2026-11-04 - Police Accountability Board

00:20Good evening everyone and welcome to the

00:21November 4th 2026 meeting of the

00:24Berkeley Police Accountability Board.

00:26Um

00:29Start would you mind um reading the

00:31public notice?

00:33>> Of course.

00:33>> Thanks.

00:34>> Public notice to access this meeting

00:35remotely join from PC Mac iPad

00:38or Android device

00:40using the URL in the agenda. You can

00:42also secure your names to appear

00:45on

00:46and click on rename to rename yourself

00:47to be anonymous. To request to speak use

00:50the raise hand icon on your screen. To

00:52join by phone dial 1669

00:559006833

00:58and enter meeting ID 890

01:010783 809

01:04If you wish to comment during the public

01:06comment portion of the agenda press star

01:08nine and wait to be read in class.

01:11>> Thank you so much.

01:14All right with that we'll go to

01:15recognize our land acknowledgement which

01:17is on page two of the packet and then

01:19we'll proceed to the um roll call which

01:21is page one.

01:25>> Okay.

01:26Thank you chair for the record this

01:27meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.

01:30on

01:31with roll call. Uh chair Kytle

01:33>> Present.

01:34>> Vice chair Wilson apparently absent.

01:37Uh board member

01:38Present.

01:39Uh board member Allen

01:41>> Here.

01:42>> Board member Temple

01:43>> Present.

01:44>> Board member

01:45currently absent

01:47and board member Here.

01:49Okay uh chair we have a quorum. Uh

01:54We need four votes to take any action.

01:56Uh then want to recognize the staff

01:58that's here with us today. Uh we have

02:00director Offler, investigator

02:09On behalf of the BPD, we have Chief

02:14Uh with that chair, we have a quorum.

02:16>> And thank you everyone here including

02:18members of the public.

02:19Um thank you for being here. Um let's

02:21get to the agenda item two, which is the

02:23approval of the agenda. Are there any

02:25amendments to the agenda?

02:29Not the

02:31motion.

02:32>> Move to

02:33accept the agenda.

02:35>> Second.

02:38Are there any objections to the motion

02:40to approve the agenda?

02:43Seeing or hearing none, the agenda is

02:44approved.

02:46>> Okay, great. Let's go to agenda item

02:48three, which is now public comment.

02:50>> So okay.

02:51Um as a reminder, speakers have got any

02:53allotted up to three minutes and maybe

02:55allotted

02:56speakers they may comment on any matter

02:58within the board's jurisdiction at this

02:59time except confidential personnel

03:01matters. Um I'll start with those

03:03physically present before we move on to

03:05our virtual attendees.

03:06Um

03:07whenever you're ready, three minutes are

03:09up on the screen.

03:11>> Thank you, Mr.

03:12and to commissioners. And thank you,

03:14Commissioner Allen, for the delicious

03:16brownies.

03:17Um like good.

03:19My name is Maureen Law. I'm a graduate

03:20of UC Berkeley class of 1982.

03:23Went to law school in San Francisco,

03:25practiced law for five years, came back

03:2715 years ago. Worked for the city, but

03:29I'm now retired from the city of

03:30Berkeley as a housing counselor for

03:32I'm here before you today to just share

03:34one thing.

03:35I submitted a public a records act

03:38request today.

03:39It was forwarded to the fire department,

03:41but it should come after the police

03:42department through the questions

03:43pertaining to the following.

03:46Since July 1st of this year, how many

03:49hours of police time have been to the

03:52response of a mental health call for

03:545150?

03:56How many officers were deployed to such

03:59a call?

04:00What would the dollar amount come to

04:03when you look at the labor for cost of

04:05the officers and the time spent with

04:07that particular situation? And the

04:08reason I point this out,

04:10one, I'm very interested in the

04:11community as a member of the community,

04:13but I've had two situations. One,

04:16in July where a person was fully

04:18unclothed and walked by me and um

04:21uh she was walking very fast

04:25and I called 911. And when I went back

04:27to the park at Dr. King Park,

04:31that person was there

04:33partially covered with a sheet and there

04:35were five police cars that responded to

04:38the call and a motorcycle that were

04:40there probably over an hour or more. I

04:42don't know. It was a long time.

04:44So I talked to the officers and one

04:45said, well,

04:46I called the number that we normally

04:48call for the outreach team and they said

04:51it was disbanded yesterday, which was

04:52the team that would go out and do the

04:54calls, right?

04:55Another officer said, I feel that we

04:57just agitate the person and trigger it

05:00more when they see someone in uniform as

05:02opposed to someone that is a mental

05:03health unit.

05:05So it's my

05:06feeling that as a member of the

05:07community, my commissioner,

05:10that we all should put a call in to the

05:14return of the mental health unit so that

05:16the public will be properly served, the

05:18individual won't be harmed or fearful of

05:20a police officer versus a mental health

05:22specialist,

05:24and the money can be used appropriately

05:26for mental health or other services, but

05:29not for police fire responding to a

05:30mental health call.

05:32So three minutes probably that with 30

05:34seconds to spare. Oh, one last thing is

05:36just to let you know I was on the

05:37partial policing group

05:39the um mayor Jesse Arreguín had

05:42appointed me to that and so I have ideas

05:45and I've been part of a community group

05:47called the Berkeley Community Safety

05:49Coalition where we came together to do

05:51some entire package that the city

05:52council adopted.

05:54Um so I'm here at your

05:57you know humble servant here at Berkeley

05:58just as a community member now, but I am

06:01very concerned about the mental health

06:02calls not having a proper response and

06:04our dollars being is for police time

06:06instead. Thank you, sir. Tim

06:08>> Thank you.

06:10Any other speakers?

06:18Great. Mary, you ready? Three minutes

06:19are on the screen.

06:20>> Great. Thank you. Good evening,

06:22everyone. Uh my name is Jason Martinez

06:24and I'm a Berkeley resident.

06:26Uh I'm here to talk about the the FLOCK

06:29audit, uh but I would like to second the

06:31previous speakers just to

06:33personally have experience with the

06:34mental health unit

06:36uh where we were in a situation

06:37unfortunately where we needed their

06:39assistance and it was wonderful to have

06:41them come instead of our officers uh and

06:44I am greatly satisfied by their loss of

06:47Berkeley.

06:48Um

06:50onto the the FLOCK audit. Uh

06:53I I spoke about this before. I still

06:56feel like the audit uh is entirely uh

07:01it's not accurate enough uh in its

07:04current form to detect the kinds of

07:06things that we need to detect from an

07:07audit. Uh we know that NCRIC did have

07:11access to Berkeley's data at one point

07:14and the audit did not catch that and as

07:16far as I'm aware, the audit methodology

07:18is exactly the same

07:20as when it did not catch that access to

07:23our systems. And I know that the

07:25Berkeley Police Department has sent a

07:27memo with some comments about how they

07:30understand the audit to work and uh what

07:32changes they have made, but as far as I

07:34can understand from that memo, there's

07:36nothing in there that significantly

07:37changes how the audit functions in terms

07:40of finding

07:41uh

07:42these cases where outside actors are

07:44accessing our our data.

07:46Uh it does acknowledge, however, that

07:48there's no way that we can tell if

07:50another agency who had access to our

07:52system has shared that data

07:54further other agencies such as ICE.

07:57And today, as somebody was arrested by

08:00ICE in our community, I think this is a

08:03fairly urgent matter uh and we need to

08:06resolve uh how we can

08:08uh keep of data or we should not collect

08:12this data at all.

08:14Thank you very much.

08:17>> And this show figures

08:22Whenever you're ready you're on the

08:24screen.

08:25>> Oh I yeah what is the residence um

08:30what was that called the residence inn

08:33um

08:34whatever that was you know I'll try to

08:36find it

08:37when I scan um and I'm I'm really hoping

08:41the police will stand by what they said

08:44they were not going to do and that is

08:46assist

08:47I see in any way shape or form they

08:49would not uh

08:51they would not neighbor your uh

08:54calm and

08:57peaceful ways within the community here

08:59to do that so I would suggest you do not

09:02leave

09:03um

09:04help lies in any way shape or form uh

09:07the surveillance technology the audit on

09:10that um

09:11having the police audit itself is kind

09:13of like

09:14um

09:15the Israeli defense forces

09:18uh investigating themselves when they

09:20massacre people in the West Bank in Gaza

09:22or anywhere else

09:24you're not going to get a fair thing on

09:25that I don't understand why the police

09:27are allowed to do that it puts Canada

09:30unfair light also because then you know

09:33they're going to say that oh everybody's

09:35great everybody does the right thing all

09:36the time

09:38used to say that Berkeley police model

09:40the police from the world the best in

09:42the universe that's in the galaxy and

09:43all that well come on that's going to go

09:45a lot of undue pressure on people

09:47because nobody's perfect not even the

09:49police no matter what they claim to be

09:52I'm certain I'm perfect myself uh

09:55the flock issue is totally

09:57outrageous how we have so many cameras

10:00wanting to go into this community here I

10:03mean it would make law enforcement

10:05easier no doubt but also put a chip on

10:08everybody's arm would make law

10:09enforcement easier no doubt but that is

10:11not necessarily the best way to do it.

10:13And it's very intrusive on people,

10:16in people, for people.

10:21I just don't understand why there's any

10:23talk of this at all.

10:26After the fact when it doesn't do that

10:28anything.

10:29You know, the police don't prevent

10:30anything.

10:32They're great at catching things

10:33sometimes after the fact,

10:35but certainly not before the fact.

10:38I think we need to keep in mind that

10:42people's

10:43people's freedom and independence is

10:45very

10:47necessary in a creative and productive

10:50society. So I would suggest that

10:52anything having to do with

10:55surveillance and putting the police on

10:56the spot

10:58and

10:59anything like that is not a very good

11:01idea. I'm not going to suggest that

11:03people

11:04not vote for it. Thank you.

11:06>> Thank you.

11:07Any additional public comments?

11:10Okay, I'll move on to our virtual

11:11attendees.

11:14Okay, you've been granted permission to

11:15speak.

11:17Whenever you're ready, three minutes are

11:18on the screen.

11:20>> Can you hear me?

11:22>> Yes.

11:23>> You can hear me? Great. This is Kit

11:24Saginor.

11:26The situation with ICE taking our

11:29neighbors is a very serious situation. I

11:32will remind you that back in July, they

11:34seized a man within less than a block,

11:37half a block maybe, of a flock camera. I

11:39don't know how they knew where to find

11:40him.

11:41About three weeks ago, ICE agents seized

11:43a community member in Emeryville. They

11:45broke six of his ribs and they took him

11:46to Highland Hospital.

11:48ICE kept him handcuffed in the hospital

11:51and with the cooperation of hospital

11:53administration and deputies at the

11:54Alameda County Sheriff's Office,

11:57they took him back into their custody

11:58six days later, all without a warrant.

12:02This is not an isolated incident.

