OIR Report on Policing in Madison (live-ish – final)

Posted January 11th, 2018 @ 7:46 PM by

This is a summary of what I heard, but I recommend reviewing the powerpoint and watching it for yourself for the pieces I glossed over.

So, here’s the highlights!

I missed a whole bunch of the introductory remarks and back ground from the committee chairs and OIR. About the first 18 minutes or so.

The police department is working on a response, the police will respond “publicly”. OIR says the police department was cooperative top to bottom. They were able to access all the information they needed and it was a lot of work for the MPD to get them all the materials. There will be more to this process. The Ad Hoc Committee will continue to meet and may add or refine the recommendations and they look forward to seeing how that process works. There are also other stakeholders who will be involved. The implementation phase where the heavy lifting begins. That is even more difficult because there has to be acceptance of the recommendations, training and then the work has to get done.

Most of the recommendations are resource neutral, but some require an expenditure.

What are the most pressing issues facing the MPD and what recommendations should be highest priority? What might be easier and which might take longer were questions from the committee members.

OIR says that there are three areas that the community identified as pressing issues.
– Racial disparity issues that transcend the police department.
– Critical incidents (uses of force, deadly force or significant force) and how that is done internally and what info the public recieves
– Independent oversight. A supplement to the oversight that has existed for some time. The PFC has existed since the 19th century and was a reform minded legislation. Madison has had oversight longer than most of the country, but there are gaps – both nationally and here – and like other cities in WI we don’t have other oversight mechanisms that other places have. This is not to highjack the PRC, but to supplement them.

Recommendation 146 is the most important one. To establish an independent auditors office. Madison can pay for a group to come in every few years, but their work should be handed off to an independent police auditor function. They could identify issues and provide “unvarnished” reports about what is going on in the police department. They could also provide a progress report on the implementation process to the degree the recommendations are accepted by the ad hoc committee and the council.

Alder Skidmore asked about how an independent auditor would interact with the PFC. THe PFC decides the chief and that role should continue, there may be ways to improve the process to involve the public. PFC also approves promotions, and that is an important role that should continue. But the police auditor could get public complaints – the current complaint process doesn’t work for community members, the PFC process is also cumbersome. The auditor could also do performance audits. They could also recommend systemic and policy reform. Many auditors roll out the critical incidents and provides a presence outside of the department. They would participate in the incident review and be active in that process. They would be looking at the disciplinary process and offer independent feedback on the investigations and outcomes of the disciplinary process. They would also look at public reporting and transparency.

How much would this cost? They think $200,000 a year, based on the size of the department and cost of living in Wisconsin and what they will be doing. This is a full time person with expertise. That is one piece of it, but there needs to be an independent and unbiased board. The second piece of this that is in addition to the expert auditor, would be residents that live in the neighborhoods that can bring their voices to the process. The devil is in the details and the mechanics of that is not worked out. There are other jurisdictions that have done something like this as models. The citizen, resident piece is important to making this work in Madison and it has be reflective of Madison as a whole.

How do we ensure the auditor is not co-opted or get too close to the police? In order to be effective they have to work day to day with the police and if they are not careful and it is not the right person, there can be too close of a connection between the police and the auditor. THat is why connection to a board is important. If there is too much distance than the auditor can’t be effective. A balance needs to be struck – like in Denver – they have to provide transparency and have an impact on the department – it can be done.

The go over their process. He says they talked to everyone who wanted to talk to them.

Did the outreach include civilian staff of MPD? They say yes. They have civilianized several of their positions that were previously sworn officers and that is a progressive move that some departments don’t do. They spoke to these employees at all levels. Sworn officers move around a lot, civilian employees stay more in the same place. They provide an important historical perspective. There was no real schism between the sworn officers and civilians that they saw.

Who did the contact and why? Who did they outreach to? They relied on committee members and alders to give them leads. They met with most of the alders and got suggestions. They met with anyone who wanted to meet with them, they got invited to informal and formal events. They felt pretty confident that they reached people in a balanced way.

Key themes from the review:
– They have a high regard for the MPD, good programs, practices etc, it is a progressive agency in a lot of ways. They were impressed by the people they met.
– The tension is that because they do well, there is resistance to criticism – almost an indignation. And some gaps in self critique. They could have some more robust internal processes.

They were aware of some of the issues in the community before they got here, they worked to verify that. They had a sense that the dynamics in the community. There is a lot of passion at the top levels of the department, and a strong dedication to the city and the department. That is great. That passion – we saw and heard about instances where that becomes an adversarial mode that is not constructive, it doesn’t change minds and it truncates conversation in ways that are not productive.

