oversight Panel Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Ready? >> All right. Welcome everyone. We are going to call the meeting to order. Uh we will start as always with our land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the Arapjo Ute 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. Um we also want to just welcome everyone. Thanks for being here. Thank you to our panel members and our city representatives. Um, thanks to any members of the public or the media who are joining us today or who will join over the course of the meeting. Um, we really appreciate you all being here. A quick reminder of expectations for our virtual meetings. Uh, please keep your cameras on whenever possible. Um, and especially when we are voting. Um, anyone who is a member of the public here with us today, please feel free to

[1:01] use the Q&A during the meeting. Um, we'll probably answer small questions as they come up. Um, but you can save any bigger questions or uh comments for public comment, which will happen about halfway through the meeting, typically 30 p.m. Um, also just want to remind folks uh you can submit complaints about the Boulder Police Department or contact the panel for any reason outside of this meeting by emailing us at police oversight panel bouldercol.gov um or visiting us at our website bouldercol.govser. gov/services police oversight and you can also find the process there for uh submitting a complaint. Um final reminder, all of our meetings are posted to the city website as well, so you can watch this meeting and all of our others um at any time. Uh with that, we will turn it over to Sher for our roll call.

[2:04] >> Yes. Um, I have Alan and make sure that there's no one named Alan in the in the waiting room. >> I don't I don't see anyone. >> Okay. But I see Curtis is in there. So hopefully he Yeah. Okay. Um AB and Turner sounds like he's gonna try to come in soon. >> Okay. Solidad here.

[3:01] Milen here. Lizzy >> here. >> Kristen. Uh, I guess not here. Jason. Um, not here. Curtis. >> It looks like Curtis tried to unmute, but maybe we didn't hear him. So maybe >> he says he's here. Okay. And Chico, am I wrong?

[4:00] and Bill >> here. Uh oh, Cher just joined. >> All right, thanks everybody. Um we will take a quick look at the agenda as always. Give me one moment. All right. So, today we will start with a discussion of the Oh, you guys can't see it yet, can you? There we go. How about now? All right. Um, so we'll start with a quick discussion of the minutes. Um, from there, we will go to some updates. Um we're going to hear from going to hear some updates about everything that happened at our last meeting which was um there was a lot shared. Uh so we'll talk about the city attorney's response to our request for independent council.

[5:01] We we'll talk a little bit about where things stand on the new policy, some updates and um some discussion. Uh and then we'll go into some notifications about 2026 panel recruitment and wrap up with the discussion about the meeting with the chief which is next Monday on the 15th in person. Um we'll hear from our community outreach and engagement uh committee with an update. We'll go through our independent police monitor report, break for public comment, um, and then go into close session if needed, and go through our regular panel business. Um, does anyone have any proposed changes or additions to the minutes or the agenda, or would we like to approve the agenda? Didn't we say we were going to have a standing item on the

[6:00] is it review of the ordinances or something like that? Didn't we say that? >> I think we did talk about the potential for that perhaps being helpful. I don't know if we finalized um I don't believe there are updates yet on the re we're talking about the the five-year review. Am I remembering that right, Chico? >> Yes. We thought we would have a standing item so that each meeting we talk about it if there's any development we talk about it. >> Got it. Okay. Um do you want to motion to add that today or start with that next month? I want us to add I want us to be on top of things. So I I raise a motion that we add it. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. All in favor of adding that to the agenda for tonight. >> Where would you like that to appear, Chico? Is that in our panel updates?

[7:06] you are muted, but I think we can do that in the panel updates. Panel updates. >> Okay. So, I'm going to add that here. Okay. That look okay? All right. With that, any other requests or changes or motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Do you have a second? >> Seconded. >> Great. All in favor of approving the agenda with Chico's additions. Anyone opposed?

[8:03] All right. I can't see everyone, but I think that passed. Yes. All right. Uh, next item is the minutes from last month, our November meeting minutes. Do we have a motion to approve or does anyone have additions or changes to those minutes? >> I'll move to approve. We have a second. >> Do we want to open up a discussion instead if folks are not feeling like they're ready to approve the minutes? >> Oh, I can second. >> Okay. Sorry. >> That's all right. Uh, all in favor of approving the November meeting minutes.

[9:02] Any opposed? Do we have a couple of stains? >> I wasn't there, so I'm sitting it up. >> Okay. >> No, I'm four. Sorry about that. I got distracted by the dog. >> No problem. All right. Thank you. So, the minutes from last month are approved. All right. Um, we'll go into our panel updates and ad hoc items, starting with an update on our request for independent council. Um, Chris, did you want to take that on or was that a Sherry item? Where did we land? >> Thank you, Lizzie. I'm happy to take that on and good evening everyone. It's great to be here. Um, so this item is for me to summarize uh what happened since the last meeting with the panel voting to request outside council and you all

[10:03] forwarded a confidential memorandum from the city attorney Teresa Miller Tate. Um the inclusion of the memorandum essentially was that there is no basis for outside counsel to be appointed. So that was not approved. Um I do want to kind of talk a little bit about discussing legal advice in public meetings. Um, so as the legal adviser to the city's police oversight system, my role is to give the best legal guidance I can to support the panel and the monitor in carrying out their duties under the code. I want to acknowledge that there were concerns raised at our last meeting about the interpretation of the monitor's authority under the code and I hear those concerns. However, this meeting is a public

[11:00] meeting and it's not an appropriate forum to discuss or debate confidential legal advice advice. Those conversations should really happen in a confidential setting. The panel, the monitor, the city are protected under attorney client privilege. That privilege exists so that you can receive confidential and candid legal advice. If we attempt to hash out our legal disagreements in public, we risk waving that privilege, which could expose the panel in the city to legal risk and limit your ability to receive uh protected counsel going forward. I want to emphasize that I am available to talk through the legal interpretation and advice in detail, but in order to preserve the privilege, I'd be offering if there are people want to talk in depth about the memo or other interpretations of the ordinance, uh, I'll meet with you one-on-one or up

[12:00] to two panel members at a time. And in that setting, we can have a full and candid discussion about the legal framework and any concerns that people might have. I respect that the panel has strong views about its role in authority, and my goal is not to minimize those concerns, but to ensure we discuss them in a way that protects the panel and allows for complete legal clarity. So, uh, just in in summary, if if people have questions or concerns or disagreements with anything in the confidential memo, I'm happy to make time that will work for you and your schedule, and I'm happy to meet with everybody on the panel. Um, but I'm not going to discuss uh confidential legal advice this evening. So, you might hear me uh say that um tonight. So, I just want uh y'all to be aware of that. And uh so that's that's the update on that on that item.

[13:00] >> Um yeah, I have a followup to that, Chris. So, is it it reads to me like unsolicited advice? We haven't requested legal advice. So, it's kind of confusing to me that we we sent a request and the reply to that request is unsolicited legal advice that is confidential and that now we as a panel cannot talk about. So, so I'm I'm struggling with with with kind of how that works. If you can help me understand like Well, the at the last meeting the panel voted for outside to request outside legal counsel >> and then the confidential memo and its context context uh discuss that request and so because the panel voted voted to seek outside counsel then

[14:02] basically required the city attorney to analyze whether or not that was um it was appropriate to point outside council. So, the city attorney's office did take that as a request for legal advice. >> Okay. >> I have a similar clarifying question. Chris, does your position as representative of the city attorney's office mean that anything you talk to us about is legal advice or are there topics that you can discuss with us in this forum and talk? >> That's a great question, Lizzie. It it kind of depends on what the subject matter is and the context of it. If there's a question about a routine um question about you know what the what the code says that isn't particularly

[15:01] controversial and that um doesn't um have a lot of you know back and forth and doesn't require a lot of interpretation then I am able to provide the panel with um guidance in a public meeting like this about the process but when there's substant ive uh legal issues and especially if there's legal disagreements then that is would be a good indication that that should be happening in a in a confidential setting which a public meeting is is just not. Go ahead, Milen. >> Muted. >> Sorry. Where where is the setting where that would be acceptable to you? Because it seems like we're not able to meet outside of these monthly meeting. We're

[16:02] not able to have legal counsel. We're not able to do this. We're not we're receiving memos that are confidential. I mean, I'm a community member. I want to share, you know, as much as my work as possible with our community because I'm accountable personally and I think as a panel, we're accountable to our communities and you're telling us all the things we cannot do. So I have a concern that we're hiding behind closed doors and we're not being accountable to the community where you know that we are here to serve. So tell me when are we able to talk and receive legal counsel from you or for since that's the default? >> Thank you for that question. Um, so there's different methods that

[17:01] confidential legal advice can be conveyed. It can be conveyed through a memorandum like the one that was sent uh last month. It can be in uh smaller meetings with one or two people to comply with Colorado open meetings law. Um, but you know, a place where decidedly cannot receive confidential legal advice would be a public meeting like this one. And I'd be happy to meet with folks over virtually, in person, over the phone, lots of different ways, but just not in a not in a public meeting if if the purpose of that is to receive confidential legal advice. Um, and so there's different methods that that can occur, but cannot confidential legal advice cannot be conveyed in a public meeting. So um one followup with that when you say we can meet in person is that like one or two at a time >> correct? So you could say something to one person and something else to the other and so on and so forth

[18:03] and we would never know. Like what I'm saying is like you can give me an advice or you can mention something to me that you may forget to mention to someone else and then we don't we're we'll never know what we get because we don't get it all as a group. Could we at least have a closed session where we receive this same advice all of us at the same time? >> Executive sessions are not specifically authorized for the panel like they are for city council. There's um a state law that allows for city council uh bodies to meet in executive session. Um whereas this this sort of a a body um is not subject to that. Um, and so, uh, it is sometimes hard, um, and tricky to be able to communicate fully and also comply with the Colorado open meetings law. Um, sometimes laws can be a little

[19:02] bit at cross purposes. Um, but uh like I said, I'm happy to meet with everyone here or um if they're not here tonight, they can I can set up something later, but um happy to make time to talk in depth in a confidential setting that isn't a public meeting where um it is uh uh can be hard to have, you know, full and candid conversation and receive legal advice. And go ahead, Chico. >> I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I but I'll cut the chase and go back to my main I've talked about this. We are not going to resolve this impass. It it's it's it's it's a it's it's a flaw in the way the ordinances

[20:01] were written or the way the whole system is working. So it it just needs to be revisited. It's not working. >> Thanks, Chico. Go ahead, Curtis. If you're able, feel free to put something in the chat, too, and one of us can read it out if needed. All right. While Oh, we might Did we just lose Curtis? Okay. Hopefully, he'll pop back in. Um I guess I'll just share one final thought and then if anyone else has other questions. Um it I I hear your point about legal advice, but to me what we were talking about last month was panel business really trying to understand this policy,

[21:01] why it might be implemented, if it should be implemented, if we should be pushing back. That feels like a discussion we need to be able to have openly and with the panel. So is the issue that we should have been directing all those questions to Sherry and Sherry would have been conferring with you as her legal counsel and then giving us the answers like is that the issue that we're presenting them directly to you or what is the the way that we can actually have those conversations if it involves panel business and policy and important things to the community. >> And that's a great question Lizzie. So just because confidential legal advice cannot really be given in a public meeting doesn't mean that we can't talk about what the law is and the law applies to everybody. Everybody's expected to know and follow the law and um you know in my view talking about the

[22:00] you know case referral change is perfectly appropriate for a public meeting. But when it comes to, you know, the city attorney's interpretation of a particular ordinance and having a candid back and forth, uh, that's where, you know, my judgment would come in and say, okay, we're getting into this, uh, area where might want to have a more confidential a confidential discussion about this than in a public meeting. So, there's not quite a bright line rule that I can that I can give you. I can tell you that um you know I'll try to answer questions that I'm able to, but I'm going to be really thinking about whether or not you know this forum is the appropriate setting for having a conversation about whatever the subject matter is that we're talking about. And so um hopefully that answers your question. And and and just to also be clear, you know, I'm not I'm not Sherry's council.