12:04ICE agents are violently injuring and

12:06seizing our neighbors around the Bay

12:08Area. And some law enforcement agencies,

12:11not Berkeley, but some are taking

12:14actions that help ICE. Last week,

12:16deputies of the Santa Clara Sheriff's

12:18Office knowingly coerced community

12:20coerced community members to leave a

12:23public lobby to be chased down by ICE

12:26agents outside.

12:29ICE is empowered by the federal

12:30government. It is an armed force, but it

12:34is not in actual fact a law enforcement

12:37agency because ICE agents do not uphold

12:40the Constitution and they do not obey

12:42laws.

12:43On the contrary, they are directed to

12:46disobey legal authorities.

12:48ICE agents are now seizing people after

12:51they've been released through habeas

12:52corpus in direct violation of federal

12:54court orders. This law-ignoring agency

12:57is dedicated to the persecution of

12:59immigrants and is actively soliciting

13:01covert cooperation from police agents

13:03and sheriff deputies.

13:06So, how about PPD's procedures? Are they

13:09effective for detecting possible

13:11instances of the system misused by

13:13external agencies such as ICE?

13:17The memo says that external agencies

13:19sign agreements to abide by Berkeley's

13:20policies. That is not an audit

13:22procedure.

13:24The actual inspection procedures were

13:27query access records for federal and

13:28out-of-state agencies and query access

13:31records for terms associated with

13:33impermissible use.

13:35So, searches conducted by an authorized

13:37user at an external agency who passes

13:40results to an unauthorized user such as

13:42ICE and searches conducted by an

13:45authorized user who disguises the

13:47reasons for the search are not flagged

13:49by these procedures.

13:51The memo describes further security on

13:53searches that are flagged, but searches

13:55that evaded these naive criteria would

13:58not have been detected or flagged or

13:59followed up on.

14:01The fact that last year's audit was done

14:03in this ineffective way is not a reason

14:06to accept it now.

14:07Our city needs for this board, for you

14:10to clearly communicate to City Council

14:12that the report created with these

14:14procedures provides no assurance of

14:16safety from ice surveillance.

14:18Thank you very much for your time.

14:38>> Hi. Can you hear me?

14:40>> Yeah.

14:41>> Hi. Thank you. My name is Katherine

14:43Hoctin and I'm speaking tonight as an

14:45individual, but I'm also chair of the

14:47Human Welfare and Community Action

14:49Commission for the City of Berkeley. I'm

14:51very troubled by what

14:54over 50 cities across the country

14:57have

14:58proactively done, which Berkeley has

15:01not, which is cancel their flock

15:03contracts in light of the things that

15:06the speakers who spoke earlier

15:09have attested to. I don't understand

15:13why we are persisting with this

15:16with this entire proposed program and

15:19RFP with regard with regard to an audit

15:22in particular. It seems that based on

15:24the letter that uh Chief Lewis wrote,

15:27she stated that the consistency that's

15:29let the board compare results from one

15:31period to the next and has let us

15:33improve the process as flock's tools

15:35have developed and our understanding of

15:37the risks has grown

15:40only underscores the

15:43the um lack of proactiveness

15:46that we cannot have in light of the fact

15:49that flock's surveillance

15:52capabilities continue to grow and we are

15:55never going to get to the bottom of

15:57this, especially in light of what Kit

16:00Saginor just said, which is that

16:03authorized users are passing information

16:05on to unauthorized users.

16:08It's very dangerous and doesn't really

16:11speak well to

16:14what I think is

16:16the mandate that the police department

16:19has, which is caring about the

16:21individuals in our community. This is

16:25completely an egregious act and should

16:28be stopped. Thank you.

16:33>> Thank you.

16:34Uh Sherry, with that we have no

16:36additional hands raised.

16:38>> Yeah, thank you for your comments,

16:39everyone. Appreciate you being

16:40[clears throat] here.

16:42Um we will now go to agenda item four,

16:44which is the approval of the minutes of

16:46the October 21st 2026 meeting.

16:48Are there any changes to the minutes for

16:50that meeting?

16:57>> Not

16:59>> Got a motion.

17:00>> I'll move.

17:02>> Second.

17:05>> Are there any objections to the motion

17:06to approve the minutes?

17:09Seeing or hearing none, the minutes are

17:10approved.

17:14Thanks. Okay, let's get to agenda item

17:16five, which is Director staff report.

17:19Director Ober.

17:20>> Thank you. Uh so I've been here about a

17:22month now and I'm continuing to reach

17:24out to stakeholders to get to meet

17:25everyone uh and get their feedback. So

17:28I've met with the mayor, uh the city

17:30manager, I've met with our science city

17:32attorney, uh and I'm setting up meetings

17:34to meet with the union, uh our city

17:36councilors, and other external

17:38stakeholders.

17:39Uh I'm proud to say that we are

17:40currently meeting all of our

17:41obligations, uh but I have noticed that

17:44this is a very fragile thing.

17:46Um I'm still working out uh our our

17:49office's short-term, mid-term, and

17:52long-term goals,

17:53but definitely one of the short-term is

17:55building in resiliency to the system. Uh

17:58due to budget cuts, we are down an

17:59investigator and an admin, uh and this

18:03system is only working because of this

18:04fabulous staff and their commitment. For

18:07example, if we had our investigator go

18:09out on leave for any reason or it would

18:11get a a different job, uh the wheels

18:14would come off the wagon. Uh so that is

18:16obviously not acceptable. This group is

18:17very important. Uh so we're going to

18:20work out some

18:21solutions to that.

18:22In the short-term, what we are

18:24considering and we're not bringing it to

18:25the board today,

18:27but potentially administratively closing

18:30a small number of cases.

18:32We don't take that consideration

18:34lightly.

18:35They would be cases that we have no

18:37reasonable belief that we would sustain

18:39on. This would not include anything

18:41where someone would actually be hurt,

18:43anything that was high profile,

18:46or anything

18:48anything like that. These would only be

18:49for cases that probably couldn't go

18:50anywhere.

18:52Again, we take that very seriously.

18:53That's not something we'd like to do,

18:56but I think it is going to be an

18:58organizational necessity so that our

18:59investigators can focus on more serious

19:02cases and make sure when the board

19:04submits

19:05our investigation it's taken seriously

19:08by everyone else in the city.

19:10Again, we will not be doing this

19:11unilaterally. These cases will be

19:13brought to the PAB and only be done with

19:16approval of the PAB.

19:18We're not bringing that today, but it's

19:19just up coming attraction. And again,

19:21this is

19:22a short-term

19:24act of necessity, but we can have longer

19:27conversations about that in the future,

19:28but I just wanted to be very upfront

19:30that that is a consideration and that

19:32might be

19:34Again, I don't think doing so would

19:36jeopardize justice or have us lose out

19:39on an opportunity to

19:41make an impact on the community.

19:43But again, it's not great practice, but

19:44it's something we need to do simply

19:45because it's the right thing to do.

19:47Thank you.

19:49>> Director Affleck, um are there any

19:52other reports on from staff? Or if not,

19:55would you accept some questions?

19:56>> Of course.

19:58>> Questions for Director Affleck

20:03Anyway, not hearing any, but thank you

20:05for the update in the report.

20:08Okay.

20:09And yes, thank you to our great staff

20:12for all their help

20:14throughout very busy time. I really

20:16appreciate it and I'm sure the board

20:17agrees.

20:18Okay. We'll go now to the

20:22and board member report. I think there

20:23is someone who's speaking there.

20:31Any reports from board members?

20:34We can on the line. Any

20:36No reports.

20:38I don't

20:40have any reports

20:43for now

20:45other than what's on the agenda. So

20:49we'll pass that item over

20:51to them in further.

20:53I believe we have Chief Lewis with us.

20:56Hey Chief.

20:58>> Good evening.

21:01Can you hear me okay?

21:02>> Yeah, how's your belly doing?

21:04>> [laughter]

21:06>> It's loud right now with some of the

21:08repairs that are underway, but

21:10work continues. So fortunately

21:13our comm center wasn't affected and

21:15once we had the short evacuation period,

21:17we were able to get back up and running

21:18in there. So

21:20it it's a project, but repairs are

21:22already underway.

21:23Okay, a couple quick comments today. I I

21:26did want to address something that came

21:28up in public comment just

21:30that I want to share with the board and

21:31I am aware that there were reports that

21:33ICE was present in Berkeley today and

21:35made an arrest.

21:37I can share with you that

21:39we did receive a call about that in our

21:41communications center. We have

21:42absolutely no verified information that

21:44they were in fact in our city. We are

21:47aware that FBI was in our city today and

21:49made an arrest around that same time and

21:52location that the reports of ICE were

21:54occurring. That arrest was for a child

21:57pornography case.

21:59You know, happy to receive or provide

22:02more information if anyone in the

22:03community has information around an ICE

22:05report and wants us to look at our calls

22:07for service or see if anything that

22:08there, but as of now we have no

22:10indication that that's verified.

22:13I do want to talk about two cases with

22:16the board. Both of them demonstrate how

22:19important community involvement in our

22:22efforts as well as technology are for

22:24our work.

22:26Technology referring to specifically is

22:27our ALPR systems, in this case FLOCK.

22:31Um, in

22:32to these two cases that they these

22:34things contributed significantly to the

22:36resolution of the cases or

22:38investigation. Uh, the first one I want

22:40to talk about is last night's tragic

22:42fatal hit and run on Ashby that resulted

22:45in the arrest of a 66-year-old Oakland

22:47man on suspicion of DUI, hit and run,

22:50and gross vehicular manslaughter.

22:52Um, Berkeley officers were able to

22:54locate that suspect vehicle um after a

22:56community member gave us a vehicle

22:59license information. Um, our

23:01investigators developed some leads and

23:03then using a hot list, a departmental

23:06hot list in the FLOCK system, we were

23:08able to

23:09locate the car when it passed nearby

23:11Berkeley again within hours of the

23:13incident occurring. That allowed us to

23:16make both a timely arrest and conduct a

23:18DUI investigation and

23:20be able to address the impairment issues

23:22in a timely manner.

23:24And

23:25I I do want to acknowledge our both our

23:28members of our traffic bureau and our

23:29detectives bureau who either extended

23:31their shifts or came in from their

23:33shifts as well as members of our bike

23:34team that extended their hours in order

23:36to work that case,

23:38talk to follow leads, and also

23:41eventually apprehend the suspect.

23:44The second case I want to talk about

23:45involves a 35-year-old man who was

23:47arrested on suspicion of secretly

23:50recording women and minors with

23:51concealed cameras that were attached to

23:53his shoes.

23:55And again

23:57technology helped us with resolve that

24:00case.

24:01And so using evidence at the scene, some

24:03tips from the community, and our ALPR

24:05technology, we were able to identify a

24:07suspect and arrest them and upon that

24:09arrest locate some recording devices. So

24:12far we've got four victims in that case.

