2026-10-21 - Civilian Appeals Board

00:03Mhm.

00:13>> [music]

00:28[music]

00:39[music]

01:12[music]

01:59>> Mhm.

02:03>> [music]

02:12[music]

02:41[music]

02:47[music]

03:04[music]

03:36[music]

03:51[music]

03:53>> Mhm.

04:51>> [music]

05:36[music]

05:41[music]

05:49[music]

06:04[music]

06:31[music]

06:41[music]

07:07>> Meeting will come to order. The time is

07:104:01

07:11and the spelling appeals board meeting

07:13is now officially started.

07:15Uh as the chair and vice chair are both

07:18absent from this meeting, uh as the

07:21longest serving board member, I will act

07:22uh as the chair

07:24um temporarily for this meeting

07:26according to the CAB bylaws.

07:28Uh we will now proceed with the roll

07:30call.

07:33>> Michelle Williams, she's absent. Dean

07:35Pacific, abs- absent. Jordan Cross.

07:38>> Here.

07:39>> Renisha Harden.

07:40>> Here.

07:42>> Lori Hinkley

07:43>> Here.

07:44>> Dan Colt

07:45>> He's absent.

07:47>> Daniel Savage

07:48>> Present.

07:49>> Kimberly Williams

07:50>> Present.

07:56>> The next item on the agenda is the

07:57approval of the meeting minutes from

07:59June 17th,

08:012026. Um,

08:03the Does anybody need more time to

08:05review those?

08:12If not,

08:14um, do we have a motion to approve those

08:15minutes?

08:16>> I'll make a motion to approve.

08:18>> Support.

08:22>> Minutes approved.

08:24>> Oh, favors.

08:25>> Oh, I'm so sorry.

08:27All in favor.

08:28>> Aye.

08:30>> Aye.

08:33>> Minutes approved.

08:35The next item on the agenda is the board

08:38liaison report, and I'll give the floor

08:40to Brandon Davis for his report.

08:42>> Thank you, and good afternoon everyone.

08:45Welcome to Civilian Appeals Board

08:46meeting. First, I want to thank Jordan

08:48for stepping in, stepping up, and

08:52chairing today's meeting with little

08:55notice. We appreciate your service

08:57today, and I know it could be a maybe an

09:00uncomfortable space, especially with a

09:01hearing going, but you're doing a great

09:02job already. So, thank you for jumping

09:04in. Um, also, grateful for the

09:08representatives of the police

09:09department, LPA, and Human Resources and

09:11Labor Relations being present today.

09:13Um, because this is her first time at

09:15the meeting, I'm going to introduce our

09:17new Human Resources Director. I probably

09:19should have given her a heads up, but

09:20Ashley Cloud is joining us in the back

09:22of the room. She recently joined the

09:24city. She has a long

09:26uh

09:27history and experience in Human

09:29Resources, but is new to the city. We're

09:30grateful to have her. Um,

09:32interimly, she's also, while leading HR,

09:36also leading LR in a more direct role as

09:38well.

09:39So, we're grateful to have her here with

09:42us. Outside of that, there's not a whole

09:44lot to provide for our report today. I

09:46will indicate

09:48um

09:48that we have another appeal after

09:53today's appeal that is still in the

09:54hopper, uh memory serve me correct. So,

09:58after this appeal is completed, we will

10:00prepare we'll request information

10:02prepare if we haven't already requested

10:04prepare a package and get those mailed

10:06to you as they were mailed the last

10:08time. We'll get your hearing date

10:10attached to that as well.

10:12Um if the hearing completes today, um

10:16the next meeting will be the week before

10:19Thanksgiving. Traditionally, um we have

10:22not had meetings uh around the holidays

10:26unless there is a pending appeal. Now, I

10:28don't Normally, preparing an appeal

10:30package takes more than that month.

10:33So, uh we may not be able to hear an

10:35appeal next month, but I wanted to just

10:37put all of that out there in the event

10:38that the meeting So, as of right now,

10:40they're still on. In the event that they

10:42the event that they are going to be

10:43canceled, we will email you in advance

10:45as much as possible so you have that

10:47information. Um and that concludes my

10:50report.

10:54>> Are there any questions from the board

10:57regarding his report?