[23:01] I'm not here as like, you know, the monitors council. I'm I'm council for the police oversight system for the city of Boulder. >> You're each of ours individually, right? You have to give each of us individual advice. So that was all I meant by that comment. Um go ahead solid and then Milen. >> Yeah. So, so that that's kind of one of my concern crazy because recently in one of our meetings, um, you know, Sher did share like she was following like literally said like what my attorney is telling me. So, so basically there is a relationship that we don't have, right? So I think for me the the conflict lies in in in we're not in agreement here and in what what is being shared. Uh I don't think

[24:02] this is a flaw necessarily on the ordinance per se. I think the problem that we have with the ordinance are more like you know the fact that we're we can meet or not and that sort of thing. And this interpretation is really in in our perspective narrowing our our ability to do our work. So, so I'm I'm having a really hard time kind of understanding that, you know, for Sherry this you're her attorney and for us you're not. So you know so so that's and and I understand and I like you know last meeting is pretty very present in my head that as you know we know that you you're not going to say anything um that can lead to more dialogue and in these terms but I'm concerned that we

[25:01] like I don't see how you can you can provide legal advice to both when they are the needs are opposite basically. and and and that's a challenge. So, sorry all uh thank you Soladad. Sounds like Curtis is back in the waiting room. if we can let him in and let's go to Meen and then hopefully I know we probably have more to say but we'll try to get get going to our next topic because we do have additional updates. So go ahead Melen. So, um, looking up open meeting requirements, um, it seems like the law applies to planning commission, boards, and the adjustment. So, county commissioners, boards of trustee, blah,

[26:00] blah, blah. local public body includes any boards committee commission authority or any advisory policym rule making or formal formally constitute body of any political subdivision of the state but does not include administrative staff so I'm just wondering I'm trying to understand uh about the open meeting requirements what is uh you know um why can't we talk about this I I understand that you know okay we we might not We might be talking about legal matters, but then why can't we have an executive session uh because it seems like executive sessions can be can only be called during a regular or special meeting. We have a regular meeting today. Uh before going into executive session, the topic for discussion must be must be announced in the open meeting. uh before going into executive session. The topic for discussion during the executive session must be announced but

[27:02] should be general enough so as not to nullify the confidential purpose of an executive sessions. I mean do you want me to continue because it seems like this applies to us today and we could be going into an executive session if we announce what we're going to be talking about to the general public who is listening right now. So, can you explain to me why this doesn't work? >> Thank you for that, Melen. I'm I'm happy to take a and thank you for pointing that out. I'm I'm happy to take a closer look at Colorado open meetings law and get back to you with a, you know, more full answer, but but my my understanding tonight is that uh executive sessions aren't available for the panel. But I'm happy to take a deeper look at that and confer with my colleagues and and get back to the panel. >> But Chris, you're supposed to come to these meetings prepared. You know, we we want to talk about this

[28:03] and you don't know when what is the rule for executive sessions. I'm I'm kind of surprised that you don't like >> Well, we come prepared. I I I think I volunteer I I think I do and I'm telling you that they that executive sessions aren't available for the panel, but I'm I'm happy to go back and double check that answer and get back to the panel >> and then next month I we're wasting our time right now. >> I can get an answer sooner than next month. Yeah, I do. I understand um where you're coming from, Alen. I also think it's it's it's okay for us to need for Christ to need just a little time to pull together more if we're asking him to dig deeper. Um but

[29:01] agree it would be great to hear more on that before the next meeting. Does that sound okay for you, Milan? >> I really don't think we have a choice at this point. So, um, yes, it has to be okay. But, you know, already we've talked about this. It seems, um, >> All right. Sorry. Were you I think you're something's going on with the mic. Did you want to continue or were you all set? >> Yeah. Did you just hear that? I we really don't have a choice so it has to be okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um with that we will go. Welcome Alan. Thanks for joining. Um we'll go to the next item which is an update on the

[30:00] >> Yeah. >> Sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure that Curtis's comment from earlier was said as well. Yes. >> Um, did you want to go ahead and read that to everybody? Okay. >> Thank Thank you so much for pointing that out, Selena. I'm sorry about that, Curtis. >> Um, Curtis's comment is his audio is out unfortunately, but he is hearing that we cannot discuss the CAO interruption of the ordin interpretation of the ordinance or the decision to refuse us outside counsel in an open meeting. Um, okay, cool. Can we discuss or plan a day to collaborate a solution with the interpretation as it is? The current interpretation as is not going to work without working together. Can we work together in an open meeting? I think we discussed some parts of that in questions that came in after Curtis's

[31:00] in terms of having a meeting or an executive session. Is there anything else you want to share, Chris? >> Just to um just re reiterate that um having you know discussing the city attorney's office's interpretation of the um basically the subject matter of the confidential memo in a public meeting. Um I would advise against doing that. But um talking about the process and operationally how the um referral pol the referral change is going to work is is fine to do in an open meeting and it'll just take some judgment when we might start getting into areas where a confidential setting would be more appropriate. Okay, Curtis added, "I don't want to discuss the interpretation. I want to discuss a solution to the problem created by the interpretation.

[32:06] So, can we meet in some forum to discuss the solution rather than questions about the interpretation? Short answer, yes. I I believe Sherry has a presentation on a later agenda item to talk about the um kind of the process operationally and has space for for a discussion with the panel. >> All right. Thanks, Chris. Uh go ahead, Milana. Let's do brief question. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Quick question. Um, can we um could we could we as a panel wave the uh client's attorney's privilege and be able to discuss?

[33:02] >> But no, the panel doesn't does not have the authority to wave attorney client privilege. And um yeah, >> you're you're here to advise us and we don't have the privilege to do that as a panel. I >> the Yeah, the p the panel can't wave attorney client privilege. Nei neither could board of zoning adjustments or landmarks board um city council can vote to uh wave the privilege. Um but not not any kind of constituent other bodies of the of the city. >> All right. Thanks, Chris. All right. Um another comment from Curtis. Is that going to be a collaboration or is Sherry going to tell us the process? We want to work together

[34:01] on this. Um, I think that's for today. We definitely are intending to have a discussion after some updates. So, fully hear you on that. And I I do want us to get into some solutions. All right. I think that's a good segue for us. Let's go to Sherry for some updates on where we are. Yeah,

[35:14] Do people see the see a presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Well, as we as we discussed over the last two months and just the last few minutes, the topic of complaint referral has been a contentious issue for all of us. Um, at the last meeting, the panel and community members alike shared their disagreements with the city's proposed course of action. Overall, the message received is the concern that the panel's role is being weakened and the importance that the pa that the panel continue to provide community input to the Boulder Police Department and to review allegations of

[36:00] misconduct. Importantly also panel members expressed their commitment to representing communities that have been historically excluded or even targeted by police. Since our November meeting, the city took a deep dive into both the materials and comments shared at last month's meeting and the police oversight ordinance itself. >> Hey Sherry, I just want to pause for one second. Are you are should the slides be advancing? We're still on the the title side. Is that intentional? >> Um, that is still intentional, but thank you. >> If it seems like there's a mismatch, um, I would appreciate hearing that. >> No, please continue. Sorry to interrupt. Um, I would also like to give an update that in the meantime, I've had conversations with several panel members who shared a variety of their perspectives and concerns. And I wanted to express my appreciation for those who were willing to meet and be open um

[37:03] about this issue and other issues that the panel has been having. So, I I learned a lot about your experiences and some frustrations and I want to reiterate my commitment to do my part to improve so that we can move forward productively and and respectfully. Also, the relay of information has been confusing. So, I'm going to quick clarify the sequence of events. So, in September, I learned that BPD began closing cases that I had recommended be um closed consistent with general order 120. Some of these cases the panel had already voted to review, while others had not yet been brought brought to a panel vote. Then in October, the city attorney and city manager agreed that BPD had authority to close these cases. They also advised that the monitor had discretion whether to review these cases

[38:01] to the panel and I agreed to no longer refer cases for panel vote that I determined should be closed under general order 120. Then in November at the last meeting, the co-chairs prevented presented a thoughtful um information for the city to consider regarding this decision. And in response, the city attorney and the city manager conducted a compre a comprehensive review of the ordinance and they considered the the information that was presented at the panel meeting um and community and panel comments. This comprehensive ordinance review determined that the panel should only have the chance to review completed investigations, but not cases when the preliminary investigation proved that officer's actions were in compliance with BPD policy. They determined that the monitor does not maintain discretion to refer these

[39:01] cases for panel vote, but will continue to summarize and share the relevant details of these cases for panel awareness. This sequence undoubtedly feels jarring and unsettling to panel members, and I apologize for the the mixed messages. the the detailed memo that you received from the city attorney last month contains the the legal analysis that supports this position. Is this on a diagram now? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, we work to um create a visual representation of the flow of cases. So this graphic is it's not meant to be completely comprehensive but instead to depict the the steps that are relevant to this process change. So first the a complaint is submitted to either PSU uh BPD sergeants the panel or

[40:02] the monitor. If the monitor or panel receives the complaint we will forward that to PSU. PSU then performs the preliminary investigation. If the preponderance of the evidence shows actions complied with BPD policy or did not occur as alleged, the cases can be deemed exonerated or unfounded. The case is then closed without further investigation. And in order for that to happen, both the monitor and PSU must be in agreement. where there are allegations identified that could be violations of BPD policies, the monitor classifies the complaint and routes the case to PSU for full administrative investigation. Um, no investigation shall commence until after such classification. PSU then conducts a full investigation in partnership with the monitor.

[41:02] The monitor presents classified complaints to the panel to consider for review. This occurs once the complaint has been classified and prior to the culmination of the administrative investigation. When the monitor determines the investigation is fair, thorough, and complete, she certifies it and the case proceeds to review by the BPD chain of command. Then the panel reviews whichever cases it has previously chosen for review once the investigation is complete and the BPD chief of police makes the final determinations of disposition and discipline and also responds to any policy or training recommendations made by the panel. Um an issue that's come up is uh the timing of when the monitor refers cases to the panel for vote. um and that seems to be able to be flexible. So, previously I referred them for panel vote in the the next monthly meeting

[42:00] following classification. Uh this month I provided summaries of the cases I classified but at the suggestion of a co-chair will wait for formal referral until after those cases are deemed thorough and complete. Not all preliminary investigations involve all of these types of evidence, but most of them will include some combination of body warn camera, incar camera, CAD, which is the computer aided dispatch reports, um 911 or dispatch audio, BPD reports, and of course the the narratives um and allegations provided by the complainant. Um there are some cases that will include u more types of evidence and for the most serious incidents um PSU and I frequently work together to review evidence and develop investigative strategy during the preliminary investigation. And then in other cases they only might receive

[43:03] significant attention from me after the preliminary investigation is complete and then submitted for my classification. And I think sorry to interrupt. I just I noticed a community member asked for the slides to be a little bigger. So just before we proceed too much further, wanted to mention that if you're able to zoom in on any areas, if you have another slide with small text, let's do that. Um I think the diagram was the only was the only one that had the the smaller text. I hope and I'm not sure but I I I can try if there's another one. Thank you. When I am assigned cases for classification, I review all of the evidence provided by PSU and in some instances I will obtain additional

[44:00] evidence for inclusion in the file. In addition to the complaints made by the the community member, I also apply my knowledge of BPD rules and general orders. And from all of these factors, I classify the case. I draft allegations and may issue recommendations. Generally, I reserve policy recommendations for later in the process, but there are times when I alert BPD to concerns or make policy recommendations at the time of my classification, so they have earlier awareness of my concerns. Um, when I classify cases, I classify serious misconduct, misconduct investigations, community inquiries, community feedback, and unspecified incidents. And the cases that we are talking about um are cases that are going to be the misconduct investigations.