Are we who we say we are? They heard that from within the department. There are a lot of impressive forward thinking things, but is that the reality people are experiencing. To some extent yes, but there are gaps. Some individual officers might not feel that.

Is this empty rhetoric in the positive aspects of the department. No, but it doesn’t always translate into reality. It can be hard to carry that out on a daily basis. There is room for self-evaluation and constant review.

What are the experiences of officers of color? The diversity numbers are higher than other agencies, and even more so in regards to gender, it is higher that most places in the community. Hiring is doing well, but there is a disconnect from the stated ideals from the SOPs and posters and flyers and what is going on – on the ground. They would come to work and think they were do the right things, but would get push back when they wanted to carry out the ideals and principles. That goes back to one of the questions with regard to data collection. There is a gap in the ideals of the organization – for instance 50% is nontraditional enforcement activities – more community based problem solving. While that is a good ideal, we don’t know that it is actually happening in a patrol setting day to day. There are a lot of reasons for it, but there is no successful way to capture that activity. Traditional policing is captured easily. (arrests, etc) Its impossible to see how many times they engage in de-escalation and other activities. They need to find a way to document that. That is true in the dialogue both internally and externally. There has been more efforts to look at what officers are doing – you see the daily blogs – but those reports are about traditional policing, not the problem solving and that needs to be talked about as well.

Effective MPD Practices
They see some good things and they want to affirm that and to find ways to get back to those where there has been slippage or gaps in focus and acknowledge they should be continued.

Some are collaborative programs to address systemic inequity such as the Municipal Court Diversion Program for juveniles and other forms of “restorative justice”. The department is actively involved in that. There is also a truancy court in the schools and the 17-25 year old program in Dane County. There were questions about the demographics of those programs – the programs are tracking the data – OIR has a hard copy but didn’t find it on line. They will make sure they get that. It is effective, the demographics are tracking the arrest statistics as far as who is involved, the programs have been successful and there is value in continuing to support them.

MPDs policing philosophy is good and we were national innovators (Herman Goldstein and others), they think problem-oriented and community policing are a great way to do things. CORE is focused on middle age students – is there substance there – behind the barbecues, basketball games and other things. That is just a component of community policing, and there needs to be other things. The CORE team is interested in really talking with youth and the issues. They have only been doing this less than a year. This category includes neighborhood officers and other special teams as well.

Efforts to Enhance Community Engagement
Much of these programs are funded by federal grants. Here today and not tomorrow and there is a continuity issues. The counter dialog is that this kind of stuff that CORE team is doing and the outreach that the police are doing, the non-traditional policing with specialized unit – the overarching question is – is this the role of the police or should it be done by another entity. That is a good question about what the city wants policing to look like and what do they want them to be doing. The rest of the country deals with that question through a strategic plan – policing is often reactive. More progressive Agencies are getting more thoughtful and reflective to plan what the future of policing looks like for the agency. The police department waiting to do the strategic plan until the OIR report was done. The police shouldn’t do the strategic plan on their own. This should be talked about, community input and involvement to answer the questions about what we want as a community, what will MPD be doing 5 years from now. Without community involvement, whatever the MPD comes up with will be hollow and insular.

Community engagement is key. Traditionally police have decided the rules, policies, priorities, protocols without community input. The trend, the progressive thing to do, is to move away from that model and to engage the community. MPD does a good job of round tabling the policies within the organization, but the public and community should be able to respond before they are adopted.

There is a continuum from “the police will tell you what they are doing and you will like it” and “community control of the police”. M Adams has a detailed written explanation of how that would work in Madison. They are not advocating for that – with each neighborhood getting a budget with its own residents and leaders deciding what form of policing or if there is a form of policing to address issues in the neighborhood. There are some mechanical challenges with that. They are not advocating for that, but the think there needs to be that kind of genuine involvement of the community. The Captain’s Advisory Group in the South District is starting this with a federal grant and it is modest but Captain Patterson tried it.

Efforts to Strengthen Internal Review Mechanisms
The internal review mechanisms have to deal with how the department deals with critical incidents and uses of force. Along with the authority to use force, comes a very high responsibility. They believe they need to minimize the uses of force and the degree of force. There is force that is justified, but how do you minimize that.

How the department engages with the community after one of these incidents is important. The department has to admit when things can go differently or better.

