January 12, 2026 — Police Oversight Panel Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] Welcome everybody. We are going to be officially calling this meeting to order. We'll start as always with our land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the Arapjo Youth and Cheyenne tribes, the traditional custodians of the land on which the police oversight panel and Boulder Police Department operate, and pay our respects to their elders past and present. I want to welcome our panel members, our city representative, the public. Thank you all for joining us here today. Um we uh will go through our agenda to start. Um just a quick reminder though for folks, I know we do have some members of the public with us today. Um we love getting questions from you all. you can put them in the Q&A uh and we will answer them um when we do public comment. We'll also have time

[1:01] about halfway through the meeting 30 if we can have time, which we will try to do. Uh we will also do public comment where you'll each be given time to speak. So feel free to hold your comments until then as well. But we look forward to hearing from you. Uh quick reminders. Uh if you would like to submit a complaint or know anyone who would like to submit a complaint or contact the panel outside the meeting, you can always do that by emailing us. You can email us at Boulder or sorry, police oversight panel at bouldercol.gov. Um you can also find information on the website about how to submit a complaint online. Uh you can find that info on bouldercol.govservices. gov/services police type in oversight. Uh, and if you ever have any questions about that, please don't hesitate to reach out. Um, you can also find this meeting recorded and recordings of any of our other meetings on our website as well.

[2:01] Uh, with that, we'll go to roll call AB. here. >> Solidad >> here. Milan >> here. >> Liz >> here. >> Tristan >> here. Um, and Jason alerted us that he's not going to be in attendance. Um, Curtis >> here. >> Uh, Chico alerted us that he's not going to be in attendance. Bill, thanks. All right, with that, um, we will open it up for potential approval of our agenda. Um, just to quickly go over what we have on the agenda today. Um, start by talking

[3:02] about the minutes from our last meeting. We'll go into some panel updates and, uh, guest items. We'll start with a discussion of some subcommittees that we have talked about potentially standing up. Uh we'll talk about 2026 panel recruitment. Uh we'll touch on the five-year panel review and finally debrief our meeting with the chief and some questions that we had uh sent to him that he had uh provided to us regarding block. Um after that we'll go into our usual update on our comm community outreach and engagement committee. Uh we will have the independent police monitors report go to public comment perhaps a little later 45. Um then we will go into our regular business. We may take a close session if needed after public comment and then go into our case reviewed uh case review voting and assignment of cases. Uh 30. Do we have

[4:00] any uh motions to amend the agenda or any motions to approve? anything you guys would like to add? Yeah, go ahead. >> Sorry. Could I have a I would like to make a motion to also talk about the um um the IPM um what is it called? The report for 2024. Can we talk about that? >> The annual report. >> The annual report. Just a few minutes on that. >> Yes, we have um do you want a motion? motion to also add to the agenda um uh discussion on the 2024 annual report. >> Do we have a second? >> Second that. >> Great. All right. Um all in favor of adding that item to the agenda. Anyone against? All right. Uh motion passes. We will add that uh after our chief debrief works.

[5:00] Perfect. Okay. Um, with that we can go into a discussion of the minutes from our December meeting. Um, does anyone have adjustments to the minutes or a motion to approve? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Great. Uh, all in favor of approving the minutes from December. Anyone opposed? Okay, December meeting minutes are approved. Uh, we'll go into our first panel update. That's our subcommittee discussion. I'll hand it over to London. >> Yep. Uh so coming um out of last month uh meeting and the need to have like specific conversation around uh two important topics. One is that our federal policy and policy change. I think that's important and second uh will be the five-year review. So um Liz and I were talking about maybe the best way of going around this is we

[6:00] don't have enough time built into this meeting to create an ad hoc committee that is allowed by the ordinance. So um they should work the same way that the community engagement committee works. So we will be able to meet and talk specifically about these two topics if there's anything to talk about in a time that is not contained in in the short time that we have together once a month. So, um, yeah, that will be kind of on the table, open to discussion, open to, uh, uh, thoughts and and if folks are, you know, that's something we could do. >> Yeah, I I think that would be that's highly needed >> and it would be really valuable for the panel and the commission of the panel. Um, so yeah. Do we need to make a motion for it or >> Yeah. >> Sorry, I don't know why I no longer.

[7:06] >> Uh, so two things. One, again, it will work the same way that we do community engagement committee basically. So there's a a calendar post with a with a Zoom link. Uh the meetings are you open to the public to watch. Uh the link is of course posted and public and we can have interaction. The meetings are not recorded. Um we will have to find panel members that want to lead those uh that one or two ad hoc committees. I think, you know, kind of looking at how the process might look um like with a five-year review. I don't know if we necessarily need that one, but I do feel that we need a space to talk about the change the policy change and how do we go about that?

[8:02] >> I want to be clear. >> Yeah. >> The two purposes of the committee is for the five-year review and also the reinterpretation of the ordinance. >> Yes. So we can either do one or we need to have two committees and talk about the the things but I I'm not sure if we need like a fiveyear review >> at hub committee since there's already a a facilitator that has been hired there's already a system what I understood from uh the city manager's email is that there's going to be interview kind of a lot of time with each panel member so we're going to be able to have that conversation but um we can do one we can do two and we can do one that does the two conversation at the same time. So kind of open to fine-tuning that but if we establish the high impact committee at least to review policy maybe that would be a good start. Could it be like um two hours, right?