24:14We have put out a community message

24:16about the locations where he was last

24:18known to be

24:19and committing these crimes hoping that

24:21if there are additional victims they

24:23come forward so that we can pursue those

24:25investigations as well.

24:28Another

24:29um, comment want to make is to

24:30technology. Uh, earlier today I

24:33submitted uh, the version of the

24:35Surveillance Technology Ordinance Annual

24:37Report

24:38to both Chair Cayetano and Director

24:40Oppler. Uh,

24:42had some last minute edits that we were

24:44working through and was able to get a

24:46final draft to them today. That item is

24:49slated to be on the November 17th

24:50Council meeting agenda.

24:52Um, for those new board members, that's

24:55the annual report that covers all the

24:59technology items that are in the city

25:01and covers the last year's worth of data

25:04for each of those technologies.

25:06And um,

25:08uh, also connected to that then or in

25:10those that that annual report uh, are

25:13copies of the audits the including the

25:16ALPR audit.

25:18Uh, I wanted to acknowledge and thank

25:20the PAB for reaching out and formally

25:22asking for some additional information

25:25that was raised around the ALPR audit.

25:28Uh,

25:29you know, if there's questions about the

25:30memo I wrote, happy to answer that. And

25:32I really just want to stress the bottom

25:34line is in the same manner that we

25:36worked through

25:38iterations of our military equipment

25:40ordinance to continue to improve upon it

25:44um, in collaboration with the PAB. Uh,

25:47we are happy to continue to work in

25:49partnership with the PAB on what

25:51additional pieces of of information we

25:54want to include in our audit, places

25:56where we could describe our audit

25:57practices more deeply. Um, obviously we

26:00we conduct audits because we care about

26:02both the collection of information in

26:04the way that it's used and we want to

26:06make

26:07make sure that both our auditing

26:09processes and how we report on them are

26:11valuable um, and and

26:14assure the community that we are we are

26:16taking seriously those processes.

26:19So that's all I had to share formally.

26:20If there's questions, I'm happy to

26:21answer them now.

26:23>> Yeah, thanks Chief. Are there any

26:24questions from board members? Yeah, go

26:26ahead.

26:27>> Yeah, I've got a question.

26:29I noticed just reading the scanner a

26:31whole series of commercial burglaries

26:34throughout this week. Is that correct?

26:38>> Yeah, that's correct.

26:40There was a

26:43Sorry.

26:44Got my son in the background. Sorry

26:45about that.

26:46There was a

26:48commercial burglary series

26:50and

26:52that was a number of businesses that

26:54were

26:55burglarized in a short period of time

26:57and we're actively working the

26:59investigation in that case right now.

27:01>> Okay. So I've got a I've got a question

27:03and it's

27:05in in Delaware for a second. The

27:08we talk a lot about police staffing and

27:10it sometimes seems kind of abstract.

27:14The idea of like you know getting police

27:15staff just because it's fully staff is

27:17fully staff is a good thing.

27:19And based on your experience as police

27:21officer and chief

27:24what difference could

27:27not necessarily would, what the

27:28difference could being fully staff make

27:31in terms of say preventing that kind of

27:34crime

27:35to use a specific example?

27:38>> Yeah,

27:39you know we we talk about prevention, we

27:41talk about deterrence, we talk about

27:44apprehending suspects and long-term

27:46effects of of our technology tools in

27:49investigations.

27:51Certainly

27:53technology can do a couple things. One,

27:55it can make our staff time more

27:57efficient.

27:58It can cover places where we are short

28:01staffed and don't have personnel to

28:02respond. Tools like our the DFR can put

28:06eyes on a scene sooner and clear a call

28:08without officers having to go at all.

28:12You know tools like the ALPR technology

28:14that allowed us to

28:16identify a suspect

28:18and then more quickly put that

28:20information out and make more precise

28:21stops means that you have you may need

28:24less officers to engage in that work.

28:27The one of the challenges is that a lot

28:31of our specialized units

28:33that um can can

28:36you know

28:37in the pre technology days do a lot of

28:39like knocking on doors and um

28:43um canvassing a neighborhood and and and

28:45collecting information and and tracking

28:47all that information down. Um due to our

28:49staffing right now those the detective

28:51units are working well below staff. We

28:53um shuttered our Community Services

28:55Bureau officers. Uh we had um started to

28:58launch our flex team. So our problem

29:00oriented flex approach to addressing

29:03problem areas like retail theft,

29:04commercial burglaries, robbery series,

29:07um things like that. Those teams um are

29:09no longer able to be staffed because we

29:11are focusing on making sure we have

29:12enough officers to work patrol.

29:15Uh patrol is our bread and butter butter

29:16making sure we have the ability to

29:18handle like last night a fatal collision

29:21at the same time you have a elderly

29:23missing person at risk. Um and that's an

29:26incredible depletion of our resources.

29:28Fortunately we were able to call people

29:29in um but we won't always have that that

29:32benefit. So um again you know staffing

29:35has become a challenge and because of

29:37that we are looking more towards

29:38technology to make us more efficient um

29:41and we know some of the the the um

29:43tools we are looking at can do that and

29:45help that. And then

29:47you still will have to have personnel

29:49power. Personnel are required to

29:50validate the technology, right? And to

29:52ensure that um that those tools are

29:54true. Uh you still need officers out

29:56there that can make the stop, that can

29:58process the scene, that can make the

29:59arrests. Um so it's a combination but

30:02certainly with technologies um we may

30:04find that uh we don't need the same

30:06level of staffing that we that we had

30:08you know pre that technology.

30:11>> Good. Thank you.

30:14And then that guy.

30:15>> Hi. This is a question about the memo

30:17that you wrote Chief Lewis

30:19with regards to how the audit was

30:21conducted on the

30:22technology. Um could you explain a

30:24little bit more about the 35 search

30:26patterns and which you were looking

30:28during the audit into each case? Just

30:30would love to know a little bit more

30:31about how the process went and what

30:33exactly were the search patterns that

30:36uh typically looked for in one of these

30:38types of audits?

30:41>> Yeah, I um I can't tell you the

30:44algorithm that produced the results, but

30:46what I can tell you is that Flock had a

30:48new iteration of auditing tools and what

30:50it did is it identified 35 instances

30:54where it said you should take a human

30:55look or a more deeper look into those

30:57cases. So it's for those 35 cases

31:00some of it was

31:02repeated searches

31:04of one plate.

31:06So that would be something that would

31:08cause it to say, hey, take a look and

31:10make sure, right? Because if someone was

31:11nefariously looking up a certain car,

31:14you would want to know and so multiple

31:16searches of the same car.

31:18And then the other one was

31:21a

31:22single officer I think having you know

31:24having a higher number of searches than

31:26other people. There there were certain

31:27triggers that brought up those

31:28algorithms. And so when it identified

31:31and and Arlo member could come in and

31:33talk more about exactly what that looked

31:35like, what were all the different

31:36because I know he identified three or

31:37four different of those algorithms or

31:38things that pulled up that kind of data.

31:40And so what we did was whenever we got

31:42one of those 35 alerts is we went back

31:44and hand checked those cases. And what

31:46we found was most often when it was one

31:48single plate run multiple times, we

31:50would look and see it was a detective

31:52working a case. And so they were

31:54regularly checking in trying to gather

31:56information about

31:58that particular case and they and they

31:59would run it

32:01or there was a

32:03another case where

32:05we were looking for a suspect vehicle in

32:07a burglary series and so multiple

32:09officers when they were coming on shift

32:11were utilizing that tool to see if they

32:12could have leads on where that vehicle

32:14might be located.

32:16And so the 35 were not flagged as

32:21necessarily there was an issue. It was a

32:23flagged of these are ones that require

32:25you to take a closer look at which we

32:26did.

32:27Moving beyond that, we went and randomly

32:29selected additional ones to do that same

32:31kind of check. Was there a case number

32:33associated with the vehicle that the

32:35officer looked up?

32:37Was it reasonable they looked that up?

32:38Why did they look it up? Um that kind of

32:40search was also done for a random

32:42sampling of the of the whole um body of

32:45six months worth of searches.

32:48>> Great. And just as a quick follow-up um

32:50with regards to our ad hoc that we have

32:52working into auditing standards, do you

32:54know if it's possible for us to

32:56tweak or suggest search patterns at

32:59which audits could look for suspicious

33:02data?

33:03Is that something that the technology

33:05makes available?

33:08Or is that all

33:09>> Yeah, I I I I you know certainly we've

33:12had conversations with representative at

33:14Flock where we've said, hey what if you

33:17did X, Y, or Z? Um and they've been

33:19interested in receiving that feedback

33:21and we've seen some of those tools uh

33:22roll out in later iterations. Uh I think

33:25we are very fortunate to have Arlo

33:27working on our team. The uh some of the

33:29dashboards or the way he's able to um do

33:32coding to search for those terms um has

33:35allowed us to do some of those searches

33:36and some of those things. So I certainly

33:38think it's possible as long as it's a

33:39data field that we collect um that we

33:41would be able to find some way to get to

33:43some of that information.

33:45>> Thank you very much.

33:49Any question any more questions?

33:50>> I have a couple questions. I just wanted

33:52to confirm the time frame for this scope

33:55of this audit is July to December 2025.

34:00Is that right?

34:02For the for the

34:04the time period for the STO.

34:07>> No uh it's October to so September 30th

34:12or October 1st to September 30th.

34:16>> 25

34:17>> for

34:18You're talking about for the STO report,

34:19the annual report?

34:21Or for the uh ALPR audit?

34:24>> I'm talking about

34:26for the audits

34:28that are listed in the STO report.

34:32>> Right. So um the S the annual report,

34:37like I said, goes from October 1 to

34:39September 30th. How

34:41we didn't roll out ALPR technology until

34:44January of uh whatever that first year

34:46was, 2025.

34:48And so our our biannual audit reports

34:51run on a 6-month cycle tied to the to

34:54tied some from point of implementation

34:57in 6-month increments.

34:59So the um

35:02the next audit period would be July of

35:062026 to December 31st of 2026.

35:12>> Okay. So I

35:15uh I

35:15>> It's a it's a weird cycle with the

35:16calendar with the STO report not being

35:19on the calendar and then with our

35:20implementation date being not in October

35:23of that year but in being uh in January

35:26of another year. That that whole issue

35:28should be resolved

35:30by the um

35:32uh change of reporting periods that

35:34occurred with the change of the STO

35:36ordinance and a new uh

35:39ALPR audit

35:42would be coming to uh the PAB that would

35:45cover the next reporting period. And

35:46that would that would not that would not

35:48be March of 2028. That would be probably

35:52February of um 2027.

35:57>> Okay.

35:58I I don't think I'm

36:01clear at this point on what is covered

36:04by what time period other than that some

36:06of this seems like it's quite old, like

36:08the the data that is being evaluated.