[45:00] So similar to criminal charges, allegations against officers must allege a violation of one of BPD's 10 rules of conduct. Um, in administrative investigations, officers are considered innocent until the city establishes that the evidence proves that their actions were outside of policy. Unlike criminal law, the standard of proof is lower and we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, which effectively means more likely than not to have occurred. Because of bodywn camera, the preliminary investigations frequently provide sufficient evidence to confidently issue unfounded or exonerated findings. And unfounded and exonerated um are both positive findings in the police oversight world um along with sustained findings

[46:01] because they're making a definitive determination. And as as many of you have heard me explain in case reviews or in trainings, I frequently use the the example of an allegation that an officer punched someone to describe these these two findings. So, an unfounded finding would be appropriate when the evidence demonstrated that the complainant was never punched during the incident or if the evidence established that the complainant was punched, but not by the officer, but instead by like a private security guard or another third party. Whereas an exonerated finding would be appropriate when the named officer did punch the complainant, but the punch was clearly within BPD's use of force policy. So when I've been thinking about this, it's I've been thinking about similar to the responsibility of a prosecutor to dismiss charges when evidence determines that a crime did not occur. The city

[47:02] will not unduly extend administrative investigations when there is sufficient evidence to determine that officer's actions were within BPD policy. So this course of action is not only efficient, but it also aligns with the important commitments we have to fairness and due process. Previously, I referred cases to the panel when I had recommended unfounded or exonerated findings in accordance to the general order 120. Um, I provided summaries of of the observable facts along with my findings and analysis for for you to vote on whether or not the whether or not to conduct a case review. in in many instances the panel uh voted against reviewing those cases. Um however there were some instances when the panel did choose um to vote to

[48:00] review uh the cases that I had recommended unfounded or exonerated findings. This led to a procedurally awkward position because the the monitor and PSU had already determined that additional investigation was not appropriate. we did not proceed with additional investigative steps and the investigation stopped at the preliminary investigation. Um uh most importantly one of the biggest differences was is that we did not then compel the officers to provide a statement. So the files that were provided for panel review remained incomplete investigations when the ordinance specifies that the panel may review completed investigations. So not only was this contrary to the ordinance, but it resulted in panel members making recommendations um and recommending findings based on incomplete investigations.

[49:02] Additionally, during at least two of those case reviews that I remember, panel members asked why they were even reviewing the case, which indicates that they did not find it an effective use of of the panel resources. So, the updated process is intended to bring alignment with the ordinance. So now when I recommend unfounded or exonerated findings and PSU is in agreement, BPD will close the case. Um officers then will be notified of both the allegation and the findings at the same time. If there was coaching recommended, the officers will receive it closer in time to the incident. And as I've done in the past, I will continue to share the detailed summaries with the panel so that you have knowledge of those cases and awareness about them. And I will continue to

[50:01] publicly report on all closed misconduct cases. And the complaintants will receive the outcomes of of the cases. And um as I shared earlier, based on a co-chair request, the panel can also consider when in the case investigation process is their preferred time to vote to review cases. I identified some benefits and challenges with with uh either of the timings. So you are used to receiving cases for vote following my classification. And some of those benefits would include that the early panel awareness of community complaints and officers then are advised of the process of their case and whether the panel will review. Um, some challenges could be at the time of the vote, the panel only has details from the preliminary investigation.

[51:00] And as I think several of you are well aware, there's that creates a time lag between when pan when panel members volunteer to review a case and then when the actual case review occurs. So if I review cases for panel vote when an investigation is complete um I anticipate the following benefits for the panel. Um you would get the ability to uh receive a summarization of the completed investigation to base your vote on and also have a better gauge of the case review timing for your own scheduling purposes of whether or not it makes sense for you to volunteer for a particular case review. Um and challenges would be the the lag between the registration of the complaint and the panel notification. Um we would be less able to advise involved officers of the expected timing and the process that the investigation will take or the review of the investigation will take I should say. Um and there is a chance

[52:02] that serious misconduct cases could be delayed um as we wait for panel vote. Sherry, um there's a comment in the Q&A. Could you um give the definition of what PSU stands for because maybe some members don't know. >> Oh, thank you. I should have thought of that. Yes. Um PSU is the Boulder Police Department's Professional Standards Unit and um it's what in a lot of other departments is called like the Bureau of Internal Affairs or Internal Affairs Departments. So they are the uh they are it's staffed by sergeants at the Boulder Police Department who are assigned to conduct the investigations of um complaints of misconduct. Thanks >> I'll start with Chico. Please continue if you weren't done yet. >> No, no, no, no. I'm just gonna have to press some buttons to get my screens

[53:01] back together. Uh Sherry, thanks very much for your presentation. So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the new deemed thorough and complete, right? Because that's where everything hinges on that. So if the standard now is deemed to be thorough and complete. So what what of an instance and and I know speaking from experience in the past where not only you and your predecessor the panel has said can you go back and look at this. So how is this standard going to fit into that? Um, I think that that those sort of questions that have arisen in some case reviews would still um have some of the same challenges, which would be whether or not for the most part an officer had

[54:02] um been served allegations and provided an answer. In those instances, it would be really difficult to um bring up completely new allegations if that's what you're asking. What I'm asking is because now you're deeming it to be thorough and complete and and you are assuming that the panel will be in alignment with your position and we are not monolithic. There are certain times when your position and our position are going to be different and we say, "Hey, can you go back and revisit this case because if you deem it thorough and complete, then you've closed the door." I I I think that is actually a a a separate issue than the the the reason I was bringing up the thorough and completeness was simply because it was a request from a co-chair

[55:02] and that was just when in the sequence the panel would vote. I'll leave I'll leave the others to think about what I've said >> and sorry if I'm misunderstanding >> Chico go ahead Soda >> unmuted um so so ch is referring to me I mentioned in a co-chair meeting uh the thorough and completeness because what is happening right now and what I find uh personally that is an issue is that we're voting in cases that which the investigation hasn't happened yet. So we're voting in things that we don't even know if you know we're going to ever see. It seems like a waste of time. And the reason why I brought the thorough and complete concept is because

[56:01] when I joined the panel flow's um presentation of cases will say that I have deemed this investigation to complete therefore is now ready to be voted by the panel. So, I think that even we and and I hear you, Chico, and I have an answer for you um that I'm going to get to in a second, but um if the investigation is thorough and complete, that means that we can vote is a complete investigation, we can review the case. I don't think that there should be a difference in the how the BSU and the monitor investigate a case based on if the panel is or not reviewing the case because that will you know raise the question so only when the panel is reviewing the case you're going to do a great job investigating or is that is that going to be a difference in the way that you know a case is investigated so I strongly disagree with that uh I think in the ordinance is

[57:02] clearly stating stated that we can request um for an investig for we can request to the monitor that more investigation is done when that happens. So um okay so that that that's one thing. The other thing that I want to say is that you mentioned in your presentation Cherry that in 2024 six cases were presented to the panel and zero had um sustained allegations from the panel. But I'm wondering with the six that happened in 2025, what happened? Um and also I think I I really have a problem with the contra I will say counter examples of this. Uh there has been situations and we have talked about this in which the allegations were racially uh someone

[58:01] that felt racially profiled in a in a a traffic stop and I think that they are hints that white people don't see. So, you know, I don't trust that, you know, either you or PSU agents are are going to be able to identify those those things. Had, you know, and I have said this many many times, did the car has a sticker? Did were they listen to a particular music that led them to think that they were, you know, from a different different racial group or minority or a different culture? So I think that I I have my reservations with that. Um and given that you know I don't think that we have enough trust in place to

[59:02] rely that something like what I'm sharing is not going to happen. So I guess my question is how are we going to overcome the the tremendous trust issue that we have right now because I think this system might work if if we had faith and trust on each other and I don't think we're there. So so I guess that that's my question. Um, you had several questions and comments, so I'm going to try to address them, but if I miss one, please just elevate. I'm not trying to ignore a a concern. Um, when I was talking about um whether the panel takes a case or not and the officer is being advised, it's we try to give them when they come in for statements just an understanding of what we expect the timing to be, how long the case is going to be at PSU,

[60:00] when we expect it to go to the chain of command. Um and then we generally share with them uh you know whe whether the panel is taking the case or not and that that is going to add generally at least an additional month to the to the time that it would go before before Redern and they could expect a resolution. So that's what I mean. I'm not saying that it would be investigated differently. Although I do when there when we do have um cases that I know are going to the panel, I do try to um have officers address acronyms in in in the interviews in ways that if I don't think the panel's reviewing it, I might not go back and have them explain uh some of their jargon, but it's more for uh so to be able to give the officers a more accurate description of the timing. Um and then that acronym discussion would be the differences. Um

[61:01] yeah, we I I think the the conversation about if the panel uh reviews a case and finds the investigation is is lacking. That that those are issues that have been sort of teased around but we haven't fully dived into. So, that is something that I think getting some more clarity is something to bring up during the during this 5-year review process because I do think there are some conflicts and with the the officers uh having to be informed of allegations against them before they provide a statement. So, figuring out the details of how that happens, I think, is something that would be great to know. Um, but right now we we've never really addressed it head-on. So, that might be something to consider for the the 5-year review of getting more um a better understanding of how that process would work. Um, and yeah, how do we come o overcome the

[62:00] trust issue? That's I mean, I think that's almost the the elephant in the room in in some ways. Um, this is something where, and I haven't I have not run this run this through uh the the city attorney's office, but where something like an audit, like a quarterly audit of, you know, one random number generation of, you know, a a case that was closed, general order 120, for the panel to review so that they can have a a closer window into like what sort of cases besides just my summaries. That would be a a suggestion that I have and I I don't know if any other people like hopefully we think about it, we could find some other ways to um be within the ordinance but still uh meet the meet the concerns of the panel that are therefore meeting the needs of the community. >> Thanks Sherry and thanks for your

[63:00] question. Um, let's go to Curtis and then Melen and then I'm gonna go. Um, we do probably I I want to make sure we get to everything else. This is incredibly important. I also want to make sure we don't get behind for a whole another month. So, I'll try to keep these a little bit short. Um, but we should have time for for three more comments. So, go ahead Curtis. >> Thank you. And, uh, thank you Sher for the presentation. Um, I just want to ask a few questions. Maybe Chris or Sherry could possibly answer. Um, first uh you mentioned uh PSU kind of being employed by sergeants. You you mean um like police officers >> or >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. And um and and and you yourself uh prior to being a independent police monitor were a prosecutor. Is that correct? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. never mind them. Um, but