[9:02] One hour or zero attempt on it. At least two hours, right? >> I think that will that will be up to the people that are facilitating that committee and then that committee will have to kind of agree how often do they want to meet and when are those meetings are going to happen and Chris Grace is >> hello. Good evening panel members. I apologize for not being in person. I had a child care issue this evening. Um lower my hand here. Uh so the ordinance uh does allow for committees to be formed to conduct the the business of the panel. Um and because the five-year review is authorized by the the ordinance, you know, having a committee for that does seem supported by the by the ordinance. uh having a committee to talk about the referral policy uh is a bit of a more of a danger area. And so I would uh I can absolutely

[10:03] look into that and get back to the panel with some legal advice, but at this time I'd uh advise not not forming a a a committee for that for that particular purpose. >> Can you just clarify what you mean by referral policy? I don't know that the way cases were referred. Okay. >> I think is the shift he's saying is >> we can't hear >> that that would not be recommended. >> Chris, can I um just to be clear and my idea of what this panel might discuss might not be the same as everybody's idea. So I don't want to say this is exactly how it would go, but what I was envisioning for this committee was we had discussed potentially talking through some sort of um like compromises is the right word, but things that the panel could request to

[11:01] help us feel more comfortable with this policy. And so my impression was that this committee would talk through what might the panel want to request or propose that could help us feel like we are continuing the same level of integrity of the oversight process with this new understanding of how cases will be referred. Is that does that change anything about your understanding of whether we can move ahead with this? >> Um not at this time. Um it might make sense for the I to talk about this um in depth since it involves confidential legal advice um to have two members um volunteer uh to meet with myself and

[12:01] Sherry if she's available so that we can talk about it more fully um and that way it doesn't need to be a publicly noticed meeting and we can have a confidential discussion. Chris, and just to understand, you said that it was more dangerous territory. What's the danger >> that we'd be that the panel would be oper operating outside the scope of the ordinance and also potentially talking about confidential legal advice in a public meeting? >> So, uh, okay. So if the panel needs to talk about the ordinance, we are out of the scope of the ordinance. If we want to talk about the ordinance, >> I mean um I I I would not um you're allowed to talk about the ordinance, but when it comes to discussing confidential legal advice, uh I would advise not doing that in a public meeting. So we

[13:00] can have a public meeting uh in this committee where we don't talk about confidential legal advice. Is that correct? >> Specifically the committee that is formed for the purpose of talking about um what we're commonly referring to as the referral policy. Mhm. I I don't >> I don't think we're talking about um the referral policy in its detail, but coming up with um steps forward with the referral policy as it is uh in a way that better represents the community. So, we won't really be talking about the referral policy, but just the steps forward. >> I think it'd be hard to separate those things. Um, but a safe way forward would be for two committee members to um gather to discuss these concerns because

[14:01] then it doesn't need to be a public meeting. Um, >> can you just >> I I feel like there's a thin line here and if you can provide us with the specifics of what can't be said in this meeting, then we can abide by that. But to say that we that we're not responsible enough to have a conversation uh and not cross that line of talking about um this legal advice you keep bringing up. Uh I I I think is a lack of trust in in the panel here. And if if if it's clear of what can't be discussed, then we can we can stick to that. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not saying anybody's not going to be responsible. It just it's always a bad idea for uh confidential legal advice to be discussed in public regardless of what the subject matter is or or or who's who's doing it. So that's that's legal advice that would be given to any sort of decision- making body. So, so I'm going to go back to the basics basics,

[15:01] but we're not asking for legal advice. >> So, like how do we go about unsolicited legal advice that is preventing us from talking about the ordinance? Like if the panel wants to talk about the ordinance, if we want to change the ordinance, if we want to improve the ordinance, if we want to talk about bylaws, we don't have a space to do to do that. We're not requesting legal advice. We are >> wanting to navigate the challenges that this interpretation of your office have created for the panel and the the work that we're doing. So, I mean, yeah, that's my question. And I like I think we also need to talk about when when we're soliciting legal advice like we can be bounded by by unsolicited

[16:00] legal advice in this state. >> Thank you Solidad for that. Um sometimes legal advice will be given whether you ask for it or not. It's a attorney's job to to give legal advice when in their professional judgment it looks like legal advice is needed. Um, so if none of the attorneys in the city attorney's office operate by just giving legal advice when when requested, uh, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't giving legal advice when in my professional judgment it's required. >> I just want to say, and this is Chris, I cannot not say this. In the last few days, someone has said that several times. We're gonna do this whether you ask for it or not. That seems terrible. Um, and I I'm I'm sure people that watch

[17:00] the news know who I'm talking about. >> Uh, sorry. Yeah. I think what Chris is talking about is if we're going, this is what this is the workflow I would I would think we would do is we would as a group would take would would have a discussion about what we see as roadblocks or ways that we might be able to change things. That's not we're we can discuss that stuff because what because what Chris is suggesting is if we if we want to articulate what we're thinking here to his office, it should be only two people. So what when what I think the two people whoever those people are I imagine it's our chairs will go and talk to Chris but that would be after you all have heard what we've all said because I would you know I I don't think it would be a very good idea to send two people sort of cold into this meeting without the without the uh benefit of information from the rest of us. So, I think we all want to go the same direction, but it's just a matter