36:11But let let me move on from that. Um

36:16in terms of auditing, you've certainly

36:17heard that what we've heard in public

36:20comment, you've read, I think, I'm sure

36:22some of the letters that have come into

36:24us. I missed the meeting where this body

36:27discussed independent um having an

36:30independent auditor conduct the audits.

36:32I'd love to hear your views on

36:35independent auditing um as opposed to

36:38sort of relying on at this juncture, for

36:41example, Flux

36:43um,

36:45uh, self-configured auditing um,

36:48functionality and BPD staff.

36:51What

36:52>> Right. And And Yeah, and we talked about

36:54this I think the last meeting that we

36:55were both at. You and I had the same

36:57conversation. Um, and I I'll I'll

36:59reiterate what I said then. Uh, one, I

37:01have trust in in my internal auditing

37:04auditing because I sit I sit in the I

37:06sit in the office, right? I I I have

37:08trust and see the audits occurring. I

37:09have trust in the personnel that do

37:11that. I acknowledge that that is wholly

37:13different than the community as a whole

37:16or you know, individuals in the

37:17community might not have that same level

37:18of trust, right? Because it's it's a um,

37:22within the walls of the police

37:23department. Uh, so uh,

37:25two, um, the flock auditing tools are

37:29yes, created by them. But that doesn't

37:31But that it is our data that we have

37:33access to our data and who gets it who's

37:35looking at our data, who in our

37:37department's looking at our data, what

37:38their search reasons are. We have full

37:40access to our data to audit it.

37:42Um, and invite the PAB to weigh in on

37:46ways and things that we can audit or

37:47look for or um, in our process to

37:50strengthen that process. I'm not

37:51necessarily opposed to independent

37:53auditing. I would be interested in

37:56hearing um, what what um, CJIS

37:59protections they have around the data

38:01um, to ensure that there is that

38:02security. I'm interested in hearing

38:05whether uh, the manner in which they

38:07conduct their audits and what that

38:09covers and um, and whether they could

38:11provide us something that we couldn't

38:13and on our own capture or audit. And if

38:18so,

38:19what is the what is the what is the cost

38:21and value of what we're weighing

38:22against, right? The The value of

38:24independent oversight so the community

38:26can be um, feel more confident in our

38:28auditing practices are worth what to um,

38:32you know, the current fiscal

38:34responsibility that we have to um,

38:36budget deficit we're in. So I I don't I

38:37have no idea what the independent

38:39auditor charge for this kind of work um,

38:41and um, you know, I I believe in our

38:44auditing tools that we have both that

38:46we've internally created. And I know

38:48that a lot of vendors are really focused

38:50on making sure there's good, strong

38:51auditing tools. So I think there's

38:54there's more research to be done and

38:55conversations to be had. I'm not

38:57absolutely opposed to it. And I'm also

38:59not saying that I would raise it up as

39:01my most important priority at this time.

39:04>> Okay.

39:05I just want to clarify my view that it's

39:07not about trusting staff or not trusting

39:10staff. I think that's not the right sort

39:13of paradigm. It's rather what is kind of

39:16the most appropriate practice given the

39:20nature of the technology

39:23and sort of the power that it

39:25affords to

39:28the department, irrespective of whether

39:31it's a great department or not. So I

39:33just want to

39:34state that that position. I think I can

39:37>> Yeah. And if I could just comment on

39:39that real quick, just, you know, I I I I

39:41completely hear what you're saying and

39:42and I apologize if I in any way

39:46alluded that you were making some kind

39:47of statement about trust in staff. I

39:48wasn't. I I was kind of

39:51characterizing how I observed sort of

39:52the conversation go. And

39:55you know, I'm not sure if the if the

39:57board is aware, we do a we do a very

39:59large number of audits internally in our

40:01department on a regular basis. We audit

40:03audit

40:05cash dollars that come in as part of our

40:07seized property. We audit our property

40:09room practices.

40:11You know, we audit

40:14several different areas of our work are

40:15audited in that same way and are done

40:18pursuant to best practices in auditing.

40:21We have, you know, that's the whole

40:22reason why I created the the office that

40:24our little leads is that we wanted to

40:26have on site

40:28not just a cop who got assigned that job

40:29and does that part time, but someone who

40:31is full time and educated in that work

40:32and trained in that work to conduct

40:34those audits. So like I said, I I I

40:36would love to keep having this

40:37conversation about best ways to

40:39strengthen our auditing practices.

40:41It is something that we do throughout

40:44our department for many different

40:45sensitive and important tasks and and

40:47treat this as exactly the same.

40:51>> Okay, thank you.

40:52I have you have a couple more minutes to

40:54a couple shorter questions.

40:57>> For sure.

40:58>> Um so just just so I'm understanding

41:00[clears throat] you um BPD did not find

41:03the time period BPD did not find that

41:05NICKRIC um search should state that

41:07between January and June 2026

41:10prior to June 2025 um I believe you

41:14there was there were searches that you

41:16had found

41:19and between July 2025 and December 2025

41:24what was the finding uh

41:26that did you did you audit that and did

41:28you find anything with respect to

41:29NICKRIC during that

41:30>> No, so so uh in the summer so July of

41:342025 was when we made the change to our

41:36settings.

41:37And so the those settings it was not

41:39possible for NICKRIC to search across

41:41our system after that point. Prior to

41:43that change in settings it was possible.

41:46Uh we have no information or

41:48um reason to believe that

41:50any of the NICKRIC searches accessed the

41:53were were accessed by federal agents or

41:55were used in in um

41:58or accessed by WISIN

41:59through that through those searches uh

42:01but we did our system was open during

42:03that time period pre the change of

42:05settings to from the statewide lookup

42:07uh but since then we have not had any

42:08attempts at access

42:10or access by either NICKRIC or WISIN.

42:13>> Yeah, I just want to make sure I

42:14understand you you checked from July

42:162025 to December 2026 in the same way

42:19that you checked from January 2026 to

42:22December 20 uh

42:24June 2026 is that right?

42:26I said I think I said 2026 twice.

42:28>> [laughter]

42:29>> If you're if you're so the so we can see

42:32who accesses our system

42:34>> Yeah.

42:34>> and we can see what their search reasons

42:35was were

42:37um and so yes that is the same manner by

42:40which we searched both pre July 2025 and

42:43post July 2025 and we have completed

42:47audits every 6 months

42:48formal audits every 6 months but we

42:50regularly audit

42:52uh review um searches that occur on our

42:54system. So, it's not like we wait six

42:56months, gather six months worth of data

42:58and then do an audit. We are doing spot

43:00checks. We are looking the

43:01administrators are in the system

43:03regularly, looking for irregularities.

43:05Um it's just the formal audit process of

43:08going through and watching um um or uh

43:11researching cases and doing those things

43:13only happens at that more formal formal

43:15stages.

43:16>> That's helpful. Thank you. So, when you

43:18did this check um for NICKRYS, were you

43:20doing the same types of um word searches

43:23that you were doing for ICE and um DHS

43:26where you would type in something like

43:28NICKRYS and Y Y is in? Like that would

43:31be the the type of query that you would

43:33put in in order to check?

43:34>> No, uh NICKRYS would have appeared as a

43:36searching agency.

43:38>> Okay.

43:39But they would have

43:40>> So,

43:41so you would know that just like it

43:43would say Oakland PD or another agency,

43:46it would have appeared that way.

43:48And and WISSIN would have gotten access

43:50because they were a member of NICKRYS at

43:51the time.

43:53>> I understand. And but again and to I

43:56think a public commenter's point, you

43:57just wouldn't know or have any way of

43:59knowing if there was a an authorized

44:02agency that then provided that data to

44:04NICKRYS through their system. You

44:06wouldn't know that, right?

44:07>> It what say say ask the question one

44:10more time.

44:10>> Yeah, would you would you know if there

44:12was an authorized agency that provided

44:15Berkeley data to NICKRYS through their

44:18system once they accessed it?

44:20>> Uh that's not that's not the way it

44:22works. Um you you would uh NICKRYS

44:25doesn't um gather information like that.

44:29Uh individuals would be would be um

44:34yeah, I'm I'm trying to figure out how

44:35that would even work that an

44:36that an outside an outside agency

44:38wouldn't run our data and then turn and

44:40hand our data to NICKRYS. It wouldn't it

44:42wouldn't work like that. It would be

44:44that

44:45the NICKRYS someone was in NICKRYS and

44:47made this and requested NICKRYS make a

44:49search on their behalf. And so it would

44:51have appeared as a NICKRYS search.

44:53>> Okay. That's yeah, that

44:54>> might be my ignorance. So, that's

44:57thank you for clarifying.

44:59Um, and your logs capture the identity

45:02of the officer? Like, you're able to

45:04tell when you're auditing who is the

45:07officer that is querying the data?

45:10>> Yeah, so it's not it's not like you um

45:14uh only know that this police department

45:16looked something up and you don't know

45:17who or case number. There's there's

45:19mandatory fields that have to be filled

45:21out um by that agency that include

45:23reason for search, case number for

45:24search. Uh we uh get the agency, the

45:27date and time of the search, the plate

45:28that was searched or the partial plate

45:29that was searched.

45:31>> Okay. Yeah, thank you. Well, you know, I

45:34think I've said my view that I I just

45:36don't think that querying simply for ICE

45:38and DHS is is sufficient, but I I

45:40understand that you're you know, you're

45:42willing to like talk with us about how

45:43to improve the audit and I I do

45:45appreciate that and now we have an audit

45:47subcommittee who's going to look at that

45:48and I I believe um you might have a

45:50representative there who can

45:52>> That's true. Yeah. And just to clarify,

45:54that's not that's not the only search

45:56terms that we're looking for. It's not

45:58We are looking for any you know, uh

46:00there's like a 60 60 different words or

46:02whatever I not you know, don't quote me

46:03on that on the exact number, but we we

46:05don't just look for the word ICE and

46:07DHS.

46:09>> Got understood that. The way that the

46:11report is written makes it at least seem

46:13on its face like that. So,

46:14>> Yeah.

46:15>> knowing

46:16maybe like you know, provide helpful

46:18context for

46:18>> Yeah. Yeah, I look forward I think the

46:20subcommittee work um and um hearing more

46:23about what sort of people

46:25think when they read the audit, right?

46:27Might help us um be able to be more

46:29clear uh when we write it or when we

46:31share what our findings are around it.

46:32So, it's super helpful.

46:34>> Yeah. Okay. Thanks for so much of your

46:36time. I know this is a longer

46:37conversation than normally we have, but

46:39I we really appreciate you being here

46:40and spend the time.

46:42>> All right. Have a good night.

46:44>> Have a good week. Thank you.

46:46Okay. With that, we will go to

46:48subcommittee reports.

46:50>> Okay. Um as always, we'll go down the

46:53list and subcommittee will

46:55uh provide any reports since the last

46:58meeting.

46:59Uh Council

47:05>> No, it's on our list.