[64:02] ultimately what I'm seeing is that if there's um police officers um investigating police complaints that um and and and you know, I understand that with PSU and you have to come to a um conclusion based on the evidence. Um I just feel that there's that there's room for for bias that you know we we all have and when the um decision making power is in the hands of a few individuals um then it it it it's subject to that. How how do you how do you um how do you reconcile with that possibility? I I mean I think the concern that you know human beings bring their biases with them is is valid and it's something that um I try to be aware of and to not

[65:01] just pretend that I don't have any biases but to try to keep that in mind and double double check with myself. And I don't I don't know that you know my history, Curtis, but when I worked when I worked in Chicago, we had a very different model of um police oversight. So it was the investigative model. So we did the complete investigations. So that's where the bulk of my career was spent was doing direct investigations of of police misconduct. Um, so that's something that I've had have a lot of experience doing and understanding how the actions of officers do or do not fit in with the with the requirements of the general orders of the police department. And then another thing that I wanted to put forward was that in some cases and Sher we spoke about this a little but in

[66:00] some cases there are uh situations where police are within policy but still what took place may not um may not be how we want the uh police to be showing up with community. And in seeing that we may recommend changes to the policy. And if we're unable to uh review uh those cases because they've been found unfounded or exonerated, I know you said in your notes that that that you would send in those recommendations to to to change policy or maybe trainings, but again, that's one um cis white um woman making those decisions that aren't taking in a diverse perspective. Um and I just feel that there is a lot that can be missed in that. And what I would like to see uh as a solution uh again within the ordinance is that when you and PSU find a case exonerated or unfounded that that

[67:00] be presented to the panel and we agree on that based on your findings and I'm sure most times we will but in the rare chance that we don't and we see something that maybe you or PSU didn't that we should be able to go through a process to be able to reopen that case and finish that investigation. Okay, that's something to think about, Curtis. >> Thank you. >> Thanks very much, Curtis. Go ahead, Melan. So, I'm gonna piggy back on what Curtis just said because I put on the record at least twice in the past in this this year that uh we asked for reclassification of community inquiries um into cases because there were so many red flags for biases that um um was refused by you Sherry. You absolutely refused to reconsider it. You said I was

[68:02] you're going to think about it and then you I don't believe you really thoroughly thought about it and thought about the value of the ask and then you refused to reclassify uh those two cases um or and have the panel review them. So, I don't believe you when you say you're going to think about it uh and consider what Curtis just asked. And we know you and I are both two white women. We know what that I know what education I came from. And I find that there's a lack of awareness um from you that is uh significant and needs to be addressed. Um, so I'll just put that put a pin on this. Um, second, um, about what Chica was saying. Um,

[69:00] I noticed that in your graphic you say complaints are received, blah, blah, blah, and all of that all the way to complaints are closed without the panel reviewing them. You talk about complaints. We talked about complaints and incidents last time. Why didn't you use incidents rather than complaints? And what do you mean by complaints? Because if you mean complaints are received by the public from the public, from our community, and you're closing them, we're not doing what we say we're we're doing. And that's still on the page of the police suicide panel in the on the website. So we are selling something to our community members that is absolutely wrong. That we cannot ensure that we're doing. So someone needs to get their act together.

[70:01] Someone has a purpose in preventing the panel from doing its job because that's not the narrative that we've given. And I don't know who is, you know, has a stake in this to make sure that the panel is shut down and unable to say what they have been trying to tell people convincing them to make complaints because we cannot review all the complaints anymore. So I want a clarification again on on what is the difference between complaint and incident. I know the difference, but Chris, you obviously didn't know it last time. We had we had a run-on thing going on. I know complaints are coming from our community members. We have community members listening to us right now because they know that if they they make

[71:01] a complaint, we their representatives may not see them ever and that is not fair to them. So I want an explanation on why complaints are removed from the panel oversight. Uh, and I'm sorry, PSU is as a lot of white people. It's police are some of our community members don't trust police. Sherry, you're not you you have a lot of experience. I I acknowledge that in investigating crimes in Chicago. but you're not representing our community. And so having police who is we're we're looking at their misconduct plus you

[72:02] deciding who the p what complaints the panel see or doesn't see is really wrong. It's really wrong. And so I need more explanations on that because we have people listening right now and we are prevented from doing the job that we said we were going to do. I'll stop here >> and and I'm I'm happy to to jump in here Meen and offer uh to meet with you to talk about some of these questions with regards to the scope of the monitor's authority, talk about our interpretation of complaints versus incidents. And so I want to put that put that out there for you. Um and then uh I I also just want to remind um or just state to the to the panel that um you know using the chat function in uh this meeting in Zoom

[73:00] unless we read all of the chats into the record. Um I don't believe that that's captured. Uh so if we miss some then there's some like conversations that are happening in the public meeting that aren't part of the public record. So I would just caution panel members from using the the chat function during the meeting. >> Chris, unless your definition of complaints and incident has changed, I don't want to hear it again. You you repeated it like three or four times last time. So has it changed? >> I'm I'm happy to talk more in depth with you, Melen. Um, >> it's a simple question. >> I'm sorry. >> It's a simple question, >> right? Um, it's a simple question, but you're talking about a complex issue. Um, the last meeting was a public meeting and so I was uh constrained from giving full uh, you know, confidential legal advice, which I could do if if

[74:01] >> I'm not asking for legal advice. I mean, our community members should be able to know what is the difference whether there's a between a complaint and an incident that that we're talking about them right now. Why can't they know what's the difference? It has to be fairly simple. A complaint is sent by a community. An incident is more of an internal police affair. I don't see why we can't have clear transparency transparent definitions for our community members. I I don't understand and I'll I'll stop here because it's really frustrating right now. >> Thanks. Um Curtis, I see you have your hand up as well. I'll briefly give my um thoughts and then we'll go to you for our our last question um before we get into public comment because I do want to um acknowledge we have lots of great

[75:02] comments in the Q&A and a lot of panel uh community members present as well. So, we do want to break and hear from you all as soon as we can. Um I want to acknowledge everyone's comments. I I really agree with so much of what has been said. Um, I think we're in a tricky position now where everything that we heard last month is now we've shifted to a totally new conversation that justifies the policy in a new way. So like the impact the new policy has not really changed. What we're seeing as the new policy now is very similar to how it was described in terms of the impact. But the reason for it and the justification is completely different and it's a completely different understanding of the workflow of cases. Um this new diagram that we have which

[76:01] is really helpful makes logical sense to me. I understand the arguments that are being made now or the interpretation that's being made now. But just a few months ago, we made a very similar flowchart. Cherry, you and I worked on something for the annual report that is in the annual report and it's now totally incorrect. Right? So, I just want to acknowledge for everyone if you're feeling like again a little bit of whiplash, like we are again in a very different place than we were a month ago, which is frustrating because it's hard to understand why our understanding and the official position on the interpretation can be so different every time we dig into it. Um, with that said, I agree. I really want us to talk about solutions today and I really appreciate the ideas that Sher shared and that Curtis shared. Um, two options that Solidad and I had discussed that we would find really helpful are a

[77:01] little bit similar to what both of you had suggested actually, but we had thought um, if we consider where that kind of first branch happens where cases either go down into full investigations or they go to the right and are closed before that decision is made. Um the concern from the panel is that there's no panel members, there's no diverse perspectives in that decision, right? We have PSU and the IPM who are making that decision. If we could propose some criteria for certain cases that can sort of be treated as I don't know if exceptions is the right word, but that can trigger a special process. So, for example, any case that involves a community member alleging racial bias, racial discrimination, we could work together to figure out what those criteria need to be. Um,

[78:01] we could have a point before that decision is made in which say two panel members are invited to review the initial evidence that is available to the IPM and to PSU and provide guidance to the IPM from the panel members diverse perspective before that final decision is made. So a way to bring the panel into that decision again have some involvement and transparency into the process without interfering with the ordinance and still allowing that branching to happen as determined by the ordinance. So that's the first option. The second option that I would really love to see is some proactive data sharing monthly about the complaint pipeline. So all of the complaints that are coming in with a few fields that we all work together to decide that allow us as a panel to we call this in in

[79:00] public health practically do surveillance as the system is unfolding to see what kind of complaints are coming in. if we can see trends, if we see spikes, if we say things at that full view level rather than only being able to see our little piece of the pie that comes all the way down to the panel for voting. Um, so those are two things that would make me feel a lot more comfortable within what I still am concerned is not an ideal situation for the panel. All of my initial concerns are still here. I think we've heard loud loud and clear from the community members in the chat that many community members share those concerns about the panel really only seeing a small slice of overall complaints. Um, but I think those two things or some combination of those with how Curtis had described them would be a huge step in the right direction. Uh, go ahead Sherry. Can you um can you elaborate on the like

[80:02] what that the last point the proactive data sharing pipeline can can you just try to >> give it my brain >> maybe we don't don't go too in depth for today just for time but the data that we collected for the annual report super insightful and helpful I would love to have data that we are getting monthly that we can set up to be a light lift. It's an automatic data dump that we can flow into a system that we can then check on once a month in these in these meetings. So, nothing confidential. Names are not required. It would be what does the complaint pipeline look like? What are the types of complaints we're seeing? How many are getting branched in that first phase of the process? and basically give some o um like a highlevel view of the whole picture so that we are always putting what we're seeing in in the full context. >> Okay, thank you. That that helps.

[81:03] >> All right, let's go to I think so. Curtis, you mentioned earlier that you had a question, but it looks like your hand is either of you can go. I don't want to put anyone in front of anyone unnecessarily in line, but go ahead, Curtis. Go ahead, Solid. >> H Thank you, Curtis. So, two things. One is that it in is my understanding limited understanding that the ordinance says that the panel has the authority to see all complaints and the panel roles is to review complete investigations. So there's two different branches of authority that the panel has. When there's a complete investigation, we review the case and we can kind of chime in and suggest to the chief, you know, provide recommendations

[82:01] on discipline, but we have the authority to see all complaints. So I think that what Lizzie and I'm sorry, Lucy, I don't want to interpret what you're saying. uh but I think if I'm understanding correctly that is the second branch of the authority of the panel we want to see all complaints and monthly should be I think it's a it's an interesting pace to know all complaints uh the ordinance also doesn't say that we have to see the complaint we we should see the complaints you know um because we sign confidentiality agreements so it shouldn't be a problem it shouldn't be a super huge burden for us to receive you know and be able to see all complaints that will I think ease some some of people minds. But I do want to say something that was different from that be and I want to say it here because I wanted to be on record. It's so appalling to me that we are in this

[83:02] meeting and we we're still talking about the city attorney's office, the city, you know, you all diving deep in the ordinance. Like you should know the ordinance by heart. Like that's the center of the police oversight system. So for me that legal the the you know legal council the city attorney that is assigned to us not knowing and and every time like oh we're going to look at the ordinance. You should know the ordinance by heart you know like we can't be here after all this ordeal and we're just going to take a deep dive on the ordinance. We should know that by heart. Everyone here should know the ordinance. You know, the attorneys in the room should know it better than the rest. So, so for me, that's a concern. That's