[18:01] of, you know, how we go there. And, you know, I think that, you know, I go back to this five-year review. If we really want to do what we want to do, that's how we do it. But then how what Chris is talking about is if we want to get ask him for advice based on what we've been talking about, then that can only happen with two people. We can have this discussion amongst ourselves. We've had it for three months in a row and here we are the fourth month in a row. for having it. And so that's not out of bounds. What is out of bounds is if Chris comes in here and says, "Okay, this this is what the statute says or this is what the ordinance says." So that's what my suggestion would be is that we hold a discussion here, maybe a facilitated discussion, but I don't know who would do that, maybe one of the two of you, and kind of figure it out exactly what we want this this referral process to look like. Because as it is, you know, I think we've just been spinning our wheels for

[19:00] three months doing that with this over here and this over here. This person thinks this, this person thinks that. But what if we were to focus that down? So when you two people go and meet with with Chris, we there are some actual policy recommendations that come from our group as a whole. So I I agree with what you're saying, Alan, but I think that what Chris is saying, and please correct me if this is wrong, but Chris, what Alan is describing is us getting together to discuss >> what we might request and then someone, anyone, one or two people asking you if we can request that. The meeting where we get together to request that in itself is a problem. Is that what you're saying? We cannot do that. If it was if it was outside of like the meeting that we're currently in, if it was a special meeting, yes, that would be that would be an issue. not a special meeting. But if we create an ad hoc committee to meet three to

[20:00] four times over the next two to three months to talk about what our ideas are to brainstorm to get feedback from the panel in between and put together say a document that says here are our three proposals that could then be discussed with you in a smaller group or in an appropriate setting. Is that feasible? it. Yes, it would be completely feasible. However, the only caveat would be that that three to four time meeting that I I would advise that that be two two members of the panel and not more than two members of the panel both to so that doesn't >> doesn't need to be a public meeting and then also >> um then we don't get into whether or not that sort of a meeting is authorized under the ordinance. So are we I want to I want to move us on just because we have agenda items to get to but um >> okay want to so the the issue is we

[21:00] can't meet because we can't meet not because we can't discuss in a meeting what we want to discuss. So we're now out of the we can't discuss legal advice in a public meeting zone. we're now back in the the ordinance doesn't authorize you to meet for this purpose. >> Both both of those things can be true. Is is not it's it's unadvisable to discuss confidential legal advice in a public meeting. That is that is true. That's not that has not changed. >> My ideas about what data we might request are not confidential legal advice. Right? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not giving confidential legal advice. it. You know, this is the kind of the first time I've been asked about this and but it it doesn't sound like that would be confidential. >> Okay, let's go to Milan and Bill. So Chris, this is um really confusing

[22:01] because essentially what I'm hearing you say is that the panel can't talk about any policies within the ordinance because of something connected to legal advice when what we're really wanting to talk about is the process, how referrals are made, which really isn't about legal advice. It's about a policy that we're supposed to work under and through. And so, so your approach by saying two people can do it. It's essentially what I'm hearing you say is two people can do it, but you can't talk to anybody else, which is ridiculous. >> That's not how this panel was set up. And that, in my opinion, totally dishonors what this ordinance is supposed to do because this is a panel. And if we send Lizzie and Solidad to go talk to you and you're telling us they can't talk to us, >> what's the point? >> But we have to do it individually.

[23:01] >> What's the point? And >> so, but and then I heard you say too, if you talked about it at a public meeting, then that would be okay. So, I'm hearing these mixed messages about what it is to move forward. And I hope to Allen's point that that we work this through in this five-year review because this has been the challenging piece of us being able to really work together and look at these policies is that we always get sidetracked by it's it's not legal or it's it's guarded attorney client information when really all we're talking about is the process. That that is not attorney client information. talking about in the process and it and if we as a panel can't do that as a group then something's wrong with the ordinance and it's not you know I know you're just hearing all of this and um and you can take this back to folks but but there's a huge flaw there that two people can go

[24:03] or they can spend a week or two weeks talking to each one of us at a time and and what you have to understand is when we have these conversations that kind of like we feed off of each other where people share ideas and and you're basically taking away our whole ability to be able to truly brainstorm and come up with something that could meet our needs at least to send out for other folks to think about for chief to think about for to think about for the city council to think about and so I think think that's it's creating a big challenge and and I get we're getting the same answer. So, I'm not going to keep asking you the question, but that to me is the real issue here. And if we can't figure it out here, then we have to do it in a bigger scope because at some point in this five-year process, this referral process is going to come up at a public

[25:00] meeting and we're going to have to talk about it. And I don't think you can continue to tell us you can't talk about it in public because that's part of this five-year review is looking at policies, looking at procedures, looking at protocols, and and they're going to come up. And so, so somehow we've got to figure this out because you can't continue to tell us we can't talk about it. Um if we're going to shift >> the ordinance um >> like necessary committ sorry can I say please just one one thing sorry >> but the the the two two people meeting has proven to been effective for the last four months. That's what we have been doing

[26:01] going to meetings Lucy and I trying to get answers presenting the questions nothing works. So I at at this you know this time I think the ad hole committee to discuss to talk about the ordinance and to go and to talk about the changes possible changes to the ordinance is perfectly within the scope of the panel. Absolutely. Even as citizens we can look at the order and talk about it. And um we are not going to talk about legal advice and we're not going about talk about any of the things that you said that can get make you know put us in trouble but I do think that this is something we need to push forward. Sorry. >> Uh Chris I just want to ask you a few questions that may have already been asked um but I just want to get a clear understanding. >> Sure. Can't we create an ad hoc committee to talk about this referral process or to