There needs to be critical incident reviews and this is a key piece of their recommendations. They have to learn all they can about the incident and how they can make changes moving forward. They have a lot of specific recommendations, but they got a lot of specific questions.

The process for administrative reviews. A criminal investigation comes first, then there is an administrative review. That is typically a repackaging of the criminal investigation, but there is little new work done. Sometimes there is some investigation. This hasn’t really changed. The internal review process needs to be routine and standard part of the process. The criminal investigation focuses on a narrow question – should the officer be held criminally liable – but they don’t ask the other questions (could the force have been avoided, tactics leading up to the use of force, training and other issues)

The timing of the DCI investigation, the criminal investigation and the administrative review is less problematic – particularly the delay – is if there is a good investigation. They don’t believe they should wait several days to interview officers, it should be done right away while their memory is fresh and not contaminated by media and outside influence. They disagree with the DCI practices. One thing MPD could do is have the administrative interview the night of the shooting.

Internal Review Mechanisms – Reviewing Uses of Force
MPD has been tracking this more, its been a moving target and there is room for improvement, the supervisors could give more attention and there should be more investigation. For some categories of force there could be a round table. There could be a more holistic approach. This should be a standard process – even when there is nothing wrong with the force, you can still reinforce the good things that are done.

De-escalation has become a word of art. Specific training and tools officers are taught for an escalated situation – what can we do to calm the waters. Or if someone is intoxicated or having a mental wellness issues – how do they use verbal tools to calm that down. What training is done to help officers not escalate things more. That is a different kind of training that also needs to be done too. (Sorry, this didn’t quite make sense to me)

There are a couple more questions that I missed.

MPD Data Collection and Analysis
There is good data on arrests, there are some complexities in categorizing data for the federal reports.

MPD is below use of force in data collection, or was, but they are gathering more information and updating its database, it is doing a better job and meeting industry standards. They would like to see more a robust review of the force itself. They have the data, but they don’t have a requirement that someone review to make sure the use of force was within the SOPs.

There is no personnel evaluation in a written formal way, so there is no data.

I missed what they said about financial data reporting.

There were 23 employees disciplined in 21 months, 16 sworn, 7 civilian. So no imbalance there, but they have other issues with the discipline system. The reticence of going to the PFC with discipline cases, only 1 in the past 4 – 5 years. Every suspension resulted in a “settlement” which is that the suspension is reduced. THe PFC process is so labor intensive that there is a disincentive to use the process. The complainant and victim are left out of the process of the settlement – that is why they think we need an independent auditor that points out when the cases should not be settled. The auditor could also play a role in the “charge”. For example when someone “cheats” on a test – its not a question of integrity but treated as a performance issues.

Body Worn Cameras
They wouldn’t advise to use cameras yes or no in a vacuum. They have worked with agencies with them and without and there are good reasons for doing one thing or the other. If you do use them, you should do it with your eyes wide open, what do you want to get out of it, and what do you expect from it. Sometimes there is a gap. A pilot program could be useful only if there is clear expectations and policies up front with community input and shared understanding of the details.

The reason they think the policies need to be done first because when it isn’t its been a disaster. There is no acceptance of body cameras when it is done poorly. There has to be consensus and common understanding of the program.

Outside Stakeholders
There are some recommendations for the city, the association, the PFC and others. Those will be the heavier lifts. Assuming there is acceptance from MPD, its easy for them to do it but they can’t make the PFC or others do it.

They weren’t asked to do a staffing study. It has been done, externally and internally. It would have been duplicative if they did one. However they do have something to say about staffing. They don’t have a number of police officers needed, but they do need a better understanding of how much work is non-traditional policing – and there is a commitment to that by the community – that is going to require more resources. The problem is that we don’t know enough to inform you about if that goal or objective is being done, and we don’t think MPD knows if officers are doing 50% non-traditional time. Do you all support that, and if you agree with that level of commitment, how do we know it is being done, show us the data.

How do we measure the progress
MPD has to self report, but it would be a key role for the auditors. The auditor would sit in on the training and see if they are playing out as recommended, for instance.

Questions from the committee and alders are up next . . .

Mark Clear asks about the data we do have about traditional police activities – since we don’t have data from non-traditional activities – can you extrapolate it? They say there is no data. You also can’t compare Madison to Lincoln Nebraska because the community expectations are different. Staffing decreases per capita as you go west. Clear says the 50-50 isn’t the goal of the chief, the council adopted it too. Do we really not have data on the time spent on traditional issues. OIR says there is data on response times and traditional policing activities, but not on the problem solving.