47:10>> I I would like to

47:13would would either board our

47:16or board member Temple like to be chair

47:17of that of that subcommittee, the policy

47:19subcommittee?

47:20If not, we can

47:22>> I can nominate

47:29>> Are you saying that if you want to or

47:30just for your vote

47:34>> Um, I nominate the Temple, but

47:45>> It doesn't require much except making

47:47sure that we're getting

47:50>> [laughter]

47:51>> Okay.

47:53>> Okay.

47:54That takes care of operations.

47:56>> I don't have an update.

47:57>> Okay.

47:59No.

48:02Policies and practices on account

48:04clearances.

48:05>> No update.

48:07>> Auditing Standards Committee.

48:10>> Am I Am I the chair of that committee?

48:12>> Congratulations.

48:13>> haven't We haven't nominated a chair.

48:14That was my next point of order, was to

48:16ask for someone to be the chair.

48:19So I believe it's you and board member

48:21Sharma.

48:22>> I've been asking you when this group

48:24would meet

48:25>> I'm not on it, so

48:26>> [laughter]

48:27>> All right.

48:29>> Would Would one of you want to be

48:32>> Okay. I'm already on several committees,

48:35so

48:38>> Do you want to be?

48:39>> Sure. I mean, I'm not sure what that

48:40really involves.

48:41>> Make sure you're meeting and make sure

48:43you're

48:44liaising with the department and making

48:46like if if needed on behalf of the

48:48subcommittee.

48:48>> Great. We can walk through I'll find out

48:50some things that I would like some help

48:52in the meantime.

48:53>> But we'll have the record note that the

48:54chair of the nominating board member

48:56Sharma to be the chair of the

48:57>> I can

48:58>> you.

48:58>> Yeah.

49:04Yeah, exactly.

49:07>> And I'm happy to do it just for the

49:08record. I think it's very important and

49:11obviously very, you know, relevant to

49:13probably right now.

49:14>> Great.

49:15>> Okay. Uh surveillance technology policy

49:17and it was a shrimp port review.

49:19>> That one is um us and

49:22we don't have a chair of that

49:24subcommittee either.

49:26Which is the chairs of that one?

49:29>> Sure, but

49:29>> Okay, we'll make we'll tell the chair

49:30about. We need to Is this just for like

49:32our organization purposes? It's good to

49:34have chairs so they're like driving.

49:36>> Update us. So on

49:38I do several. So home

49:41the Capman clearances, there's no

49:42particular time frame. Auditing

49:44standards

49:47>> Let me talk about them together. It's

49:48very

49:49Um this is helpful. Um

49:51I did have a a talk conversation with um

49:54the deputy chief just to make sure we're

49:56all on the same page about both auditing

49:58and policies. And

50:02um based on that conversation, my

50:04understanding and also like talking with

50:06um the city manager after that

50:08is that the policies themselves will not

50:11be submitted

50:12to the council until until the same time

50:15that the request for the RFP the

50:17approval of the RFP and the vendors

50:20um are submitted to the council. So that

50:23and that will be um the first basically

50:24the first meeting in January when the um

50:28when the new council um is able to vote

50:30on it.

50:32At the same time, it will also be the

50:33acquisition reports going to council. So

50:35basically everything will be going to

50:37council at once. They have requested

50:39that our feedback on the policies and

50:41acquisition reports um be given to them

50:43sometime around December 10th

50:45and so that they can implement any

50:46feedback necessary before submitting it

50:48to the council for the Rules and Agenda

50:50Committee, which I believe would be

50:52sometime near the end of December like

50:54um if that it tracks. Um

50:57the catch is that

51:01it's true. I think based on our

51:02conversation and my understanding of

51:04like how the department would like to

51:06proceed, the policies themselves,

51:09it makes sense for them to be vendor

51:10agnostic

51:12um in the sense that we're capturing the

51:13full scope of what the possible

51:15technologies um

51:18but there's still an open question about

51:20whether those policies do capture the

51:22full scope of the proposed technologies

51:24and we can't actually talk about it in a

51:26way that's informed because we don't

51:28have access to the knowledge of who

51:29they've selected. And so part of our

51:32subcommittee's job will be um liaising

51:35with the department to ask them to make

51:36them to ask the question like whether

51:38they believe that the the the policies

51:41capture the full scope of the

51:42technologies that they intend to select

51:44and bring forward to council before they

51:45actually bring it so that's that's what

51:47step one. The second thing is that um

51:49for the acquisition reports these are

51:51reports that are required by the

51:53surveillance technology ordinance.

51:55Surveillance technology ordinance lists

51:57very specifically things that are

51:59supposed to be included in the

52:00acquisition report

52:01and the department's view is that that

52:04acquisition report should not be um it

52:06should also be vendor agnostic meaning

52:08that it shouldn't be um tied to a very

52:10specific vendor identity but it should

52:12be tied to the technology that is being

52:14acquired itself.

52:15Um

52:17that is at least the uh the legal

52:19requirement. This board in the past

52:22historically has taken the position that

52:24uh we would also like to see language

52:26about the vendor that is being selected

52:28in order to evaluate um the same factors

52:31that are in the STO for example the

52:33experience of other jurisdictions with

52:36not just the technology for example

52:38drones or um

52:40but also the vendor and that is a very

52:42important consideration as we have seen

52:44in Berkeley's recent political you know

52:46political history that that's an

52:47important consideration for whether to

52:49approve the policy in the acquisition of

52:51the technology in the first place.

52:53Um

52:55so the issue is that the timing of our

52:57review um does not coincide with the

53:00timing of the release of the vendors

53:02right so that we are not able to

53:04publicly discuss um the acquisition

53:08report in a in an in an intelligible way

53:10while discussing the vendors who are

53:11going to be so we have two options. We

53:14have the option of um submitting a

53:16supplemental after the after it's public

53:19um or discussing the acquisition report

53:22um

53:23not not the acquisition report itself

53:25but um

53:26being informed in a closed session who

53:28the vendors are in order to inform our

53:30discussion of the acquisition report in

53:31a public session. So that those are two

53:33options that we're um discussing with

53:35the with um the city you know as a whole

53:37and so

53:39um I just wanted to

53:40give an update on on that process.

53:42There's not a decision point which is

53:43why it's on an agenda item but these are

53:45all like points of of of of note for the

53:47public to understand where we are in

53:49this process but also for the board to

53:51understand the the current constraints

53:53on our review um and also the timing

53:55that is required for our review.

53:57>> I just want to um

53:59clarify that it might be

54:01we do need to um

54:04share who the vendor is and what exactly

54:07we're procuring in order for this board

54:10to confidently review the use policies

54:13not just the acquisition report. So the

54:15request to the city attorney's office

54:17covers both of those. That's what my

54:19request has been. Um

54:22in addition I want to just uh remind the

54:25board that the use policies each of them

54:28has a section on auditing in them.

54:31So there is um this other issue the fact

54:35that we've got this audit subcommittee

54:38that is going to be proposing audit

54:40standards

54:42and prior to that presumably we will be

54:45weighing in on the audit language that's

54:48in policy. Um so that's not ideal right

54:52because

54:53the work of our subcommittee won't

54:54necessarily be done by December 10th.

54:56That's a very accelerated timeline to do

55:00all of this work. So I just wanted to

55:02point that out as well.

55:05>> Yeah that was my clarifying question

55:06too. Is there a decision to make um on

55:09whether we review vendors and post

55:11session or all of that kind of

55:14thing?

55:15>> We don't have a meeting on December

55:1610th, do we?

55:17>> No. We open our next meetings

55:19Um we have one meeting

55:21December 9th. December 9th. Yeah,

55:22December 9th.

55:24We wouldn't know the vendors for that.

55:26>> Okay.

55:27>> Uh at least based on the current

55:29you know

55:29what we're currently being told.

55:33>> And then that all needs to be prepared

55:34for the January council meeting.

55:36>> So this is kind of what Vice Chair is

55:38saying is that um

55:40if you do not, it would not be presented

55:42for council at the same time. However,

55:45there are other options. One is doing it

55:47afterwards for benefit of the council

55:48obviously. Like we're not precluded from

55:50revising

55:52the policy or even recommending to

55:54auditing for the next for the next

55:56fiscal year, the next calendar year just

55:58because there's some council.

56:00Um

56:02we're not precluded by it. So

56:04if you can get it done by the 10th, that

56:05would be ideal. But if if not, then

56:08you're not precluded from doing it

56:09later. We just have to supplement the

56:11policy later on. Um and it'll it'll have

56:13to go back.

56:17>> Okay. That makes sense.

56:18>> Yeah. I guess it just comes down to

56:22and we'll chat a little bit more about

56:23what what seems more effective. But I

56:25feel like with the public interest,

56:28getting it before that meeting might be

56:31wiser.

56:32>> But yeah, just to be clear, you don't

56:33need to

56:35that December 10th deadline is not

56:37something that you need to your

56:39committee the committee needs to stick

56:40by. The only time that your committee

56:42will need to the only hard deadline will

56:44be when the council considers it.

56:46>> Okay.

56:46>> You need to present something

56:49we need to approve something sorry at

56:50the board

56:51before the council hears it. Um and it

56:54does not need to necessarily line up

56:56with the department's [clears throat]

56:57like preferred timeline if if it if it's

56:59not possible.

57:00>> Okay.

57:01>> Yeah. I mean like that's that's the the

57:03December 10th is kind of like if you

57:04want them to include something in their

57:06report to the council maybe like but if

57:08it's time we've had many times in the

57:10past where it's simply not possible and

57:12so everyone understands that and and

57:15there's just we've we've still been

57:16affected as a board

57:18when as long as we're getting something

57:19to the council even if it is like two

57:21days before you know because sometimes

57:23the meetings are

57:25that

57:26address that

57:27>> Yeah I mean I think as I'm

57:30listening to this conversation

57:32reflecting on the time frames both in

57:34this the

57:36the memos that are on the agenda today

57:39and the chief's comments the next cycle

57:42of surveillance technology audits

57:45is supposed to take place I believe in

57:49March

57:522028

57:55covering the 2027 calendar year or 20

57:59I'm a little confused but I don't think

58:01it's going to happen right away is my

58:03point it's not going to happen right

58:05away

58:06so therefore I think we have a little

58:08bit of time to bring back the auditing

58:10standards

58:12um but it's okay if they they are

58:15approved

58:17not at the same time as the rest of the

58:20policies I just think there would need

58:22to be some explicit comment that the

58:25path is not commenting on the auditing

58:29portion of these policies because we are

58:31separately bringing forward an audit

58:33recommendation

58:35in January or February whenever we're

58:37going to get it done

58:40>> Sure

58:41I understand that

58:43Any other

58:44questions about timing for the

58:45subcommittee reports are there

58:48duties of the subcommittee

58:51No

58:52Okay

58:54That was helpful

58:56and good to be aligned on the timing of

58:58things especially when there's a lot of

58:59these paper a lot of paper flying around

59:03um and very important decisions coming

59:04to the council

59:06Okay we're on the NA

59:09>> Did we go through all of these

59:11Do we need to leave on this

59:13>> I don't think these

59:18>> And that's on

59:19chair

59:21boards.