[27:01] talk about steps forward on the referral process to create a proposal as Lindsay just suggested? >> Yes. >> Depends on the details as well, but yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. There we go. >> Can we get a motion then? >> Motion to Well, um motion. No, I'll do a motion right now before anything changes. motion to have an adult committee um created um as soon as possible. >> Okay, we need a second. >> Also, I turn second suggest that we have one of you to make the motion because the ordinance says the chairs can create the subcommittee. So that way, >> okay, >> let's phrase it like this. Um so the co-chairs proposed to have um ad hoc committee created for discussing what we already discussed and would like

[28:02] to see uh the support of the panel. If the majority of the panel is in support of creating this committee we will go ahead and create. So can I see who is in favor of creating a committee? Awesome. Okay. Thank you so much. And um Liz is should we follow up via email with the panel to set up details and invite people to find a time date >> for the first day. >> Awesome. >> Um and we may want to consider timing given our next given our panel turnover that's coming up potentially. So we can hash that out. But that's have some new panel members soon. So we'll figure that out. and also defining the uh >> facilitators and yes >> and then if I have a minute I'd like to continue yes if possible. So I'm just I just want to I just want to note that um what we are endangering with all the

[29:01] conversation that we just had that we may not be able to meet and talk about it's like transparency, integrity, respect has been really challenged um and that is towards our community that we are here for. So I just want to say that that by saying that we cannot meet we cannot do this we cannot do that we are we are endangering um what we claim to be transparent uh respectful and with integrity and also I'm I'm feeling that by Chris you're you're no longer on on um camera but by by just coming to meetings such as that hadup meeting. Um, you're basically m making your presence makes it illegal because you will be the one giving us legal advice. And so I I find

[30:03] that kind of redundant and just like a little bit strange um that just by being you being in a pres in in the presence of our in our in our meeting, sorry. Uh you're making the meeting illegal. Is that my understanding? Like because we might get legal counseling >> without asking for it. >> Without asking for it. So I just want to say that too. Like it's very easy to make a meeting illegal by just being there. >> And I'm done. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you everybody. Thanks Chris. Um All right. We will move >> into our next item. uh 2026 panel recruitment update and maybe as we move through the next three few items if we could try to make up a little bit of time or that'll help us stay on schedule.

[31:01] Oh, you allow me to share my screen. Yeah. Okay. Um, so panel recruitment is is live. Um, it is open until January 25th. Um, and just giving people the the timeline. Um, and for for anyone who's watching this, um, members of the public, that QR code that's at the bottom is what links you to the application. Um so during this week the expectation is that the city manager will um select and uh pull together the advisory committee um who will be involved with

[32:04] um vetting applicants and then conducting the interviews of those applicants. Um so through that process uh we expect that candidates who will be selected for interviews will be notified will be selected and notified um around February 11th. The interviews will take place on February 21st. Um on March 6th is the expectation that the city manager makes the selection of new panel members and then we send out uh offers for for those people. Um and then according to the ordinance there are there is training that they need to do. So those those mandatory training dates for new panel members are scheduled for April 4th and then April 10th. Anyone have questions? Everyone know what they need to be doing based on what

[33:00] their timeline is and what their preferences are. Cool. Okay. Just want to make sure everyone sort of knew the plan and options. Thank you, Sherry. All right. Uh, next up, standing item, five-year panel review. I know, um, this item was Chico's request and he couldn't make it today. Does anyone want to take this item or have anything they want to discuss? Maybe we sort of touched on it with the previous discussion as well, but I have your panel review thoughts. >> We talked about this a little bit in the community engagement meeting and it did come up that Chico had ideas around it and we were supposed to talk today at one o'clock and that didn't happen. So, I'll follow I'll follow up with him again. >> Okay. Thank you. The only thing we talked about is having it just something separate that we just do to acknowledge that and >> the logistics we haven't really even

[34:00] gotten to yet. So I wanted to talk to Chico and I'll try to get back connect. >> Perfect. >> Anybody else? Hey Oh, go ahead. Um just also so there was a there was a sub item of co-chairs. So um I looked at the bylaws today and the co-chairs election is supposed to take place a month or earlier before the end of the term of of co-chairs. >> Um so I have an idea on how to reconcile that if people want to hear it. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Right. Um and that is that um someone could make a uh move to delay the the annual elections of the co-chairs until probably April 2026 so that the new panel members then are

[35:01] full full voting at that at that meeting. So we have what would that mean? That would mean existing chairs would continue until then regardless of term chair term and panel term. >> So I think that takes us into past our panel term. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That >> meant you're stuck. >> Yes. You're stuck with us as well. >> That's okay. I and also the ex sorry I should have mentioned we could also then talk about um how you want that election to to look since last year we tried uh the different the the so sociocratic >> yeah we tried the soiocratic way but it was like adapted to the circumstances and the obligations and I would like to try it again and maybe do a quick

[36:00] training on it so that people respect the rules for that kind of things. Um, and I'm also wondering if having new panelists who don't know what we've been doing and how we've been doing things voting for co-chairs they don't know would is a good idea. Um, so I feel like it would be better for to have the current panel who we've been working with um, everyone and know people more personally be more if more um a better way of of of electing cook chairs because we we kind of know each other by now and we know each other's qualities and um whereas having new people who don't know anything they're going to I I feel they might vote randomly or on first impressions. >> It's a really good thought. We It's a