Paul Skidmore says he is impressed with the report and thinks it is a foundation to move forward together. He asks what level of force other departments have supervisors review. OIR says anything that is resisted, resisted handcuffing would be it. There are varying degrees, they wouldn’t do a round table for that, but there is different reviews for hospitalizations or injuries, etc.

Skidmore asks how other departments document activities. Some departments use body worn cameras and spot review it. Short of that other agencies do daily activity logs and with computers in the car that doesn’t overly burden an officer.

Barbara McKinney asks about the Educational Resource Officers and the criminalization of disruptive juvenile behavior, the racial disparities and the notion of police in the schools. The concern about criminalizing behavior is that there are discipline issues best handled in the schools and the presence of police in the school – if that tool is there, you may use the law enforcement response. It tends to have an disparate impact on students of color. The officers may be perceiving the situations differently because of biases. The EROs are conscience of the studies nationwide and they are trying to prevent that dynamic from happening. The disparate impacts are a reality. Some of the programs are trying to mitigate that. There are good arguments for and against EROs in the schools. In their view the officers to understand the criticisms but they think it is part of the problem oriented policing. They see value in having the officers there because the high schools are their own communities. The issue is if the right police officers with the right skills are there. There has to be shared, goals and expectations and accountability on how it is playing out. There isn’t uniformity from school to school about what the administrators expect. There should be some documentation to guide them about when to get the police involved and when to handle discipline themselves. Also, the critical piece is who is selected to do the job, the right person can do great things. The selection process should be more inclusive and include more folks to select the right person. The other issue is that an ERO doing a great job has to leave after 3 or 4 years and they should get rid of that impediment in the MOU with the police association.

Sarah Eskrich where the auditor position would be placed in the city departments. OIR says that ideally them downtown, but don’t imbed them in the office. Ultimately that person reports to the community, it could be mayor, alders, review board or administration – and really it reports to all.

Eskrich says this is an office of one? Has an office but not in the mayor’s office or attorney’s office. OIR says yes, and 1 person would be right for the size of the organization.

Matt Phair asks about the three categories of priorities – if there was a 4th it would be a lack of self evaluation and the special program evaluations. OIR says yes. They say they need to actualize that self improvement.

Phair asks if they could say more about Community Policing Teams. OIR says they are a group in search of a ___. They don’t do patrol, it is up the the discretion of the captains. In the south it is community policing. In other districts it might be traffic. Or warrants that need to be served. That is not what professor Goldstein would consider community policing. They say if they are not engaged in community policing 100% of the time don’t call them that.

Phair asks about national trends about police in the schools. OIR says ACLU did a good report, so much of it comes down to community needs. It is tricky to look at this as a national question, you have to look at your individual situation.

Could the independent auditor be a shared position – two half time people? Would that help them remain independent? Yes. Coption is a concern. The idea is interesting and worthy of consideration, but the civilian review board is also part of this.

Amanda Hall asks about recommendation 90 – MPD publicizing its use of force standards beyond the Graham standards. OIR says they can look at what led up to the situation, were those things that require more training, does it require discipline. Hall asks if there is anything quantifiable. Would there be measurable reductions in force. OIR says that its important to review the use of force. They have seen agencies look at it more holistically.

Hall asks about hiring more police and policy changes and the timing of it all. What is the average timeline to see changes, what should we hold ourselves to. OIR says it is important to do it quickly and correctly and that is a tension. If the police chief and mayor get up and say that they agree with everything and they will do it quickly – that makes them nervous. Some of these things can be done quickly, some will require more time. A year from now you will be on your way, but a majority would be in process or completed. A big piece of the puzzle is what you hear about in two or three weeks – they will be making a formal presentation.

(Aside, they spent $372,000, not the full $400,000)

Samba Baldeh asks about training for leadership (one can do the job well and not be a good manager), how do we get to the issues of trust with the community. OIR says that leadership is a big component. The public face of the department is dependent on the leadership. They spoke to people who were enthusiastic and others who had serious concerns. The other issue is that the individual officer on the ground needs more training at the sergeant level. First level supervision – the sergeants – set the tone. Their role should be enhanced, and the evaluations should incentivize officers to do community policing.

Baldeh asks about the leadership, through the media, etc – the community wants to trust each other – leadership plays a key role in that. What is the impact of leadership. OIR “appreciates the point” – there have been some key points that the department at the highest levels were not responsive to the community concerns. There were some blog posts that spoke eloquently, the potential is there, but at other times that didn’t go so well. It’s all about re-setting the dials. WE need more of a willingness to engage with the community better in times of controversy.