[84:01] a huge concern that every time we post a question, oh, we're going to take a look at the ordinance. Really, that that is unacceptable. You all should know the ordinance. It should be clear in what each body, you know, is authorized to do. We shouldn't have to fight over reading the ordinance and that, you know, anyway, that's my fault. And sorry, Lucy, you're managing the time and I'm just Yeah. Thank you. >> Thanks, Solidad. All right. Did we have a final comment from Curtis? >> Yeah, I did have one final comment. Um, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure. I just want to ask maybe Chris you can answer this but in the case of Zade Aerson um um were the police on that case found um

[85:02] was it sustained for racial biasing on that on that particular case or was there found no wrongdoing by officers? Well, I can say Curtis that the current system of civilian police oversight of the Boulder Police Department did not exist in its current form. Right. Right. It was created because of that incident. But in the case of that uh uh uh with Zade, um it was very clear what what took place, but the city took the position of not finding those officers um guilty of any wrongdoing and that I think needs to be remembered. And it was the same case with um Samuel. uh there was a huge lack of accountability from the city and this um

[86:00] you know the the the resistance to this decision uh comes from the history of Boulder and from the way that the city of Boulder has handled uh those situations especially those concerning uh minorities. So I just think that that's something we need to remember. >> Thanks Chris. Appreciate that. All right. Um, thank you everyone for this discussion today. I think we have a lot more to discuss. Um, but we made definitely gained some ground today. We have some good things to think about and discuss for next time. Um, I want to go to public comment since we're late on our usual public comment time and then we also have lots of business to get to. So, we'll try to keep things moving from here. Um we have many community members present which we deeply appreciate. Thank you all for being here. Um

[87:00] how this typically works. Oh, go ahead Sherry. Um I just looked at the agenda and there are two points that can go really quickly um just before we get into um moving it out of this section if that's okay. >> Okay. Yeah, go for it. Um so I just wanted to share that uh uh panel recruitment is in alignment with boards and commissions recruitment which started today and it goes um until January 25th. Um so that is um something to be aware of and you should have received a calendar invitation for anyone who wants to attend on I believe it's January 5th. there's an open house where some people came to to last year. Um, and then also we have the meeting with the chief next week and at least as a few as of a few hours ago, the only question or comments

[88:02] questions on the the the topic form for the meeting with the chief were ones that I had pulled out from case reviews where people had asked about it. And I think there's probably lots of questions that people have. So, just a reminder to um put questions and concerns on on that sheet in advance of I think December 11th was the was the day we said to have those in >> Sherry. Uh go ahead Melan unless that's an old hand. Yeah, I just have a quick comment like we Sherry you mentioned that uh you know uh uh the panel qualifies under boards and and uh commission for recruitment and all that. So I need clarification because we're a panel. We're not board and commissions. Chris likes to repeats that repeat that over and over again and yet we are following board and commission's rules for recruitment and this and that and

[89:00] the other and and um so it seems very convenient to use board and commission for certain things but not others. So I just want to put that also in the public record. Thank you. >> Explain. Go ahead, Chico. >> Uh for me it's it's just the next agenda item on panel review. I don't want us to miss that. >> All right, with that, let's um address that as well because I I forgot we had more items in this section. So, we should do that before we move on. Um Chico, do you want to facilitate this? Do you want Solidad and I to share anything we are aware of? Let let let the folks from the city, the monitor and Chris tell us where they're at with the with what we we pos we we posited last time. Then we can pick it up from there. >> Okay. So, I just want to address one thing before we move to this section, which we're going to do right now. But

[90:01] just for members of the public that are raising their hands, as soon as we're done with this topic, we're going to go to open comments. if you wish to make comment, please raise your hand and we're going to have uh you unmute and provide uh public comment. So that's that's kind of the way that we have for for you all to participate. So as soon as we're done with this, I see uh we have Matthew and someone else um I can't see it in my list. I'm sorry. Uh right now to uh in the queue and and that's when we're going to go to you. So, so, so please stay with us and if you keep your hand raised, we can see you. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you, Soladad. Um, Sherry, I think would do you all do you have any updates for us on the review that you're aware of? um only that um my my understanding and this is probably two weeks old is that

[91:00] um I believe Nuri was hoping to uh get some some contracts um and some details ironed out about who would be um conducting the review and that it's slated for very early uh 2026. >> Thanks. Go ahead, Chico. >> Can I suggest that we bring in the city managers at the next meeting to brief us on this because if we are going to get it from Sherry and Sherry doesn't have full knowledge. I don't like wasting time in my mind. I I really might value my time. So, why don't the city manager come in and brief us on this? >> I think that sounds like a great suggestion. We can send that request for next month. Um, the only other update that's not not totally an update, but

[92:01] it's a little bit of information Soladad and I have. Um, it sound Nura reached out just to reiterate that she's working on getting this started um and is is committed to doing the review. And one thing she wanted to pass along to the full panel is just a reminder that um she's definitely encouraging everyone to reach out and schedule one one-on-one or two-on-one discussions with her um to discuss your feedback and concerns and feelings um about anything that's been going on, anything specifically related to the review or anything in between. Um, I think there was maybe some confusion about whether we should wait for the review to really officially begin or not. Um, you don't need to do that. You're welcome to wait, but you're also more than welcome to go ahead and schedule um right away. And I think she's eager to hear from us. So, please do that if you are interested and and willing to do that. All right. Um, with that, I think we

[93:00] will go to public comment. Um, so I see we have three hands so far. A quick reminder, if you would like to speak, please put your hand up and we'll go through you in order. Um, how this will work is we will unmute you one at a time, you'll have up to two minutes to share your thoughts and questions with the panel. Um, we will get a timer up for you hopefully. Selena, are you able to help with that? >> Yes. Give me one second. >> Thank you. And we will also read the comments in the chat. So, thank you for everyone who um took the time to put those in and we will read those once we get through the hands. All right. So, starting off, I have our first hand. I'm really sorry if I don't pronounce this correctly. Is it Sashi? Um I'm going to go ahead and unmute you in just a moment. Oh gosh, if I get the timer up, I can't

[94:01] unmute folks. Um, Selena, do you mind running one or the other? >> What do you prefer? >> I can do um, let me do both just so you can manage. Um, people know. Yeah, >> even better. All right, >> Sassy, you are un you're allowed to talk. So, just go ahead and >> Okay. Hey, sorry. I don't know why it says Sachi Suta. That's um that's actually my um my spiritual name. Um but this is Zade Atinson. And um yeah, so I mean I guess for me um you know the whole purpose of this of this panel if I'm not mistaken is you know the community working with police and vice versa, however that looks. Um I think that it's great to see how you know city council is involved as well. Um, I think that once again the purpose is really all of us working together and even if we're not always agreeing, which it seems like now is one of those times um

[95:02] and essences in our process, um, at least we are working with each other, which is good to see. Um, you know, I'm really grateful to the panel for always, you know, doing their best, even though they're not getting paid to be here, um, to make it work for us. um because we don't actually have um a voice representing us in this way. Um which is something that should be taken note of by city council and obviously Sherry who has a very interesting role in the panel. Um I think that you know it is kind of interesting to see the power struggle that has been in this um panel uh since the beginning. um whether it's you know us trying to figure out how to work with each other and ideas or whether it's outside forces making it more difficult for us to do our job which is obviously happening right now and extremely um disturbing to say the

[96:02] least um and um you know so um you know sorry that I'm not always able to be present you know I'm obviously you know like all of us going through a lot and I have other things that I might need to be focusing on um but I think that what I'm hearing um especially about what's going on with Sherry's role is really concerning and and it seems like city council doesn't really want us to exist. Um it's almost like they feel like we shouldn't we don't deserve the panel doesn't deserve to have this type of power or they might not have earned it or whatever. Um, I think that that's kind of the vibe I'm getting from city council and Sherry, I don't know what really, you know, your role is and what your background is with police, but it's obvious that, you know, you're, you know, it it's weird. It's weird. What I'm seeing is weird. Um, I don't understand why um you're taking, you know, you're not allowing people to do their job here. um you know and that's

[97:02] obviously frustrating for everyone you know um when they're giving their own free time to be here. Um so yeah, I don't want to take up too much time. I'm obviously not, you know, 100% connected, you know, but just off of what I'm seeing here today amongst everyone's vibe and also what I'm hearing in the community, those are like some of the things that I'm kind of worried about. Um so yeah, keep that in mind. Um, we're all here to work together for, um, the good of Boulder, right? So, um, let's do that. Yeah, that's all I really got. >> Thanks, Aid. We always really appreciate when you can join. Appreciate your insight. >> All right. Next, we have Matthew Duffy. You will be unmuted momentarily and able to speak.

[98:00] Hello. Can you hear me? Hey everyone. Uh, good to see you all. Chris, I think we sometimes spar at East unless you look just like somebody I get punched and punched regularly. Um, yeah, first just want to appreciate uh that this panel even exists. And um as Aid was saying, just echoing in the the community interfacing and the rare opportunity and I just want to celebrate the attempt to build a bridge between community and police uh for accountability and oversight uh especially for more marginalized communities. That's critical. And it's also a way in which we build critical relationships and resilience and solidarity in Boulder, which is supposed to be a sanctuary city. While ICE is moving into

[99:02] every city across the country, especially where there are migrant families and now they have cart blanch uh green light to racially profile, right? And if and if our communities don't have the ability to make sure that our police department isn't subversively cooperating with ICE as we've seen across the country, we've seen in Denver, right, when we're supposed to be sanctuary cities. That's really troubling. I don't I don't get why we would spend any energy deliberating why we wouldn't have police oversight. Of course, we need police oversight, especially right now. We need to be working together right now more than ever. And and so I

[100:00] just plead everybody who has decision-making power in this moment to please keep this police oversight panel intact. It's people who are trying to work with police to actually bridge to protect our communities and and it's just a it's just a critical bridge that I think can have long-term benefits for the city of Boulder and but we really need it right now. It just shouldn't even be a question. >> Sorry, I accidentally un I accidentally muted you a second too early. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that, Matthew. that I think you were wrapping up. Thank you so much for your comments. Um, next up we have Darren O' Conor. Um, we're going to unmute you in just a moment. I am going to start holding people to the two minutes just to fair warning. I feel terrible cutting anyone off, but we're going to do that just for time. So, thanks in advance. >> All right. >> Can I just add Darren, did you still

[101:00] want to comment? Your hand went down. So, I just want to make sure that you still wanted to comment. >> Yeah, it looks like he's back. So, let's unmute Darren. >> Um, hold on. Give me one second. Let me go. Um, I think Oh, okay. I see him. Okay, Darren, you are allowed to unmute now. All right. So, I do have a question for attorney Reynolds that I put in the Q&A. Hope you guys can get that to that. But what I wanted to point out is, you know, in the last months, there's been so many police transparency issues in Boulder. you know, in the newspaper, we've seen that the newspaper itself can no longer access uh the police radios because they're encrypted and they were offered

[102:02] encrypted radios, but under um really limiting language on what they could do with the information that they had and the the daily camera decided they didn't want to do that. This is much like the Department of War, you know, only allowing um media journalists in that will only share messaging that the Department of War approves. Uh this is this was a Trumpian move by the city by the by the police and we've seen you know a guest opinion from uh Chief Redford you know basically saying war is peace freedom of slavery ignorance is strength you know we're going to keep information from you and then there's the the police dashboard which provides some information about use of force but it doesn't provide And this is important, sufficient information to identify bad cops who are outside the