[37:01] small group that will be continuing though. So, we would be voting just on that group. >> Yeah. >> So, would that be like the ones that don't need to reapply such as like Bill, Alan, and Kristen as running for coaches or what does that look like? Are you the three who are not? Yes. The three whose term doesn't end in March, February, right? Yeah. Yeah. >> So, they would be the only ones eligible unless we waited for >> But if if we're extending by April, we should all be here. I mean, whoever is reapplying should be here still, >> right? But that's what said. She just said that we should you guys should vote as a current panel, >> but the only ones who would actually be eligible would be coaches. >> Right. >> I'm just wondering like would people who are exper

[38:02] we don't need to go through the whole process of being like retrained and all that to become voting members do for like women that well and I assume >> that's a good question I think maybe sharing >> so maybe maybe that's an invalid point but I'm just wondering we don't we won't need the same training as new members >> if we're accepted. >> I'm just going to say I would be more comfortable having the full panel be a part of that whether they know us or not everybody because >> that's an important process to go through. So, I think that that mean they're going to vote how they vote and when elected bodies come together, they all vote right away for their chairs and co-chairs and they don't know everybody. >> But that's a new process. That's that's

[39:01] not the way it has been done in the past. >> I still I still wouldn't be comfortable doing it without the full panel with just us here. I just I just wouldn't be comfortable with that because it's not inclusive of the new members. And I think that's important. We could still do the same process. >> Um, so it wouldn't it wouldn't hurt that. It's just that they would all be important. >> Cool. Okay. >> So I wouldn't Yeah, we could still do it the same way. >> Other thoughts? >> That's what we did last time. Yeah. >> Okay. So we still need the proposal to extend >> Liy and I till April >> to delay the election to delay the election until we >> just say like October or whatever. >> But that's something that I mean wouldn't be talked about is changing so that maybe the co-chair's election actually took place in like June or

[40:00] something or you know in the middle of a year instead of at the beginning >> instead of the first month that people are joining. that will make sense and I'm down to it if I'm >> except that if you do that every year like you might be halfway through your term and you would have to have reelection when you leave >> we name an intern >> I don't know I mean so or something like that till >> after April >> yeah and that can be on the list things to discuss in the five review. >> I don't think that's part of the year. >> It might be, but let's get this out of the table. So, we >> April. Yeah. >> After after the new members are are appointed and able to vote. So, so then I'll make a motion that we maintain Lizzy and Solid as our co-chairs until after the new members are appointed and

[41:02] we have our full panel first month's meeting of the full panel that we then vote for co-chairs. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Sure. Cool. Anyone opposed? >> All right. Thank you for that, Cherry. Sorry for skipping over that item. Um, okay. I think we're set. Panel review. Uh, chief meeting with the chief debrief block discussion. Hopefully everyone saw the, uh, data and block follow-up questions that the chief sent to the panel last week. Um, we perhaps don't have time for a full discussion about that. Maybe next month we could put some time on the agenda. Um, I'd love look at data a little bit, maybe share some stuff. Um, but in the

[42:00] meantime, the chief also asked for follow-up. So, if anyone wants to follow up, ask additional questions, go for it. Um, other discussion. >> I just want to say Chris, I know you're still there. I guess what I want to ask ahead of this is this considered the flawed data confidential information that we can or cannot talk about at a public meeting. I just want to be sure >> the the flock data that was discussed with the chief. I mean, anything that you discussed at the meeting, >> all the answers he gave us, all the data he gave us, that's open to just be able to talk about openly at a public meeting is my question. Yes or no? >> I haven't seen it, so I don't know um >> what what I don't know how it was transmitted to you. I don't know if there were warnings not to share it. Um, so without >> could you uh follow up with Sher and look into that? >> I can absolutely follow up. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes, >> that'd be great. I think specifically

[43:00] can we discuss the content that was shared with us as in the narrative responses but then also if we look at the data what can we discuss about that? We're not going to expose the data directly in a public meeting but what can we talk about? Yeah. in terms of insights from the data. >> Happy to look at that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um and also that we received a offer from the chief to do a training on block. >> Yes. >> Yes. So but that training I mean the training itself will be only for closed for the panel and probably part of those the content of the training also confidential and I think again it will be super helpful to piece out what are the pieces that we are able to share >> yes >> uh with the public and what what are pieces that we should keep confidential so I think that that maybe that could be part of the training

[44:00] Yes, >> I mean my understanding is that the only thing that's confidential is the training and then everything else that because there was only a warning about confidentiality of the training but not of the results. So I'm >> I just wanted to ask the question >> I wish you now we are stuck >> shut down. I'd rather be shut down than that. >> Do we want to formally request the train the training? >> I guess everyone on board with that. >> Yes. >> Given given where we are in the term. >> Yeah. >> Any ideas on when people would what what month basically would people like me to to try to shoot for? >> Yes. after >> options are soon because this is timely and people are interested wait until April

[45:00] >> and have with the the new panel when presumably we're also scheduling a big block of training time and it would make sense to maybe >> that would be a lot of training for the new panelist though >> I will >> that's asking >> I I would like to do it as soon as possible just because the implications and the interest from the community have been >> very apparent and if we can like provide more information or whatever we can learn and share as soon as possible it will be very helpful also I think I the political environment um grants kind of finding out more and taking proportions. So, I I'd love for this to be like one training and then maybe we add a block on a block on block in the new panelist