59:22Vice Chair Wilson on the regulations.

59:25And then our

59:27the public

59:29[clears throat]

59:35Yeah.

59:36>> I know.

59:37>> Okay.

59:40Okay, great. Let's go to 9:00 a.m. which

59:42is the discussion action on the

59:44surveillance technology report.

59:46Which is pursuant to chapter 2.99 of the

59:48municipal code. This is in the

59:50supplemental that was

59:52submitted to us today. [clears throat]

59:54Just to be clear.

59:56So I don't expect the board to have read

1:00:00everything.

1:00:01Director Appler or anyone

1:00:04in your office, you have a reaction?

1:00:07You had you had a quick you had a quick

1:00:09thought on it?

1:00:11>> Uh none at this time just during public

1:00:14session. I think

1:00:17the lack of time I don't want to say

1:00:18anything and we get

1:00:21Yeah, that makes sense.

1:00:22>> Jose or anyone on the team, did you have

1:00:24enough time to really truly We all read

1:00:26it, but I don't I don't know if any of

1:00:27us were prepared to speak on it.

1:00:33If there's anything that you want

1:00:39>> Can I I want to go back to my question

1:00:42about what what these time frames are?

1:00:46And I do want to emphasize for us and

1:00:48for the public that I think we received

1:00:51these at 12:49 p.m. today, this

1:00:53material.

1:00:55And it's really impossible to do an

1:00:58appropriate job of oversight or even

1:01:02providing feedback

1:01:03when we get material from the department

1:01:06the same day of their board meeting. So

1:01:09I I

1:01:11I just really want to on the camera

1:01:13object to the time frame within which

1:01:16you received this. However, I want to

1:01:17understand even what it is. So,

1:01:20>> Here's here's the right here.

1:01:22>> Okay. Yes, but if you look at the other

1:01:27document that was emailed to us,

1:01:29which are the individual audit reports,

1:01:33>> Right.

1:01:34>> those all have different dates in them.

1:01:37Um now I can't find that packet.

1:01:41>> Yeah, I I see what they're explaining

1:01:42very simply.

1:01:44>> They have different dates. So, I don't I

1:01:47I don't know what it is we are looking

1:01:50at. I lost that other

1:01:53attachment. So,

1:01:56>> I don't know what to say.

1:01:56>> Yeah, they have different dates. The

1:01:58dates are not all the same.

1:02:00And some of them

1:02:04don't make any sense. So, for example,

1:02:08um let me look at

1:02:17one I was

1:02:18looking at earlier. This one.

1:02:22>> Yeah, I mean if you look at page 34 for

1:02:23example, it um

1:02:26it says the scope of the audit covered

1:02:29all UAS deployments between January 1,

1:02:312025 and June 30, 2025. On the bottom

1:02:33but at the top it says the audit scope

1:02:35covered all UAS requests and deployments

1:02:37between July 1, 2025 and December

1:02:39>> Exactly. And those dates don't match

1:02:42with the September to October in the

1:02:44report or October to September.

1:02:46>> Yes.

1:02:47>> Um you have another place in here where

1:02:50it says the next audit will take place

1:02:54in July 2026, but this is being

1:02:57submitted to us in November.

1:03:00Um

1:03:02so,

1:03:04I'm very unclear as to

1:03:09what what this is supposed to be.

1:03:11>> So,

1:03:13maybe one clarification that might be

1:03:15helpful is is I understand that these

1:03:17audits

1:03:18of the individual surveillance

1:03:20technology happens every six months on a

1:03:22six month cycle, but the report is on a

1:03:24very different cycle. And so that is why

1:03:27there are

1:03:29at least

1:03:30an overlay between

1:03:33the audits and the report that we

1:03:36receive. So the reports are happening of

1:03:38every six month data calendar year, but

1:03:40then the the timing of this annual

1:03:42report comes at a very different um

1:03:45time based on the surveillance

1:03:46technology ordinance.

1:03:48>> Okay. And it's only going to include six

1:03:50months based on any for any given

1:03:53technology. It's not it's not going to

1:03:54include a year because of the

1:03:56>> No, they shouldn't

1:03:57they should include both both audits.

1:04:00>> But they they are not.

1:04:01>> They're they're in a weird order um

1:04:04based on the way that I received them by

1:04:05each of the technologies. I think for

1:04:07the most part there's two audits per

1:04:09technology included in the package that

1:04:11we received.

1:04:12>> Oh, so so they're covering 12 month

1:04:15period that's different from the 12

1:04:17month period that's cited in the

1:04:20in the report. It's not a 12 month

1:04:22period of

1:04:24September to October or October to

1:04:26November. It's a different 12 month

1:04:28period.

1:04:28>> Uh they're on a different 12 month to

1:04:30year out of reporting months.

1:04:32>> Okay.

1:04:33>> Yes.

1:04:34So I think though can you can you know

1:04:37um MS Video if um

1:04:40the timing of the report will change for

1:04:41the next cycle? That's sort of what the

1:04:43chief was alluding to.

1:04:44>> That's in the

1:04:46I believe next year for reports they're

1:04:47going to have essentially October all

1:04:50the way up until December of 27.

1:04:54>> I see.

1:04:55>> Uh that's going to be the report and

1:04:56then in 2028 go back to the normal

1:04:58cycle.

1:04:58>> I see.

1:04:59>> Or rather the actual 12 month in

1:05:02calendar year.

1:05:02>> That makes sense.

1:05:05Okay.

1:05:06So besides the timing

1:05:08which is odd, but

1:05:10maybe

1:05:12by virtue of necessity

1:05:14and a couple of just like um scrivener's

1:05:17errors

1:05:18is there anything in this audit

1:05:20the board would like to discuss?

1:05:25>> Right. I mean,

1:05:28I want to echo the

1:05:30comments about getting stuff at 4:00 in

1:05:32the afternoon of the meeting

1:05:34means you don't have time to review it

1:05:36and read it.

1:05:38And this happens regularly, right?

1:05:40>> Yeah.

1:05:40>> If I was suspicious for what I'm saying,

1:05:42it's not accidental.

1:05:46>> Yes. Go ahead.

1:05:47>> I would say as well like it would be

1:05:49really helpful to have the auditor at

1:05:51least come and meet with our

1:05:52subcommittee as we're starting to

1:05:54prepare standards of auditing. I feel

1:05:56like there's just so much missing from

1:05:58descriptions of methodology either

1:06:00because the descriptions are very short

1:06:03or they're incomplete.

1:06:04>> Yeah.

1:06:05>> And so having someone who

1:06:07obviously it's the same person who's

1:06:09going to charge for all of these

1:06:10auditing. I think if we can make a

1:06:11formal request to have

1:06:15officer

1:06:17>> It's Arlo.

1:06:18>> Arlo member

1:06:19>> Yeah, he's not an officer right now.

1:06:22>> Yeah, if we could have him come and

1:06:23speak to us at some point, I'd be really

1:06:25interested.

1:06:26>> He's very nice. We'll we'll gladly see

1:06:28with you. So and I think that

1:06:31the deputy chief and chief also sit on

1:06:33the committee, so

1:06:34>> Wonderful.

1:06:35>> Yeah.

1:06:37Um

1:06:39so usually in the past, historically,

1:06:42when we have their

1:06:43two things. One is this report is not

1:06:46required to be given to us by ordinance

1:06:48um

1:06:49prior to a certain date of council

1:06:51review, unlike other reports where so

1:06:54that's kind of a gap when I guess like

1:06:56what we normally do. And normally we

1:06:58don't actually review this in a

1:06:59substantive way um because it's not

1:07:01something that's required by the

1:07:02ordinance, but there's been a lot of

1:07:03attention obviously on this exact type

1:07:05of technology.

1:07:07And so that's what that's point one

1:07:09point two is

1:07:10when we do historically have received

1:07:12reports on this timeline,

1:07:14which has happened a couple of times,

1:07:16more than a couple of times, um quite

1:07:18often we send a a letter to the council

1:07:19explaining the constraint in our review.

1:07:22Um

1:07:23and I I I would just submit maybe we

1:07:26would like to do that in the same

1:07:27because the council will be we don't

1:07:29have another meeting for the next

1:07:30council meeting.

1:07:32We we don't have to say anything of

1:07:33substance in the letter besides

1:07:36the fact that we just state the facts. I

1:07:38mean like we received this on the same

1:07:40day as our meeting. We didn't have a

1:07:40chance to review it. We don't have any

1:07:42comment on it at this time because we

1:07:44you know because of the time like the

1:07:48That's the best that we can do at this

1:07:49time. So that's

1:07:51>> Put it on the next agenda?

1:07:53>> We can't because the council is meeting

1:07:55before we have our next meeting.

1:07:56>> And by charter by the council has to

1:07:59approve the or receive it the first

1:08:00meeting in November.

1:08:02So we can't

1:08:04ask the department to postpone it.

1:08:06>> I'll convene the

1:08:07>> Their their meeting is on Tuesday. Sorry

1:08:09I missed that.

1:08:10This coming Tuesday.

1:08:11>> That's November 7th.

1:08:12>> No it's 2 weeks Tuesday.

1:08:13>> 2 weeks?

1:08:14Yep.

1:08:16The the only reason I we would even

1:08:18consider a special meeting is if there

1:08:20was something I missed that caused some

1:08:23like alarm. And there was actually last

1:08:26year

1:08:27that that caused the alarm and that

1:08:29caused us to write a very brief letter

1:08:31to the council

1:08:34because

1:08:36you know actually just to put this out

1:08:38there in the chief's letter the chief

1:08:40the chief sent to us in response to the

1:08:43Secure Justice letter if I can pull it

1:08:45up on page

1:08:4918.

1:08:53She says

1:08:55she's talking about how in July 2025 we

1:08:58turned off state

1:09:00and limited sharing to Bay Area

1:09:02agencies.

1:09:03It wasn't activity occurred after that

1:09:05change. We shared these findings with

1:09:07the PAB and council at the time this

1:09:09issue was identified.

1:09:10I don't know if it's a little ambiguous

1:09:14but if she's talking about the

1:09:16activity she did show evidence

1:09:18identified but if she's talking about

1:09:19the

1:09:21the flock statewide lookup

1:09:24identification the department did not

1:09:26share that in July 2025.

1:09:29They actually shared it in this type of

1:09:30report in November at the same time, and

1:09:33it took five months for them to actually

1:09:35notify anyone including the council, and

1:09:37it became a very um

1:09:39a point of education on how the city

1:09:41would like to be informed when these

1:09:43types of data breaches happen because

1:09:45that five month lag

1:09:47um was not um and was not

1:09:51some was not something that was notified

1:09:53I mean like there was a five month lag

1:09:54in your identification. And so now

1:09:56there's now there's a very

1:09:57very expectation that

1:09:59almost immediately we should we're going

1:10:01to be notified and the council will be

1:10:03notified. So that was what came out of

1:10:05this and that's why I say

1:10:08sometimes there are red flags in these

1:10:09reports that we can point to but I I

1:10:11didn't I mean I just read it very

1:10:13quickly but

1:10:15>> I mean we are addressing this type of

1:10:16work and what we do need is time.