Baldeh asks if any chiefs are elected and is there a time limit. OIR says that is how it works with the sheriffs. There are not city police that are elected. Once the police is appointed in Wisconsin, the chief can serve as long as they want to, there has to be some sort of evaluative process and a term limit should be considered like they do in Milwaukee. When you have a chief everyone thinks is great it is good, but when you have people who don’t think that it doesn’t work well.

Marsha Rummel has been thinking about how to measure non-traditional work. Do you have any short term ideas to measure the proactive work? OIR says re-institute the daily activity reports. Just get in the car and type in your device “I did not need to arrest this person because we worked it out . . . ”

Rummel says that the CPTs grew out of the neighborhood officer that provided face to face services – her mental picture is the neighborhood police officer Jean Papalia who everyone knew – but now there isn’t that kind of face to community – how do we make this more consistent. How do other communities deal with this? OIR says that there are several recommendations about who to hire and expectations of what they do. There is also no transition period when a police officer shifts.

Rummel says that the role of the sergeants is surprising since Alders know the Chief and Captains – but the sergeants don’t interact with the public as much. OIR says that should be further explored. The tension is that you have all these specialized officers and they are doing this stuff, so the supervisors focus more on supervising.

Maurice Cheeks asks when daily activity logs stopped. OIR says around the time that performance evaluations went away. A few years ago. There is supervision by walking around, but that isn’t written.

Cheeks says that if daily logs are not done there is more time. OIR says its an argument but he’s not sure it is a good one. You could argue that about making arrests. That involves a lot of paperwork so should we stop making arrests?

Cheeks asks about how other community police department responds – we haven’t heard much from others – how do other departments do and what kind of a response do you expect. OIR says that they have gotten mostly positive responses, he credits MPD for taking time to respond, its better than a quick response that is not substantive. They won’t take offense at the response. A give an take on the recommendations would be healthy and they could see some recommendations maybe being dropped.

Cheeks says “speaking of being offended” . . . he says the first wave of reporting included that very little of value was included in the report. They of course disagree, they hope they gave the department and the city concrete steps to take, the criticisms are important – but they feel this is a thorough and fair report. The proof will be in what the department looks like a year or two from now.

Ledell Zellers asks about the relationship between officers and sergeants and what issues they see with the current structure and what kind of a response did you get about doing something about this. They think sergeants should be with the supervisors instead of with the officers association. That is a hard transition to make when promoted and having them with the officers in the association is further difficult. He also says that there is a lot of scheming by officers to get away from a supervisor they don’t like. The officers have a lot of say in what they do and that should be a management decision. The association will be opposed to changes to this and that will be one of the heavy lifts.

Denise DeMarb says this is the 5th year on the council and she still doesn’t understand the policing systems and all the confusing specialties that are all community policing. She asks if the 50% of time on community policing could be done across the board and dissolve all the other labels. Or, should there be officers that do only 100%. Would that mean a street cop would only then spend 30 or 40% of the time on community policing. It hard to understand all the moving pieces. She appreciates the police, but when something is presented to us we have no data to make decisions. OIR says that “community policing” isn’t defined. People talk about it, but what that means is more complicated. The split between responding and other activities, the other 50% not responding to calls or direct law enforcement – that has a community policing element. The teams and neighborhood officers have a different set of expectations. You need to revisit why we are doing what we are doing and we have been doing this for a long time and there has been some drift. They need to do more defining what all these roles are and they have to communicate that externally and internally define it better.

DeMarb says we have reports and plans and a city full of people with different perspectives – as an alder how to we balance all this and meet the concerns. Seems like we need to define community policing. OIR says that every year the department presents their wish list and says we need this much money for this many officers. That is largely a decision from within. A better paradigm would be asking the department earlier upstream and think about that collaboratively – instead of having people on both sides about what they think about that magic number. Once a decision is made people get locked in to it.

David Ahrens asks about promotions and where people come from. Is it people who are 5 years as a resource officer, or a patrol person or do you need to be in a specialized unit? Sergeants take a test and the process is more defined, but the higher you go the less consistency there is and there is more discretion. There needs to be more of a community engagement in the process. The department and PFC should make the decision, but the community should have a role. That would broaden the role of people who apply.

Ahrens asks about the promotion process – do the people making the decision have information or reports about the good and bad of the candidate. OIR says that they don’t want to discredit the process entirely, the do have peer review as well, but a community component would be helpful.