[46:01] uh member train like big training but I would love to access information soonish. So, knowing that uh and thank thank you. Well, actually, maybe I should ask if people agree with that or not, but I saw a lot of heads nodding. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Agreed. >> Um, knowing that we have, you know, the the panel meeting on Monday evenings, are Mondays generally a a good night to try to see if that see if that works with the police department? Well, we had trainings like on during the day, like on weekends, too, right? Um during the day rather than in the evening. Would that be better? >> That's harder for me to pick, but camera >> because when is the flock team actually working? >> Like, do they have

[47:00] >> There's not like really a flock team. So, all officers have access to flock. It would just be depending on who uh whoever they pick to train like to show it to you guys. Okay. >> So, there be somebody who could do it morning or afternoon or evening. >> Yeah, I'm sure we can find some like there's a lot of people who are pretty proficient in searching it. So, I'm sure they can find somebody who um that would fit whatever days and time is selected. >> Have you been um trained on it by a specific person from the police department? Uh we it's been a couple years, but there was um like our our training team um did the training for it. So I'm not sure if it was like a specific person or or like three or like the team was five people. >> Yeah. >> But they probably took train um took um turns based on a the shift in the day about who on the team was training me when I was went through it. So >> but my Thank you. I mean, my

[48:00] understanding though is that what the panel is looking for includes the like how does it actually look from an officer's point of view, but also a higher level understanding of >> who had like the the access and like restrictions and things like that. Do you do you think that >> like the regular members of the training team would have that or would it need to be someone >> leadership? Uh, I think those are questions that could be um like ask those questions before and they can um you can get those answers from those officers, they can reach out, they can be told that um if they don't know it already like who has access to it, you know, outside of Boulder um like those those things are should be pretty simple to answer. >> Yeah. I just don't want to bring the panel together having them take time and then not be told oh I don't believe >> business you get that information because I'd like to know how much time it takes and that as well

[49:01] >> if you have like more like more specific questions and like ask them ahead of time and then we can um >> those questions can be answered by uh whoever does the training >> just make sure the right people >> right so I think My perception and Miy correct me. My understanding was like that she that she has a pretty good idea of what a training will look like and the content kind of we can tell from the specificity of there. There might be confidential stuff. Uh maybe we can follow up with the chief and kind of present what is it that we want to see and then um they should be able to put something together. I think so. I think he can advise on who and when and help there. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to reach out or one of you reaching out? >> That would be great for it. >> Yeah. CCS. >> Yeah. >> So then you can fill right in gaps that I need. >> Perfect.

[50:00] >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh 2024 annual report. Hold on. >> Oh, okay. I just I just wanted to point out a few things because I I did take the time to read it. Uh, and let me um just realize it's not open. I thought I had it open. Um, so I just want to I as I was reading it and I just read it kind of diagonally, but I a few things were um came up for me is like how much of a drastic shift we've gone through since 2024. And I'm a little bit shocked by it. Um

[51:06] in in that report the uh you know in 2024 the independent police monitor and oversight panel focused on both strengthening internal processes and building stronger connections with the community. Key highlights include strengthening governance. The panel reviewed and updated its bylaws to ensure they remain clear, transparent and effective. connecting with community, building relationships, and so on and so forth. We're so far from this right now. So, I just I just wanted to point these this out and um and see have some um the city of Boulder police suicide ordinance un we had trainings in 2024 on the ordinance which meant were to understanding um understand the legal

[52:02] framework that establishes the panel's authority and responsibilities. This helps members carry out oversight in alignment. We're sitting focuses at the United Space Stations. We've been trained on that. How come we're not in alignment anymore? This has not been answered. Um and and there's the the process, the complaint process, complaints submitted by members of the public, the IPM or BPD command staff. police overside panel votes on whether to review complaint. There's no saying which complaints we can, you know, respond to. So, just wanted to really point out how much we have changed in the last six months and looking ahead to 2526. As we look forward to the future of city oversight system, the monitor and the panel remain committed to strengthening transparency,

[53:01] accountability and public trust in policy. Where are we about on that? Because I don't see the transparency. I don't see the accountability and I see the public trust going down every single meeting we're having where we're being told that we can talk not talk about things that are important to our community. And so in 25 and beyond the focus will be on proactive engagement. We can't meet to engage identifying patterns addressing gaps and ensuring meaningful community involvement. Addressing gaps we are enlarging the gaps and the pattern is that to shut us down. So I just want to alert that we are not doing what we had been set out to do and we are basically preventing the panel for doing

[54:02] what it is here to do. And when I say we, I mean the city. Um and then um I just want to read this. Civilian oversight succeeds when both the concerns and values of the community are represented and when the community is informed and trusting of the oversight system. Um, so I think we are as we enter 2026, we are failing and that's really concerning to me and I don't think it's any fault of any of the members of this panel. But I just want us to be really aware of what we are entering and and uh what we're losing like we were doing great a year ago. So thank you for giving me this time. I appreciate it and I encourage you to read further the uh the report uh and see where we stand.