[103:03] norm in their use of force. I'll remind everyone, Officer Lola used force at nearly 10 times the average of a Boulder police officer and that can still be happening. There may be other officers doing that and that police dashboard isn't providing anything. And now this, we're taking away, the city attorney's office is taking away the the authorized um duty really of the police oversight panel to review independently these cases. It's it's it's grumpy. It's overwhelming. >> Thank you, Darren. Really appreciate your comments. Um next up we have Sam. Uh just a quick note here too, just for minutes. Um anybody who um is going to comment, if you can just give your full name so then it can be um put into the minutes. So um

[104:02] anyone who has just their first name, if you could just give me your full complete name um so I can put it in the minutes. But uh Sam, I'm going to go ahead and unmute you. It looks like you are able Give me one sec. Oh, okay. All right. You are unable to mute now. >> Hear me? It's It's Sam Rogers. Um, yeah, thank you so much. Um, I don't know. I guess this process has been kind of kind of frustrating in a sense that everybody on the panel really doesn't want this uh change to happen where um you know cases are vetted before they even get to the panel. Um, so it's very, it seems very clear to me that there's this uh, you know, the city attorney and and uh, Sherry who are

[105:00] employed by the city and then the volunteer pop um, don't want don't want they want to have full access to all the cases. They want to have power to run through and decide what's going on. And we're talking about nuances. We're talking about racial profiling. talking about all this stuff that isn't like super obvious of like aggressive force and all that stuff. Um, so it just seems like it's um undermining the panel and I don't want it to just be a um you know PR campaign for the city of Boulder. I want it to actually have some teeth and have some bite and to be able to make police accountable. And I think this in this direction from what I'm hearing and understanding is that that's we're that's straying away from it. And it seems like it's a, you know, like a conspiracy with the police and the um the attorney's office and all that stuff

[106:01] um to um make the the panel be to not even have access to all the cases. And I just think that's that's wrong. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Appreciate you being here. Um, next up we have Anthony Beck. Can you all hear me? >> Yep. >> Perfect. Uh, so yeah, my name is Anthony Beck. Um, want to express appreciation for a lot of the comments I've heard so far. um appreciation that this panel um is here. It's important work, which is why I'm I'm here watching it. Um, it's it's been said, but I'll just add my name to the pile to to say that I I don't think um leaving leaving the

[107:00] decision up to the police and and another government employee what cases this panel sees uh is is acceptable. like it that would defeat the purpose of of having this panel and and in in that case as other people have said um you know the the city of Boulder should should not get the the cookie for for having this panel if the panel is not empowered to do the work this panel is here to do. Um I you know I heard you all talk about various solutions like you know maybe if it's a racial profiling case it automatically gets skipped like whatever solution you all come to um the the new proposed policy as as written to to just leave it up to the police and a a government official who does not necessarily you know represent the the

[108:01] community. Um that's that's not an acceptable uh solution. Um yeah, thank you to the the members of the panelists who have been holding holding the line especially. Um I I I see you and appreciate your work here. um and and those those with the city like please please work with these folks to make sure that the the panel does what the panel is intended to do. Thanks >> you Anthony. Um and want to acknowledge I think we forgot our timer at that time so apologies about that but you did a great job staying I think right on schedule. Um, next up we have Fairy. Hi guys, it's it's Eileene. I'm so sorry. Fairy is also my spiritual name.

[109:02] Um, yeah, my name is Eileen. Um, I am a classmate of Curtis and of Zade. So grateful to be here and really um, yeah, really excited to see how, you know, communities coming together and um, and yeah, working together to organize, you know, better futures. Um yeah, I'm I'm just hopping on here cuz um I'm originally from New Jersey and I came here around 3 and a half, four years ago and um never in my life have I experienced um so many microaggressions and so much just sideways like and so many things that are like obviously um racism, but at the time I didn't have the awareness or the words to actually, you know, put it into my experience. Um, for example, the first year that I got here, um, I went to a club with my friends in Boulder and I was the only like African black presenting person there and a whole bunch of guys just accused me of stealing and the bouncers like they picked me up and they threw me on the

[110:00] ground outside and they bruised my shoulder and my phone broke and um, you know, at the time I didn't recognize it as uh, racism, but that created a tremendous like a lot of trauma for me and um, you know, I I was talking to my parents and they were like, "Call the police. Call the police." Like, "Put in a police report." You know, that's like that shouldn't be happening. Um, and I just didn't know who to go to or where to go to. And so when I heard about, you know, Zay's incident, when I heard about the this oversight panel opening up, there was a lot of healing that happened for me cuz I was just like, "Okay, that means that Boulder is protecting us. That means that Boulder does care." And I think in a, you know, in a in a city, in a place that, you know, talks about being so progressive and talks about embracing diversity and and inclusion and wanting to create, you know, equality and safe spaces for all people, um, I think in a city that uplifts these values and tries to walk within these missions and values, I think it's really important to create laws and institutions that are um, actually able

[111:02] to uphold the very values that we say that we that we that we are that we represent. Um but yeah, thank you. >> Thank you, Eileen. Really appreciate you being here and thank you for sharing with us um your story. I'm really sorry to hear that happened to you. Um next up we have Teague. >> Can you hear me? >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Hi, my name is Alberto and I first want to say thank you To all the people that are present, especially the people part of the oversight committee, I appreciate and respect and admire your resilience and your persistence. And I have a couple things that I invite the city of Boulder to consider and to ponder when you're making these decisions and when you're bringing up these proposals. What is your relationship to power? What is your relationship to the police? And

[112:02] who is present when you're making these decisions? What is the primary race of the people in these rooms? How do you how do you make, you know, how do you interface with the community? How do you actually integrate community in the decisions that you're making and not as an afterthought? These are just some of the questions that I invite you to consider. And it's like, who's being burdened by these decisions? Who's being harmed? Who's who keeps saying they're receiving harm from these decisions? and what are you doing about it? I appreciate again the time and the deliberation that you're doing this and also I challenge you to also consider how you're making the decisions and with who in mind with who is in with who in interest and also again what is the priorities of those who are in power because again what is the power and balance here how are you trying to limit that democracy that you that is being advocated for. So with that in mind again just think

[113:01] about how are you showing up? What are your triggers? Who from whose experience are you speaking and whose experience is not in the room again and whose experiences are you trying to hear here but then not actually being able to fully realize them. And again thank you again for all the members who are here present. I yield back my time. >> Thank you T. appreciate you being here. Uh, next up we have Maline Woodley. Welcome back, Meline. Okay, good. Uh, hello everyone. I want you to uh know I'm here mainly to encourage you to stay in the fight. It's worth it. Uh I also encourage you to consider the community. I am so glad to

[114:02] hear uh Zade uh to have heard Zade show up because it was what happened with Zade that started this and having been a member of the original uh group. it. This is very important that that we continue to grow uh that we grow these efforts and that we come to some conclusions that are going to be beneficial for those that are victims. Uh and that that we somehow let's create more trust. I mean, the the community has to has to be able to trust you as its representatives that's looking out for the better good of those that are um the ones experiencing

[115:00] the worst. And uh just want to say keep you encouraged. Stay encouraged. I'll be here as often as I can. Thank you. Thanks very much, Maline. We really appreciate that. Appreciate you being here. Um, next up we have T. T, you're free to unmute and speak. Thank you. Just fix fixing my audio here. Um, I just wanted to show up as um a second generation Colorado, someone who grew up in Boulder, owns a home in Boulder, is a parent on boards, a professor, a business owner. I'm very concerned about the potential um increase in racial bias, racism, and discrimination. Um if this panel is has new policies that reduces

[116:00] the scope of which of what comes to them of what incidents and complaints come to them. Um because if things come to them at a later point there are fewer people looking at it. Um there are people that are potentially expressing bias looking at it first. Um thank you to everybody who is on the panel. It is very encouraging to see that this panel exists and to see that people are donating their time. Um, and Sherry, I think that you've put a lot of thoughtful effort into this. However, I'm very concerned about the idea of internal processes with a PC P um SU investigating things um before they provide information to the panel. And so having the panel have more oversight, sooner oversight, oversight that is transparent and non-bias with high level level overviews um like Lyion mentioned at the end and the other solutions that the panel brought forth today, I think

[117:00] would be thoughtful ways of involving the community. Um as a person who is um heavily invested in the trans community, I know a lot of families are moving here from other states and other places. This is a huge opportunity for Boulder to become a place that has less racism and less discrimination in a time when people are being pushed out of their home communities. And so I need to see Flock leaving the city of Boulder, not staying, and I need to see this community and this panel staying with their oversight and increasing their role of oversight, not having that be reduced. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, T. Do you mind for the minutes? Oh, um maybe sharing your full name if we could unmute you for another moment. >> Um yeah, I would have someone chat me on the side because I'm an address um confidentiality program participant and I don't know what the rules are for minutes for people in that program. >> Got it. No problem. We'll

[118:01] >> Liy, I will say if if this is the case, we shouldn't ask anything else. >> Totally fair. If you're okay not being yeah named in the minutes, we're good with that as well. Um, all right. Uh, next we have Chris. Chris, you're free to unmute and speak. >> Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Hi, my name is Chris Alred and I work with Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you to everyone on the committee for your hard work and service to the community. And I am just here to be in solidarity with some of the other speakers tonight. I'm just here to echo a few of the concerns and also I just I do want to highlight

[119:02] the speaker who was providing encouragement to everyone who's taking time to work on this committee. Thank you for your work and and building trust in the community is essential. And I believe I remember when the injustice happened towards Zade and I remember the injustice towards Sammy and both were extremely dangerous situations. And it's my understanding that this committee was formed in a way a big part of that was to prevent police violence. and we were a part of a coalition that opposed the hiring of Chief Redern because of a history of his involvement with a violent response to peaceful protesters at Elijah Mlan's vigil. So, I find it problematic that I'm hearing concerns raised here about a city attorney office taking away

[120:02] oversight ability from this committee, censorship of news sources, and reporting on officers use of force, cases being vetted before they get to the full panel. The panel needs to have full transparency and oversight to be able to prevent cases of discrimination and police violence. So, I believe this panel needs to be empowered to do their job and not have new processes that prevent that. Thank you again for your time. >> Thanks very much, Chris. Appreciate you being here. And we have one more speaker. Connie, you're free to go ahead and and speak. Thanks for being here. >> Thanks for letting me speak. So, I didn't hear this addressed in this meeting, but um I had read about the uh reason for this decision to limit the information that the panel is going

[121:00] to get. The reason for it being that it would save time for the monitor's office for the police and the the article that I read in um it was Boulder Reporting Lab, excuse me, said that this would save about 36 hours a year. And that seems to me like an amount of time that ought to be able to be made up with more efficient processes. uh especially because this is just not a good look for the police department to be doing this. Um it's bad community relations and I don't think that's what Boulder Police wants. I uh I know it's not what the public wants and I know it's not what the panel wants. So, I'd love to hear people talking about how this process, the current the the existing process or even

[122:01] a more expansive process that would meet the goals of this oversight panel, how that could be done more efficiently because 36 hours that's that doesn't seem to me like a huge amount of time to be made up by making the process more efficient. So I, you know, it's a little frustrating to to listen to this meeting and hear that people are repeating their same requests and not getting a response. Um, so that's uh that's my request is that you get more efficient and get the job done. Not the panel, but the whole everybody working together. So thank you. Thank you, Connie. Appreciate your comments and thanks for being here. All right, we are going to read through the