1:10:20Obviously not that the board doesn't

1:10:22care about it because spent a lot of our

1:10:25meeting times discussing

1:10:28and I feel like the board would make

1:10:30good changes.

1:10:34>> I would be supportive of submitting that

1:10:36letter to council simply um notifying

1:10:39them of when we receive the report

1:10:41because I do think that in order for us

1:10:43to do our job well some expectation

1:10:45needs to be set about

1:10:47how much time we're given to review

1:10:51material.

1:10:56>> Yeah, this is kind of um

1:10:59more related to a later item but like I

1:11:01I and I apologize I can't remember if

1:11:04the

1:11:05previously case that this report will

1:11:07always

1:11:09be submitted around this time to the

1:11:10council.

1:11:11>> No, I know. They changed that this year.

1:11:14>> So when will it be next year?

1:11:16>> I think it says it's going to be March

1:11:18>> on the timeline of the annual report.

1:11:21>> Okay.

1:11:21>> But it says

1:11:22um the next reporting period after this

1:11:25report is going to be March of 2028.

1:11:29That's what I was thinking when I was

1:11:31talking about the time that we'd have to

1:11:33develop auditing standards.

1:11:35>> Yeah.

1:11:35>> March of 2028 covering the 15 month

1:11:38period from October 1 2026 to December

1:11:4131 2027.

1:11:45>> Okay. I was just going to suggest that

1:11:46we

1:11:47ensure that we have sufficient at

1:11:49meetings around that time.

1:11:58>> Okay, well I'll make a motion that we

1:12:00send a letter to Council informing them

1:12:02that we're unable to provide substantive

1:12:03feedback um due to the timing

1:12:08the time frame

1:12:11within which we receive the report.

1:12:19>> Well I I just let's just say

1:12:26>> Yes.

1:12:28Yes.

1:12:29Yeah.

1:12:31Yes.

1:12:33Yes.

1:12:36Yes.

1:12:39>> Okay, great. Let's move to 9B which is

1:12:41the

1:12:42I kind of jumped the gun didn't I?

1:12:43Discussion and action regarding the um

1:12:45BPD memo on the flock LPR. Um we had an

1:12:48extended discussion this morning. Would

1:12:50that mean that the board members like to

1:12:51comment?

1:12:54>> Um I just have

1:13:01Um you know but there's two different

1:13:03sections, right? One is the NCIC

1:13:06part that the chief talked about around

1:13:09unauthorized

1:13:11for authorized agencies not being able

1:13:14to provide information to

1:13:16what's the acronym?

1:13:20[clears throat] Um but then there's a

1:13:21section

1:13:29And there there

1:13:31a paragraph

1:13:33that talks about

1:13:36um

1:13:38the audit concerns so agencies do not

1:13:41have direct access but access records

1:13:45cannot show whether an authorized

1:13:47partner later shares its results.

1:13:49>> Mhm.

1:13:50>> Right.

1:13:51So my first question is probably the

1:13:53difference between Nlets and

1:13:57a law enforcement or prosecutorial

1:13:59agency that is authorized

1:14:01for outside agency searches.

1:14:03Um and then the second piece is

1:14:07if they do sign a little waiver saying

1:14:10we will not share information for

1:14:11immigration enforcement

1:14:14how to be like follow up on that how do

1:14:16you know if they did and what's the sort

1:14:18of process

1:14:21if there was unauthorized sharing.

1:14:24It was a convoluted question for 9:00

1:14:26p.m. I'm really sorry. Let me rephrase.

1:14:29So the first part is the difference

1:14:31between Nlets

1:14:33and outside agency searches.

1:14:37Do you know maybe or anyone

1:14:39put you on the spot.

1:14:40>> Difference between the entities or

1:14:42>> Correct.

1:14:44>> Um

1:14:46Nlets is [clears throat] one one house

1:14:50they're not necessarily

1:14:56>> Huh? It's like that.

1:14:59>> And then outside agencies

1:15:01>> Like probably your

1:15:03Yeah.

1:15:05So while Nlets cannot so then

1:15:10I'm wondering with chief statement of

1:15:13like

1:15:15Albany police department would not be

1:15:17able to provide her information even

1:15:20though Albany's authorized

1:15:21would not be able to provide information

1:15:23to Nlets because it's not one body but

1:15:26it's a

1:15:26individual bodies.

1:15:28>> That I'm not going to answer.

1:15:29>> Okay.

1:15:30Um

1:15:33What is that?

1:15:36Those

1:15:37>> And so the second piece to like what,

1:15:39you know, why we

1:15:41not be able to get information

1:15:44or if there's some sort of a

1:15:48gatekeeping process there or maybe that

1:15:50are sort of

1:15:52that would prevent them. And then the

1:15:54second part is

1:15:56how do you confirm or how would be if

1:15:58there are ways to check

1:16:00whether our authorized partners

1:16:03like what would happen if we realize

1:16:04that our authorized partners again sorry

1:16:07Albany PD but Albany PD they do share

1:16:10with with immigration

1:16:15I know just that

1:16:16the search I I kind of know

1:16:20slightly an answer which is

1:16:22when Albany accesses

1:16:24they have

1:16:25they have to put all the same

1:16:26information. They have to put a case

1:16:29and there there has been at least one

1:16:31instance when there were

1:16:33there was another jurisdiction that put

1:16:35in at least a questionable a suspicious

1:16:37entry and you know since

1:16:40the chief notifies us me and

1:16:44someone from the city as well that they

1:16:46have taken the steps that are required

1:16:48by city council's policy which is to cut

1:16:51off data, investigate the

1:16:54the reason and the use and and by

1:16:57investigate it means

1:16:58speaking with whoever is on the other

1:17:00end of that agency to be to be like why

1:17:02did you like what was the purpose of

1:17:04this you access

1:17:06and if there's everything is out there

1:17:07they're

1:17:08that's kind of the process that has been

1:17:10established in the last year

1:17:13and I think it worked well

1:17:16at least when the

1:17:18that and it works works well when the

1:17:20query

1:17:21the entry is is there is a red phone

1:17:24>> Yeah.

1:17:25>> Like it's

1:17:26>> Yeah.

1:17:26>> The other things that she was talking

1:17:27about which are is that is that

1:17:30and that do you disagree with anything I

1:17:31said or

1:17:32>> No, I don't

1:17:34>> I just I just want to make sure

1:17:38what she was referencing about multiple

1:17:40uses, I do think that's important

1:17:42because there are times when there are

1:17:44not it's it's

1:17:46you might not be able to tell based on

1:17:47the face, right? That something is being

1:17:50used improperly. For example, if someone

1:17:52we've seen a lot of reports of of not in

1:17:55not in this jurisdiction, but another

1:17:57jurisdiction using it for personal uses,

1:17:59right? To find, you know, domestic

1:18:01partners

1:18:02for things like that. That is very

1:18:03concerning and you wouldn't know

1:18:05necessarily just based on an officer in

1:18:08case

1:18:08right?

1:18:10And you want to be able to capture those

1:18:12and that's the types of things that you

1:18:13would expect in an audit

1:18:16Yeah.

1:18:22Yeah.

1:18:24Any

1:18:25comments or questions? The board did

1:18:27request a letter from the chief. I don't

1:18:28know if

1:18:31we're able to say that it answered all

1:18:32of our questions or if there's still

1:18:34questions that remain. I am happy to

1:18:38convey a thank you.

1:18:40But I I I did it.

1:18:43Yeah, I don't know. I mean, if there's

1:18:45there's no action we can move on, but

1:18:48>> I think your follow-up conversation was

1:18:50helpful and more opportunities like that

1:18:52to listen quick people in the department

1:18:54to know how the audit is still valid I

1:18:56think very helpful for this afternoon.

1:18:59>> Okay, yeah.

1:19:01I I mean, I've heard

1:19:05>> for us to do, but kind of getting a

1:19:08demonstration from the department

1:19:10on how the audit was conducted would be

1:19:15>> I I agree. I I just want to say

1:19:17in in terms of banging away at

1:19:19technology to find out where the holes

1:19:21are and what's good, what's bad and, you

1:19:23know,

1:19:24if it's going to stand up to

1:19:28to to scrutiny.

1:19:30It feels to me like this process of

1:19:32organization right now is like tossing a

1:19:34message in a bottle into the sea,

1:19:37waiting for a specific answer to

1:19:38>> come back

1:19:39and then repeating the process.

1:19:42Instead, the way you would do normally

1:19:43do this in a in a in an IT shop, for

1:19:45example, you would you would sit there

1:19:47and you would like bang away at it,

1:19:50create a whole bunch of hypotheticals,

1:19:51you know, kind of red team did the whole

1:19:53thing and like, you know, punch at it

1:19:55until you are satisfied that you got the

1:19:57answers. Now, I don't care if if if if

1:20:00if if staff is engaged in that process,

1:20:02I don't care if a subcommittee is

1:20:03engaged in that process, but that's the

1:20:04way to get to the bottom of what we can

1:20:07see we're looking for as opposed to,

1:20:10you know, that it feels like

1:20:12we're doing, right? So, that's that's my

1:20:14comment.

1:20:15>> That is the

1:20:16to do exactly

1:20:17>> Right.

1:20:18>> Totally.

1:20:19>> Anyway,

1:20:22to be honest, I I still think we should

1:20:24leave on that as an option. It seems

1:20:26like the cheapest resort to

1:20:28instead of

1:20:31>> Yeah, let's let's see where the

1:20:33subcommittee

1:20:34takes us.

1:20:37>> Okay, I'm happy to let's let's let's

1:20:39stop there and move on

1:20:41if no one has any objection.

1:20:44Okay.

1:20:45We're going to talk about something very

1:20:46brilliant, which is our proposed

1:20:48schedule, which former member

1:20:51already previewed for us.

1:20:52[clears throat]

1:20:54Um

1:20:57yes, go ahead.