[55:02] Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Um any other thoughts, comments? >> Thank you for that one. All right. uh the community outreach and engagement. >> Well, um not a lot has been happening. Um we met and we talked about maybe having some community engagement events towards the end of February, maybe early March. Probably sent some dates out for folks, just something that we convene which would all be in line with what we did at the Trident. And so that's kind of one thing we talked about. And the other piece is just really curious to to hear now that there's a facilitator what Narius and their thoughts are around the whole community engagement process around five-year plan because hopefully that'll

[56:01] be a place where we can go a little bit deeper into some of the things that we all want to talk about um without risk. So I think that's it everybody. I think it was just a lot of >> Yeah, it's just the idea of having a community forum and addressing uh some of the questions that the public might have directly in person. It could be in conjunction with taking them in to the five-year plan discussion or um just we haven't we're just kind of waiting on to see what R the facilitator planning before we make something concrete. That's it. Has there already been feedback from the community from the community in these forum or is it some talking about creating >> creating created >> and the five-year plan community engagement process hasn't even started yet. So >> and I don't know how that's going to play out with Maria and the new

[57:02] facilitators. >> Okay. I was just under the impression when we had that um I don't know what meeting it was but it was a meeting we had we put things on the wall that that was one of the things recommended that we do was a community form to get feedback and did it ever happen. >> I think that's what we're now it's just happen >> we had one last year at the trident. >> Okay. where I invited community. We might do it in the same place should >> we'll see. Hopefully it'll be too small for sure. >> We'll see. >> Yay tow. Thank you. >> Um can I see next question? of I just want to name uh and bring into existence the feelings that I

[58:03] felt came up after Milan brought us that perfection in terms of where we are. I don't want the silence to be interpreted as a lack of care is really disappointment and my personally disappointment with her that the realization of of how far away we are from 2024 and 2025. So just don't I don't want to leave the silence to interpretation. For me the silence was pain and disappointment. So just want to name that and and and honor your work m and kind of diving into that and bring it bring bring it to the group. So thank you.

[59:00] Thank you. Okay. >> All right. Next up, we have our independent police monitor report. Okay. So, the January 2026 independent police monitors report. So looking at uh case file review data uh for the month of December 2025

[60:00] um we completed one uh case review last December that's MI2025-038 um at that time um or when uh we don't have any cases currently or at the at the end of this time period when I wrote the report that are waiting BPD disposition, but we just did have a case review last week, so that one's still waiting. Um the there are seven cases awaiting um panel review and um one of those is scheduled for later this week. Um one just came in today and one we are trying to schedule. So, we've had a lot of movement with cases um in just the last few weeks. Looking at cases that were uh completed by BPD, um we have MI2025-028.

[61:00] BPD officers were attempting attempting to locate a bank robbery suspect via a GPS tracker. Based on the speed of travel, they opined that the suspect was riding an ebike. Officers then observed a juvenile ebike rider wearing the same colors of clothing as the suspect in the location of the tracker and instructed him to stop. Juvenile did not initially stop and officer one conducted a takedown on him. Continued investigation determined that the tracking device was still moving and photos from the bank surveillance did not match juvenile. Sergeant one acknowledged that juvenile did not match the photo and and instructed that juvenile be questioned further. When officer one saw the photo, he immediately released juvenile from his um allegations against officer one where a rule six use of force conducted a takedown of the juvenile panel recommended that that allegation be exonerated and the department agreed. A

[62:00] rule five lease authority and public trust juvenile and uh extended the detention of juvenile after reasonable suspicion dissipated. Um the panel recommended that it be exonerated and the department agreed. Um rule five, police authority and public trust search juveniles possessions. Um panel recommended exonerated the department that allegation. Um rule five, public authority and public trust. Police authority and public trust cut juveniles backpack straps. Officer one, this was exonerated or the panel recommended it to be exonerated and the department three um and sergeant one had a single allegation rule five police and authority and public trust extended the detention of juvenile to reasonable suspicion dissipated. The panel recommended that this allegation be sustained and made a recommendation of verbal counseling and the department

[63:01] agreed with that. Uh MI2025-054, a woman complained that a BP vehicle almost struck her in an intersection. The license plate and description of the officers she provided did not match the GPS locations of a BPD vehicle during the time frame she reported occurred. An allegation against unknown officer rule two conformance with laws did not yield to a bicyclist in a crosswalk. The monitor recommended that this uh that this be closed, employee unidentified, and the department agreed. Um there remains one open case from 2024, which is in chain of command. And looking at the statistics from December 2025, the monitor classified nine cases.

[64:01] One was misconduct, zero serious misconduct, five community inquiries, one community feedback, two unspecified incidents. Um, I observed one interview. There were zero critical incident scene responses and I deemed four investigations thorough and complete and BPD closed the two cases we just heard about. And as of January 5th, 2026, there were 49 cases on the monitor panel docket, 23 of those cases are classified. Six of them were pending monitor classification and 20 of them were in PSU preliminary investigation steps. That is the report. People have questions. I see

[65:01] >> I have questions like there's uh five community inquiries, one community feedback. Um I'm wondering about the investigations that were deemed thorough and complete. Are those closed cases? um once they're deemed thorough and complete. Is that when the police department and the IPM are opposing the >> That's when the investigation is uh that the way that it works in the process is that that is when uh the investigation is considered complete, but it will then go to chain of command, >> okay, >> for recommendations. >> So they may still be closed by you and PSUS before it gets to us. So the this is something that changed just last month I believe um that now I'm going to be referring cases that the uh at the if they're not sustained