Rebecca Kemble asks who staffs the civilian review board. They says there is an “executive director” that is more administrative with the agencies that they are familiar with. Are they also in the independent auditors office. It should not be staffed by the police department. Kemble says the Public Safety Review Committee could morph into it but its staffed by the police department. Do you have thoughts on that? OIR says that the mission statement would need to be altered.

Kemble asks about the culture – the racial slurs and the hostile work environment – are there effective remedies for that if reported? How do you get that change to occur. Are there currently adequate protections and accountability measures. OIR says the structure is there, the hard part is to get people who observe it to report it – there needs to be a safe space to report that. Many of the reports are from officers no longer with the department.

Kemble says if there is a culture of accpetance of that, how can they police neighborhoods with a large number of people of color. OIR says that there are pockets of old school mentality, but I don’t think it is condoned or embraced or supported and the department does a lot of things to address and correct and rectify that. Some of the problems we identified are not unique to Madison.

Kemble asks how they can create that safe place. OIR says the leadership level has to take the lead – they need the energy and commitment to stick with what they have.

Christain asks about the civilian oversight and the “sharp” language. We were tasked at looking at the culture of the MPD. Are the plea deals completely watered down so that police know that they will not be disciplined if they get caught. OIR says that punitive sanctions isn’t really a good way to address concerns. They recommend more remedial ways to address concerns. If an issue needs to be resolved, they will reduce the suspension but you have to apologize. That is more effective and consistent with restorative justice. This is better than making a deal to avoid PFC. Is this eroding the culture? This is something an auditor could play a very good role in. Once they got in place as auditors, they were able to offer other recommendations. An independent voice in the process could be extremely helpful. Part of this is a structural thing with PFC, it takes forever. They suggest hearing officers instead of having the PFC hear evidence.

Cheeks asks about the Executive Director position for the board and auditor. Is that like what Chicago does – it is analogous.

Clear asks about the auditors role in an officer involved shooting. How would that be reconciled given the immediate needs of DCI, internal review and media attention with the threat of mitigation. Is there a best practice? OIR says yes, they have done this for 100s of shootings, it all can be worked out – they are confident with that. The role would be limited and not disrupt or interfere with the work. There is also a symbolic value to this – there is a whole investigative process that is dominated by law enforcement – and having access and transparency makes a difference.

Skidmore ask about the daily log – and “glorified time sheets”, what do others use. MPD is very good at writing comprehensive reports – that level of detail is not being asked for. They want to know what was done and how it was handled.

Rummel thanks the 17 members of the council that came tonight. (King, Palm and Carter were missing?) OIR can still be emailed with questions. They recess the meeting for the alders to leave so the ad hoc committee can deal with their other agenda items.

Feels like I can’t leave now . . . .

They approve their minutes by acclamation. No disclosures or recusals.

Next steps:
Luis says the need to reflect, review video and notes and reports so in February they will be well informed. The surveys were enlightening – it is of police officers and the community. We don’t want to lose this momentum. So next week we need to create a process to move things along. His greatest fear is that we could talk this to death and nothing would get done.

Cuz of the late hour they want to discuss more in February.

A suggestion is to identify that they don’t want to move forward with in the recommendations.

They do want to talk about how to proceed at the next meeting.

The police department response will be at the end of the month and they will want to talk about that at the meeting – they might need to think about, like hearing from an independent auditor, hearing from the community, etc.

A suggestion is made to go through the report section by section at various other meetings.

Maybe there are some issues that can be moved through more quickly.

Yudice says that they should review the OIR powerpoint on the office of internal review.

Please come prepared by having read the report and the survey and the chief’s response.

Next Meeting:
Koval will be in attendance at the next meeting.
February 1st was the most popular date – that wouldn’t leave much time for them to review the police report.
The city attorney will also be drafting a response that will be provided to the council and the ad hoc committee.
They decide that the 15th is a good meeting date – 5:00 at the Urban League (if possible)

Co-chair Election:
Apparently the city attorney drafted a memo for them to vote.
The co-chairs are both resigning so they can participate in the debate and to allow for new leadership. There was an email about that (but its not in legistar)
Tom Brown, Matt Braunginn and Keith Findley are all nominated.
Tom Brown and Keith Findley are elected.

Adjourn! 9:57.

Categories: | Media

Forward Lookout's Comment Policy - use a real e-mail, if not an actual name. We don't share your e-mail with anyone.
blog comments powered by Disqus