1:20:58>> Yeah, um

1:21:00so,

1:21:02in our

1:21:03we have a schedule

1:21:06Um as you may know, and for those

1:21:08members who

1:21:10the board is required to meet a minimum

1:21:11of 18 times during the year. Um

1:21:15so, we're proposing 18 dates

1:21:17varying from this year and previous

1:21:20years. Uh we took very special attention

1:21:22to Wednesday council meeting

1:21:25um and making sure that there is enough

1:21:26buffer in between um our board meeting

1:21:30and the council meeting

1:21:32in the instances of um

1:21:34having consent

1:21:36in response to an item that's being

1:21:38proposed or even just um in

1:21:40consideration for what dates that we

1:21:42have to present in annual report to make

1:21:44sure that we have enough meetings before

1:21:46or enough

1:21:47for those meetings

1:21:50um so on page 24 of the packet

1:21:55the first agenda packet that you'll see

1:21:56the 18 proposed dates

1:22:00they have lost how many days until that

1:22:02meeting in between those meetings

1:22:04so that's our proposal

1:22:07and then of course we have some

1:22:08strategic planning

1:22:10but we'll do that based on

1:22:13what the board adopts as the final

1:22:15calendar

1:22:20and we included the actual council

1:22:22calendar

1:22:24this part of the attachments for that

1:22:26and as well as the holidays that we were

1:22:29asked to avoid by this week here that we

1:22:31have to avoid

1:22:35>> thanks

1:22:37so my I'm going to take the lead here my

1:22:39just my first comment is that in July we

1:22:42always need more meetings as opposed to

1:22:45having three meetings in September

1:22:47so my proposal would be to have a

1:22:49meeting on

1:22:51July

1:22:53what is the next council meeting in July

1:22:55do we have any council meetings in July

1:22:58>> no

1:22:58>> why

1:22:59>> they're on break

1:23:00>> they just took their calendar so now

1:23:02they start their break in July

1:23:04and come back September

1:23:08>> wait that's so they have a two month

1:23:10break now that doesn't make sense

1:23:13>> actually I'm going to have to check on

1:23:14that but there's a longer here's the

1:23:15change to the council calendar

1:23:19let me scroll down a bit

1:23:20>> yeah they're they're last meeting July

1:23:22is the 6th and their first is the 14th

1:23:24of September so it's like a little less

1:23:26than two months but yeah

1:23:28>> a two month break now that's

1:23:32okay so when is their July meeting sorry

1:23:34just can you

1:23:34>> 6th

1:23:37>> okay

1:23:39interesting so my suggestion would be to

1:23:45put a meeting in the last week of June

1:23:49and to move our July meeting

1:23:52to closer to the middle of July, but not

1:23:54till post July 1st.

1:23:57Let me double check to make sure it

1:23:58doesn't conflict with any

1:24:01holidays or cultural events.

1:24:03So July um June

1:24:0622nd

1:24:09as opposed to June 16th.

1:24:14What's that?

1:24:16I'm sorry, June 24th.

1:24:17>> When is it?

1:24:18>> June 24th, sorry. Excuse me. June 24th.

1:24:24Okay. June 24th sure doesn't work. Wait,

1:24:27am I am I

1:24:29I'm sorry. I want June 23rd. I was

1:24:31looking at 26.

1:24:35>> That's the same week as their June

1:24:37meeting.

1:24:38Yeah. So it all not too much

1:24:40>> No, I'm seeing I'm seeing a June 29.

1:24:42They have a June 29 meeting.

1:24:44All right?

1:24:45>> You

1:24:45>> Yeah, I'm seeing June 29

1:24:48>> Um it's within a week now.

1:24:49>> That's okay. As long as we get get it

1:24:51before

1:24:54before their meeting. That's the

1:24:55important part.

1:24:56>> Mhm.

1:25:02>> Are you tracking what I'm saying? Um

1:25:04sorry, you want to move the July meeting

1:25:07to

1:25:09June 23rd?

1:25:15>> But then we have a

1:25:16Well, do we really [clears throat] You

1:25:18have a June 16

1:25:19>> No, no. I I want to move our um

1:25:22July meeting down and our June 16th

1:25:25meeting to to June 23rd.

1:25:29So move the July meeting to like July

1:25:3114th, for example.

1:25:37>> And then June 23rd.

1:25:39>> Yeah.

1:25:47>> Um for September, is there some

1:25:50flexibility

1:25:53around whether it occurs during

1:25:56the first or second week of September?

1:25:59>> Well, we have we have them back to we

1:26:01have a a back-to-back Sorry, not a

1:26:03back-to-back. We have it every other

1:26:05week right now. And so I wouldn't want

1:26:07to have back-to-back meetings.

1:26:09>> No, I understand. But instead of

1:26:11September 1st

1:26:13let me put [clears throat] 27th

1:26:18Um that we go the following week, which

1:26:22would be September 9th.

1:26:25And then the

1:26:27So that would be September 9th before

1:26:29the September 14th meeting.

1:26:31And then September 23rd before the

1:26:33September 28th meeting.

1:26:35>> I think you're look So we're we're

1:26:37talking about Wednesdays. The other ones

1:26:39are Wednesdays.

1:26:39>> Sorry, 15th Sorry, 8th and 22nd.

1:26:45September 8th and September 29th.

1:26:46>> So the only issue with that is you we

1:26:48would be replacing three meetings with

1:26:49two and we need that third meeting

1:26:51somewhere.

1:26:51>> And that would be 29th. Got it.

1:26:54>> So if if if Are you worried about the

1:26:56start of school? Is that

1:26:57>> It's start of school and I'm looking at

1:26:59the board calendar.

1:27:00>> Yeah, that's important to look at. So

1:27:02>> Yeah.

1:27:03>> So you would rather have it be the 28th?

1:27:04What is the council meeting? It's the

1:27:0614th?

1:27:06>> It's the 14th.

1:27:07>> Okay, so I think we could do the 8th and

1:27:11>> But then it would be back-to-back.

1:27:12>> No, no, we could do the 8th and the 22nd

1:27:15and we could find a different um

1:27:18cadence for

1:27:21Could we do Could we add a November

1:27:2517th? No, no, no. Could we do Let's see.

1:27:36If maybe the two of you are most um

1:27:39interested in the date, we could

1:27:42delegate give you the authority to

1:27:43finalize the schedule with staff.

1:27:45>> Sure. If there's no problem with that,

1:27:47we can do that.

1:27:47>> Yeah, okay.

1:27:48>> So

1:27:49All right. Thank you very much.

1:27:50>> Sorry, I was a little stressed and I

1:27:52hold it in.

1:27:54>> [laughter]

1:27:54>> If there's no hard complex sets, I

1:27:55sometimes do chart Yes, thank you. I was

1:27:58getting hung up. Okay, we should do

1:27:59that.

1:28:00>> All right. Okay. I've made a motion and

1:28:15>> Yes.

1:28:16>> Yes.

1:28:17>> Oh, yes.

1:28:19>> Yes.

1:28:20>> Yes.

1:28:22>> Yes.

1:28:23>> Yes. All right, motion carries. Okay,

1:28:25great.

1:28:26With the power vested in me, let's move

1:28:28on.

1:28:30And let's go to agenda item 10 which is

1:28:32the public comment.

1:28:37Organized again.

1:28:42We now proceed to public comment. As a

1:28:45reminder, speakers be generally allotted

1:28:46up to 3 minutes, but maybe allotted less

1:28:49time if there are many speakers. They

1:28:50may comment on any matter

1:28:53except confidential personnel matters.

1:28:55I'll start with those physically present

1:28:58before moving on to our virtual

1:28:59attendees.

1:29:02>> [clears throat]

1:29:05>> Hi everybody again.

1:29:07I'm not here to berate anybody

1:29:09specifically this evening.

1:29:12I was at

1:29:14the

1:29:15streets Ace and Harrison

1:29:18last couple days.

1:29:20And well, they came in Tuesday

1:29:23Monday they weren't supposed to do so so

1:29:25show up Tuesday. Waste public works

1:29:30homeless response team etc.

1:29:32Aside from that, no major complaints

1:29:35from me. I was there cop watching. I've

1:29:36been a member of the cop watch for 58

1:29:39years or not 28 years, excuse me.

1:29:42I've been in Berkeley 52 years.

1:29:48[clears throat]

1:29:50I'm kind of old fashioned in a way when

1:29:52I got out of the service in 1970 I

1:29:55joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War

1:29:57in 1971 [clears throat]

1:29:59and

1:30:00we were

1:30:03they watched us a lot. They hated us a

1:30:04lot.

1:30:06They developed a little bit nuts at that

1:30:07point.

1:30:08And many of us you know

1:30:12My little joke that I tell people is

1:30:16I tell my therapist has Russia is

1:30:18unstoppable and I said this is no I said

1:30:21you were unstable.

1:30:23But

1:30:24that's not of much. What I would like to

1:30:26see in the world to begin with now is

1:30:30eliminating the military, eliminating

1:30:33the police, eliminating the prison and

1:30:35jail system

1:30:37because it seems like the only people

1:30:38who benefit from all of those are the

1:30:42bankers,

1:30:43the warmongers, and the war profiteers.

1:30:45Now whether it's the military

1:30:48who are

1:30:50the international police or the police

1:30:53or the domestic military and becoming

1:30:55more and more militarized as time goes

1:30:57by

1:30:59and the prisons

1:31:00which

1:31:01you know there's so many laws made up

1:31:03every year

1:31:05instead of going to keep track of

1:31:06everything and it's hard not to

1:31:09become a criminal just walking down the

1:31:10street or demonstrating or protesting or

1:31:14anything like that. So

1:31:18you know I'm old fashioned that way. I'd

1:31:19like to That's the way I thought when

1:31:20they got eliminated you know.

1:31:23Why do we have

1:31:24Do we need all that?

1:31:28It just creates

1:31:31a mess in my mind when I think about why

1:31:33they exist together

1:31:35and why they're perpetuating my crazy

1:31:38imperialism, warmongering, you know, war

1:31:41profiteers.

1:31:42How can people make How can people live

1:31:45with themselves

1:31:46profiting from war?

1:31:50It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see

1:31:52to the war.

1:31:53And you know we killed a lot of people.

1:31:55[clears throat] And

1:31:57it's not good to be able to It's not

1:31:59good to live with that. You can't live

1:32:01with

1:32:02a lot of pain.

1:32:03And that's good. You know, I I put that

1:32:05aside for a long time and from analyzed

1:32:08it. And now I'm

1:32:10at the same time. That's good. I

1:32:12appreciate

1:32:13being alive and all.

1:32:15But thank you all. Appreciate it.

1:32:18>> Any additional public comment?

1:32:21Okay, we'll move on to our virtual

1:32:22attendees. If you like to provide public

1:32:24comment, please use the raise hand icon

1:32:26or star nine if you're calling in.

1:32:30Uh chat time, we have no hands raised.

1:32:33Okay, thank you all. Thank you everyone

1:32:36for your comments and for your

1:32:38attendance here.

1:32:39With that, we'll move to general item

1:32:41closed session.

1:32:42Okay, audio and video recording will

1:32:58Chair, we are back on the record.

1:33:00Welcome back, everyone. We approved

1:33:01staff's recommendation in three cases

1:33:03and we heard updates on the regulations.

1:33:05And with that, we'll go to agenda item

1:33:0713 for the adjournment. Can I get a

1:33:09motion?

1:33:10>> So moved.

1:33:10>> Great. Thank you everyone.

```*