[66:02] public they will see them I'm making sure that this makes sense and now I'm questioning my own numbers actually. Okay. Um, oh I know why this makes sense because previously several of these cases the panel had voted on already and voted not to pick. So moving forward you will be getting cases at the thorough and complete stage to vote on but previously you would get cases to vote on the classification stage. >> That make sense? >> Yeah. >> I can try to walk you through it later. No, that's fine. That's fine. But but I I just want to note that we have five community inquiries, one community feedback which is six and that to me is like suddenly we are seeing a lot more community inquiries and community feedback. Um I had mentioned in previous

[67:04] months and panel meetings that some of them were red flags to me and should should have been classified uh for the panel review. And um and so I'm just like I keep seeing community inquiries, the numbers keep increasing and I'm I'm just I just want to put that on the record that I don't always agree with the classification of those cases. I'm concerned by the increase in numbers. Thank you. Um, I also want to comment on MI2025-038. And I'm going to do this carefully because I I want to make sure that I'm not um saying anything that I can't confidentialitywise. Um, I was an

[68:00] alternate on this case, so I reviewed the evidence, but I did not participate in the review because I wasn't needed. Um, and I just want to say I'm I'm really surprised to see the outcome. Um, I thought I saw a lot in this case that was very concerning, particularly the first allegation conducting the takedown of the juvenile. Um, and I I don't agree with the sentence in the summary of the case. Juvenile did not initially stop and officer one conducted a takedown. So, I just I don't think what happened to this child should happen. And I'm surprised that there's no I'm just I I would love to see some I would have preferred to see some acknowledgement of that in the results here. So, just want to recognize that.

[69:00] Thanks, Dizzy. Yeah, as an alternate that also with you that case I agree with you. Okay. >> Oh yes, you go ahead. Do we have um members of the public? >> Yeah, sure. >> Yeah, we do. >> I don't see any Q&A. Perfect. So, um Okay, moving into public comment. Um, if you are a member of the public and would like to um provide your thoughts, um, we will call your name and you can unmute. Uh,

[70:02] we have a twominut timer going on. Um so if you uh want to provide public comment please raise your hand so we can see you before uh your so I don't see there anyone uh okay so I don't see any hunts up um for members of the community. So, I'm going to do another call. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand so we can call your name and allow you to provide your comment. >> Sh. >> Oh, Shyro. Okay. Uh okay. With no

[71:02] hands up, we are going to Should we have a five minute break before going to close session? Okay. So, we're going to have a five minute break, then we're going to go to close session 15 to um conduct the the regular business of the panel. So, case review assignment and assignment for new cases. So, we'll be right back. Yep. Okay. Um, thank you so much. So, we're back in um early session and part of our regular business is case review voting. So um let's uh vote.

[72:02] So on MI 2025 053 uh this is ready for panel vote. Officer one rule one compliance with uh values use of force failed to deescalate. Rule four uh respect for others engage discourtously and or unprofessionally towards son and or mother and or father. Rule six, use of force perform a takedown on son. Rule six, use of force restraint uh with knee son with knee on his back with for officer two. Rule six, use of force perform a takedown on son. Rule six, use of force restrain son with a knee on his back. Officer three. Rule six, use of form users use of force, I'm sorry, performed a take down on set. So, um,

[73:00] are you ready to roll call? Okay. >> Okay. Turner, >> yes. >> Solid, >> yes. Milan, >> yes. >> Lizzy, oh, >> not yet. >> Okay. >> Kristen, yes. >> Curtis, >> yes. Bill. >> Yes. >> And Allan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Vote matters in this particular instance. >> Um, okay. Next case. Uh, ready for panel vote is MI 2025 055. Officer one, rule one, compliance with values rules or general orders. incar cameras while camera and personal recording devices did not activate them in accordance with general order 240-2B. Um, okay, we're ready to go. Turner, >> yes. >> Uh, Solidad, >> yes.

[74:00] >> Milan, >> yes. >> Oh, Kristen, yes. >> Curtis, >> yes. and >> okay uh is assignment status. Are you talking about that or is me or we're just assigning? >> Uh not sure what >> I think that might be the the case that you need a volunteer. >> Yeah, >> I think they can all be done at the same >> time probably. >> All right. So, uh, volunteers for, um, the first case, MI2025 053. Okay. Milan Curtis >> and Turner. Awesome. Lissy, we voted yes for two cases and we're um,

[75:03] recruiting volunteers right now. Okay. And then the next case is MI2025 055 uh volunteers bill. Uh I can be on that one too. >> Oh Alan. Okay then we have three cook I'm I'm volunteering myself. >> See yeah I can be an alternate or I can whatever. >> Perfect. I mean it's very hard for >> wait I'm taking >> no so it's Bill Milan Solid Alan and Kristen >> yeah not me >> not you >> okay and then um we have what's case number >> um MI2025-050 is a case where um we have um Solidad

[76:02] and Allen who have volunt ering the case is ready to go. Um so we need a a third >> not this week. I think I have one this week already, but um um assuming that I have something. >> Yeah, I don't think it would be this week because you have to you have to speak on it. Yeah, I need to give you permissions, >> but >> but if it can be next week to welcome. >> Yeah, we can do it next week. And if the three of you passively Oh, do you have your calendar sol? Yes. >> If the three of you want to stay after the meeting, we can actually figure out the circle. >> Okay, we can do that. Okay. So, five minute to spare. There you go. Uh,

[77:02] so I will entertain a motion to adjour. Thank you. A second. Second also and um meeting a jour. Thank you everyone and see you soonish. >> Night everybody. Thanks all. Bye. >> Bye. >> Bye.