[123:01] comments that have been put in the Q&A. Um, I'm happy to read all of these or solid, do you maybe want to switch off with me so you guys don't have to hear me the whole time? Any preference? >> I'm happy if you read. >> You want me to just read it? Okay, I'll do it. Um, all right. Thank you in advance for everyone to everyone who uh put comments in the chat. Um so first from Teague, if legally sensitive items cannot be discussed in a capacity open to the public, how can the city guarantee transparency? Uh from Judy Houston, and I think we'll open up for comments from panel members after all of these if that's all right. Um from Judy Houston, I'm sorry I need to leave this meeting now since I have a conflict. I would like to make a comment directed at representatives of the city. I support the panel in asking for more transparency to the community. So, I don't approve of the proposed changes to what cases the POP can see. These are my comments. I remember thinking that the only reason the city of Boulder was willing to consider a police oversight

[124:01] panel was because they were embarrassed nationally by media accounts about the Zade Atkinson event where a young black student was held at gunpoint by eight BPD officers for picking up trash in his own yard. Boulder was caught and watched nationally and Boulder had to act while the city was in the spotlight. Even when Sammy Lawrence was attacked and arrested simply for filming an interaction between BPD and a group of unhoused people, Boulder had already gotten somewhat out of the spotlight. The city quickly lost its motivation to honor the demands of the community. Thanks, Judy. Um, from Chris Sidoriaak, I am a member of the public and I came here today because I am highly concerned about the interpretation of the ordinance that is currently in use. It makes no sense to me that we can't talk about the current stalemate between this committee and the powers that be. I attended last month and I never understood why the interpretation of the ordinance changed. Why is this panel losing their power to do their jobs?

[125:01] Thank you, Chris. Um, from an anonymous attendee, why are officers only subject to BPD's code of conduct? What about input from communities that are affected by police behavior that are excluded from setting said code of conduct? Uh also from anonymous I think what Chico is saying around things that are thorough and complete is thoughtful, relevant and important. What solidad said is so important as well. I had similar questions which I was curious about the word proof in that if the PSU professional services or wait PSU what I'm blanking what is PSU >> professional standards unit >> professional standards I was like services is not right professional standards unit thank you represents cases only later there is a process of prejudgment occurring which could accidentally involve human error especially my concerns relate to implicit bias when An employee of the department like a sergeant gives the

[126:00] review internally, there is a higher chance for bias related errors. If possible, the panel should have an awareness of all complaints equally rather than reducing the panel's awareness to a lower number at a later, more definitive stage. And another comment from anonymous, how does pre-screening of complaints and not making them all available to the panel for review help the trust issue? Also from anonymous, if police misconduct cases will be filtered before the oversight panel ever sees them, how can oversight be available to all the public equally? This shift will have a disproportionately inequitable impact on people who hold already marginalized identities and potentially abuse victims. As a member of the public, I'm very, very concerned about this change in the process. What can the public do to request this change in policy does not move forward? Um, also from anonymous, I am a community member and found out about this panel from another community member from other community members and I share

[127:01] all of the concerns all of the community panel members have voiced today. I agree that the community panel should be able to see all cases no matter what. I am a cis white woman and I agree with all of the people of color who are voicing these concerns. I agree with everything that Curtis just said and that Curtis posted earlier. Um, we have a comment from Zade that just says, "Wow, thanks Zade." Um, from Darren O' Conor, can attorney Reynolds explain why the POP members cannot wave their attorney client privilege? It is well established that the client can wave such privilege and then he linked a um a link here that folks can view if they like. Uh, from anonymous, Boulder says they have experience with bias. Meanwhile, the boulder remains like 88% white. Sherry coming from Chicago. You have to see that there is something wrong here. Um, also from Darren, a continuation of his last comment from that website, quote, the privilege

[128:00] belongs to the client, meaning they have the authority to wave or invoke it. Um, from Stefan Taylor. So a complaint against an officer is made by the community and the group to first decide whether or not the complaint against the officer is not the police oversight panel but the internal police affairs office. Uh from anonymous I would like for us to have clear definitions for example complaint verse incident because we can't understand what's being discussed if we aren't even given an explanation of what you're talking about. Um, that is a great point, Anonymous, and I'm sorry we didn't take the time to to clarify some of that as we were discussing, but I appreciate your comment. Um, from anonymous, it's dispiriting to see how little was accomplished in this meeting and to hear that panel members are having to repeat concerns they have previously expressed. It makes me feel like there is not good faith between the parties involved in this effort to have police serve the community in an accountable way. I'd love to hear from anyone who has good ideas on how we break this impass.

[129:03] Um, from Donna, how can a community member get heard if you are not letting the police oversight see their concerns? Um, from an anonymous member, hi, I wanted to comment that we absolutely need transparent and thorough oversight of the police department and that's why this oversight panel exists. The panel needs to be able to see every case and have real power to hold the department accountable. The community is here and calling for that and watching what happens. Um, from Eileene, they're closing this because of lack of time. That is eraser. Boulder actually does not care about people of color. People of color are leaving Boulder because of white supremacy. We deserve to be protected by the law. from Ellie Bowers. I find this shift in policy incredibly disturbing. If a city employee decides which complaints are heard, then they're effectively deciding which cases show misconduct and only giving the police oversight panel the ability to further say that the city

[130:01] isn't culpable in cases that even the city employee considers a case of potential misconduct. I don't know Sherry and haven't personally interacted with her. This is not a critique of her abilities, but no matter how good she is at her job, giving a city employee power over these cases is harmful. Respectfully, the police oversight panel only exists because the city has already failed to objectively review wrongdoing. The panel exists to rebuild that trust. By taking power away from them, you're betraying that trust. Whatever your reasons for restructuring, it isn't worth undoing all of the work you've put in so far. Thanks, Ellie. Uh from Eve, the city council of Boulder has revealed bigotry towards its own community and its free speech for the last two years at meetings. Police have physically pushed marginalized people out of the building. There is a problem in how they have used the press and even made an example of Taiisha Adams and other marginalized community members. Also

[131:01] from Eve uh city manager and Red Fern working together also severs trust. All right. Thank you so much for everyone who took the time to leave a comment for us. I want to open it up to the panel if anyone would like to address or respond to any of these directly. I know we heard a lot today. All right, go ahead, Milen. >> Yeah, I just want to thank our community for showing up. I think it's really, really important. It's it it uh it for me personally, it motivates me to to keep fighting and to keep being um to know that um what we do is the right thing. And I just I'm so inspired by all the comments today. Um so, thank you so much. Really appreciate the time you took to uh to be there and to listen to

[132:00] us and to to speak and takes a lot of uh courage to do so. And really appreciate you. Thanks. Go ahead, Curtis. >> Yeah, I just like to second that that the community coming together to uh speak against this decision uh should say a lot and I just really hope that um you know uh those holding this power really see the community. We're here to serve the community. the community has spoken and um I I just hate to uh leave this meeting and get back another email that avoids everything that we just heard. So, I really hope that a uh strong solution and teamwork uh comes from this and we can get together as a whole community um and do what's best to serve Boulder. >> Thanks, Curtis. All right, seeing no other hands, um I

[133:03] think we can move to our next item. Um and recognizing the time, I think ideally we try to forge ahead. Are folks feeling okay about that? Do we want to discuss where we go from here? >> Um yeah, Lucy, so quick question for everyone. I know that we um we received the summary of the cases in advance. I don't think there's a need for close session since there's no case to vote on there. Is there one >> there? I think there is one. >> There's one from last month. >> Oh, okay. >> Um but I I am totally fine not doing close session if folks if everyone agrees. Okay. Um, Bill, do you have a community engagement update for us? Would you like that time or?

[134:00] >> Um, I'll just tell y'all if there's something that you're interested in doing. I know Milan had an idea to just bring it forward. Chico, I know you had some thoughts about the five-year um, panel piece. I've sent a message to Nura to find out what the city's view is on that as well. And so I don't want to belabor the meeting because I'm pretty burnt out from being on Zoom most of the day. So um just reach out to me if anybody has any ideas. I know the holidays are coming up so maybe something in the first of the year. >> That's all I have. >> Great. Um does anyone would anyone like a five minute break before we move ahead? Hands for a break. Go for it. >> I'm leaving in 10 minutes. Just I've got to get going. So, >> all right, let's do it. >> Break. I'll be

[135:00] >> Let's forge ahead. Um, and I went way over my half the meeting. Solidad, do you want to facilitate us through our regular business? >> Uh, sure. So, we should go through then with the Independence Police Monitor report. Cherry. Is it sharing? And am I off mute? Yes, that's the question. Okay. Uh, independent police monitors report for December 2025. Um, we are looking at the uh full case

[136:03] file review data for the month of November 2025. Um, there were two case files reviewed by the panel. Um zero of those are uh awaiting BPD disposition and there are currently um oh actually as of this time there were 11 but we completed one of these so now there are 10 cases awaiting panel review. Um MI2024-078 BPD officers encountered underage students with alcohol and began asking them questions. The officers then noticed a different man urinating down the block. The officers instructed the underage students to remain in place while they pivoted to address the public urination. When the officers returned, the underage students were gone and a phone had been left. Officer 1 attempted to identify the person to whom the phone belonged to both return and issue a summon for underage possession of alcohol. After multiple investigative steps, Officer 1 believed he identified

[137:00] the owner of the phone and called his father. Officer 1 and father engaged in multiple conversations where officer 1 encouraged father to either let officer 1 speak with his son or have son arranged to meet with officer 1. During a conversation, Sergeant 1 took over the phone, identified himself, explained the situation, and disconnected the call. Officers 1's continued investigation determined that son was not the owner of the phone. Officer 1 called father and apologized. Allegations against officer one, rule four, respect for others, was unprofessional and/or hostile to father. The panel re recommended that this allegation be sustained with verbal counseling and training. The department determined that this allegation is unfounded. And then sergeant one had an allegation of rule four, respect for others, was unprofessional andor uh hostile to father. Uh the panel recommended that this allegation be sustained with verbal counseling and training and the department agreed with that recommendation and sustained it. Um

[138:00] and there was an additional allegation against Sergeant 1. Um rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 200 discretion arrest standards and enforcement actions failed to identify himself in accordance with general order 20005. Um both the panel and the department determined that that allegation was unfounded. MI2024-082 officers responded to a call of an assault with a hammer. Upon arrival, the victim pointed out complainant at the skate park and identified her as the perpetrator. Officers one and two approached complainant and instructed her to sit down and keep her hands visible. Complainant did not follow instructions and turned to walk. Officers grabbed her arms, held her against a wall, and repeatedly told her to put her hands behind her back. After a brief struggle, officer two recovered a large metal gavel from her coat pocket and dropped it on the ground. Officer one used the drive stun feature of his taser after warning her that she would be tased if she did not comply. During this time, another man picked up the

[139:00] gavvel. Officer 3 instructed the man to drop the gavvel and pushed him away after he dropped the gavvel. After handcuffing complainant, she continued to resist instructions. When inside the patrol vehicle, officer one used his hand to push complainant's face away from him. Complainant reported that she was epileptic and having seizure seizures. She was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Allegations against officer one are rule one compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 225 use of force failed to deescalate. The panel recommended that this allegation be sustained with verbal counseling and training. The department determined that the allegation is unfounded. Officer one had another allegation. A rule six use of force slammed complainant's head inside car. panel recommended that this be exonerated and the department unfounded the allegation. Officer two had a rule one allegation, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. General order 225, use of force, failed to deescalate. The panel recommended that this allegation be not sustained and the department

[140:01] unfounded the allegation. And officer 3, rule one, compliance with values rules and general orders. General order 225, use of force failed to complete a use of force report. The panel recommended that the allegation be exonerated and the department unfounded the allegation. And officer 3, rule six, use of force force pushed and or assaulted the man. The panel recommended sustained with verbal counseling training and the department um exonerated that allegation. Additional panel recommendations were that the reviewing panel members recommend that BPD consider including the use of a push as a reportable use of force requiring completion of a use of force report. The chief of police's response was at times a push is considered a use of force if the person is injured or it is strong enough to cause someone to fall to the ground. The push in this case or pushes in similar cases do not constitute a use of force if it is a push or shove that doesn't cause someone to fall and/or doesn't

[141:00] cause injury. There are many cases where an officer may push someone that does not rise to a use of force. I think about a bar fight or large crowd where officers are pushing people out of the way in a similar fashion to how officer 3 utilized a push in this case. It is not reasonable for this sort of push or shove to be subject to a few full use of force review like other instances. Of course, each case is reviewed on a case-by case basis, and it is not best practice to have a shove or push alone be considered a use of force. A use of force review was completed in this case due to the use of the taser, and the officer's actions were all reviewed, including the use of the push, despite it not being a reportable use of force. MI2025-00008 officers initiated a DUI investigation after observing complainant's vehicle parked on a downtown sidewalk. When officers completed paperwork at the police station, complainant asked about having his handcuffs removed and commented that they were quite painful. 13 minutes later, officer 1 removed one

[142:01] handcuff to allow complainant to sign paperwork. Allegations against officer one are rule one compliance with values rules and general orders general order 225 use of force failed to check the tightness of complainants handcuffs in accordance with general order 225-10. The panel recommended that this um allegation be sustained with verbal counseling and the department agreed with that recommendation of sustained and verbal counseling and training. and officer 2 had the same allegation with the same outcomes with the panel recommending sustained verbal counseling and the department determining that the allegation was sustained with verbal counseling and training. The panel additionally or the reviewing panel members additionally recommended that BPD update the handcuffing policy to ensure that routine police behavior does not injure community members. They requested that BPD provide more details in handcuffing policy to codify the double locking and finger check practices.

[143:00] The chief of police responded, "I will have our staff ensure our policy is up to date with best practices, but also will note that this year we achieved Kalia accreditation and as part of that, all policies, including this one, were reviewed by Kalia to ensure they were in accordance with best practices. So I'm not certain that changes need to be made. Policies and general orders are guidelines and expectations and cannot address every potential aspect of an officer's day. So many times policies are set, but training and practices are where issues like this are addressed. MI2025-028 officers responded to the scene of a minor motor vehicle crash and spoke with both drivers who provided conflicting descriptions of the incident. Ultimately, the officers determined that the complainant would receive a summon. Complainant alleged that the officers discriminated against him based on his status as a registered sex offender and threatened to arrest or send him to jail. The evidence established that no officer threatened to arrest or send

[144:00] complainant to jail. Their conversations about which party was at fault focused on the party's narratives and the layout of the traffic lanes approaching the intersection. complainant raised additional concerns that either would not be misconduct or and or were disproven by evidence, including the other driver was not charged with a hit and run when the other driver called 911. Um that officers use the terms harass, harassing, and harassment to describe complainant's conduct conduct. And officer 2 initially told complainant that he would not receive a ticket. Um the allegations um against officer one were rule one compliance with values rules and general orders general order 101 unbiased policing displayed bias against complainant because of his status as a registered sex offender. Um the monitor determined or recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed with that. And for officer two, compliance with values rules and general orders respect value threaten to arrest and or send complainant to jail. Um I also

[145:02] recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. MI2025-051 complainant alleges that Sergeant 1 is gangstalking him and his family through connections to a Chicago gang. Complainant alleged that Sergeant number one's nephew and the Chicago gang are sex trafficking his mother in Longmont. Complainant believes military grade surveillance devices are implanted in his ears. He is currently housed at a psychiatric hospital. PSU learned from mother and complainant's case worker. The complainant suffers from delusions due to head injuries received when he was beaten in Chicago years earlier. Mother denied that she or her family are being coerced or trafficked. She currently lives in Chicago. Um, Sergeant One does not have a nephew in Chicago and all of the evidence supports the complainant's allegations are based on delusions. Uh, the allegation against Sergeant One, rule five, police authority and public trust, involvement in gang activities that target complainant and his family.

[146:02] I recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120, and the department agreed and unfounded the allegation. MI2025-052 officers responded to a call from a halfway house for harassment and intimidation based on a person recording the building and its occupants. Officer one encountered complainant recording from the sidewalk. Complainant denied committing any crime. Officer one said that he needed to investigate the potential criminal invasion of privacy. Officer one asked complainant for their name and birth date before going inside to learn more details. Former officer 2 remained outside with complainant. Former officer 2's bodywn camera was mislabeled and deleted prior to PSU being able to retrieve it. Officer 1's bodywn camera did not capture misconduct and instead instead documented he had a firm understanding of complainant's right to record from a public sidewalk and respectful conversations with both parties. The allegations against former

[147:02] office former officer 2 are rule one compliance with values rules and general orders general order 240 incar cameras bodywn cameras and personal recording devices did not accurately categorize bodywn camera recording as required by general order 240-4A. Um, I recommended that this allegation be administratively closed in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. And a second allegation of rule four, respect for others, told complainant that they don't care about first amendment auditors and or don't care about their rights. Um, again, I recommended that this be administratively closed uh in accordance with general order 120 um because the officer is no longer employed by the department and the department agreed and the case is administratively closed. There is one 2024 case that is open. It is SM2024-00003.

[148:02] It is in BPD chain of command review. Um looking at the statistics for the month of November 2025, uh the monitor classified 11 cases. Six were identified as misconduct, zero serious misconduct. Um three were community inquiries, zero community feedbacks, two unspecified incidents. Um I observed four interviews. There was zero critical incident scene response. I deemed four cases thorough and complete and BPD closed the six investigations we just heard about. Um as of December 3rd, um the open U monitor panel docket is 42 cases. 22 of those are classified. Um six of those were pending monitor classification and 14 were in PSU preliminary investigation status. And in November, um, community

[149:01] engagement and other events that I participated in was the World Day of Remembrance for traffic crash victims, the 10th district public safety and criminal justice meeting. And this is lighter than normal because of the holidays, and because I was sick. And that is the end of the presentation. Any questions before I close stop sharing the screen? >> Sherry, I just have a question. I'm just curious. I've never heard of this term before. What's a halfway house? Um, I didn't research this particular place, but my understanding is that it's where people who are um leaving incarceration or some other confinement um go where they still receive some degree of supervision and restrictions but are um have some ability to work or get their education and uh participate in the community while still being supervised. >> Okay. Thank you. Mhm.

[150:04] >> Okay. So, um let's go to case review voting. Um wondering if everyone had the chance to look at the November cases. So, there's one for us to vote there. Um are we are we all ready to vote on that? Okay. So this is um um sorry I'm looking at the Okay. So this is SM 2025006. Um, there's officer one, rule three, truthfulness arguation, inaccurately completed the 20-minute deprivation period section of the Intoxilizer 9,000. Rule eight, officer one's representation on the EBAT report

[151:01] reflected unfavorably on her or the department. That's officer one. Officer 2, rule eight, conduct. Officer 2 advised officer one to act contrary to EBAT requirements. Um so that that's the one vote we can take today. So um Sher, can you do Roco to vote on this? >> Yes. Okay. Alan. Oh, people are unmute or most people are muted right now, including you, Alan. >> I did not have a chance to review the case. >> Oh, abstain. >> So, I'm uh abstain. >> All right. It will be helpful if everyone unmutes so we can run through

[152:02] the vote. Sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. AB I did not have a chance to either. >> Oh, okay. Two abstensions. Um, Turner. >> Um, I'll vote yes. >> Solidad. >> Yes. >> Milen, >> yes. >> Lizzy, yes. Um, Curtis, >> yes. >> Chico, >> yes. >> And Bill, yeah, you're still here. >> Yes, I'm still here. >> Okay. And, um, since the panel is clearly going to take that case, um, I wanted to give you an update for people who choose to volunteer, um, it is going through chain of command right now. So

[153:01] the expectation is the very first weeks of January is when this case is going to be um ready for final review. >> Okay. Since that's the only case, let's uh vote uh I mean volunteer folks to review this case um >> in early January. >> In early January. So that be before hopefully before our next meeting. Uh who wants to volunteer? time. Raise your hands. >> De Lizzy and Solid. Oh, Meen. >> Anyone else? >> If we need a third, I will. My capacity is just a little thin in early January, but I I I I'll step up if need if need be. >> Thank you, Curtis.

[154:00] >> Yep. >> Um, okay. >> With that group, if daytime works better, we can also we can also do that if that's if that's helpful. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Yeah, I'll jump in. If we need three, right? >> We need three. >> We need three. It's always good to have a backup. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm there. >> Thank you. Um, okay. So, we we are just finishing our agenda. I um I know that there was a lot that was shared today. So, I want to open it up for the last time. If anyone wants to provide a last comment before we adjourn, this will be the time. Um, I just want to point out and make sure that I'm understanding this correctly. So, in November and December, there were one, two, three, four, five,

[155:01] eight cases in the pipeline. One of them or eight cases that came in through summaries. One of them was referred between those two months to the panel to review. >> So, >> yes. And then several of the cases as people saw for this month will be referred. I just I I wanted to at least um give people that information even if they're not currently referred, but those will be coming referred when they're when the investigation is deemed thorough and complete. >> Okay. Yeah. I just kind of want to point out this is our first month with this new policy, first two months and we have one case across two months for the panel to even consider to review. So that seems tough. >> Thank you for pointing that out, Lizzy Curtis.

[156:01] >> Yeah, I uh also agree with Lizzie on that. And then just wanted to say that I really appreciated the proposal from the co-chairs. I thought it was a very strong uh uh um compromise. Um yeah. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Um and I know that listen to the heavy lift of the most of the meeting. Uh but I just want to say uh we'll still have 17 members of the community uh sticking with us up until this late. Um and I want to say personally that I immensely appreciate everyone showing up. It it's energizing. Um this have been very tough couple of months. So um please know that we're all listening. we all see you and and me personally, I I'm so deeply grateful

[157:00] because I feel seen and and that's a lot to say uh in these times that we're living. So, thank you so much. Thank you panel members for for showing up and staying with us this late and um I really hope that you know this is taken into consideration. So uh we need to move to adjourn and then second. So I entertain the motion to adjurnn. >> Second. This is Milen. >> Milan, you should move to adjourn. >> Second. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. We need another second. >> I'll move to adjourn and I can second. >> Sorry. >> We're good. We're good. Okay, everyone. Have a great night for the students. I hope you have a good restful break and uh whatever holiday you celebrate, happy holidays everybody. >> Thank you >> and we'll see you next Monday. >> Thank you Lizzie and Sidad for holding

[158:02] this meeting. You >> appreciate you both so much.