11:00Okay, we'll move on. There's no further

11:03or no unfinished business for today. Um

11:07but I know we have

11:10>> Sure. So, um I am going to with with the

11:13board's approval, I've already talked to

11:15the acting chair today. We want to move

11:17the discussion of the CAB annual report

11:22to old business, which is where it would

11:23have sat I anyway because it's old

11:25business. Um I should have said one

11:27other thing in my report. Um I have

11:29another

11:30uh speaking engagement this evening,

11:32which will cause me to leave early. Nick

11:33Direct from my team will swap with me if

11:35the meeting is not over at that time,

11:36just so you're aware.

11:37Um,

11:38but for the CAP report, um, some of you,

11:41most of you all are new to the board.

11:43So,

11:44this report, uh, which has been sent out

11:46to you all, covers, uh, 2024 and 2025.

11:50The members of the board that are still

11:53a part of the board now uh,

11:56would be, uh, Michelle Williams, uh, our

11:59chair who, uh, did tell us ahead of time

12:02she would not be here. Dean Pacific, who

12:03also indicated he wouldn't be here

12:04today. And Jordan,

12:07>> [snorts]

12:07>> uh, Ms. Cross, who who is present today.

12:10The remaining members of the annual

12:13report committee were, uh, Dean Pacific

12:16and Michelle Williams.

12:18So, in knowing that they wouldn't be

12:19present for today's meeting and that you

12:21all, um, would have the occasion, if you

12:23so choose, to vote on this, um, item,

12:27they did prepare,

12:28uh, a

12:30a letter that they asked for me to read

12:31to the board from the committee. And it

12:33says, "Fellow board members, this letter

12:36confirms that having served during the

12:37period covered by the report, the

12:39remaining committee members, Dean

12:40Pacific and I, reviewed the information

12:42in the report on multiple occasions. We

12:44believe it to be accurate and recommend

12:46that the report move forward for

12:47approval." And that's signed by Michelle

12:50Williams. So, they did send that, um,

12:55this report is scheduled to be presented

12:57at the public safety meeting as of right

12:59now, at the public safety meeting at the

13:01end of this month, which is standard of

13:03how that works. However, you get to vote

13:06on whether or not you feel comfortable

13:08approving that today,

13:09or or if you want to wait for the other

13:11members to be present. Whatever you all

13:13choose, we'll follow your guidance,

13:15obviously.

13:16So, with that, um,

13:18Madam Chair, will be the call for a

13:20motion to approve and then have

13:22discussion or anything else that needs

13:24to occur.

13:26>> Motion to approve.

13:29>> So moved.

13:34>> Is there a second?

13:39>> I'll second it.

13:41>> Any discussion?

13:43>> Any discussion?

13:46>> I have a question.

13:48Uh whose eyes um have been on the report

13:52as far as for

13:54uh the review outside of the board? I

13:56know it's in draft form, but I mean for

13:58the accuracy of the numbers and stuff,

14:01uh I just want to make sure that

14:03um uh

14:04those reporting numbers are accurate

14:05also.

14:06>> So the report, so numbers uh OPA

14:10requests from the police department, and

14:13then those numbers get put in a report.

14:15But the report is drafted through the

14:17help of OPA by the board. So those are

14:20the people who have seen it. There is a

14:21process of review before it's presented

14:24to commission, just like any other item

14:27that goes that would that's going on the

14:28city commission agenda. There's a uh

14:30team of city staff people who review the

14:32item and all those things attached to

14:35it.

14:36Um

14:36and that part of the process has not

14:38occurred yet, just based on the date.

14:40But it would be scheduled to occur

14:42before the presentation happened to

14:44commission.

14:46>> Okay, thank you.

14:53>> I have a question or point of

14:55clarification.

14:56>> You can get your mic.

14:58>> A question for point of clarification.

15:00So I

15:02recall receiving the email with regards

15:04to a bi-annual report that was reviewed.

15:07Yet this says annual report. Are those

15:09two the same or am I missing something?

15:11>> No, good catch. Those are the same

15:12thing. Uh so if this happened different

15:14ways different years, and the report it

15:16kind of talks about it. Um it used to be

15:18that these were always annual reports.

15:20There was some turnover on the board,

15:21lots of stuff happened at one point. So,

15:23it ended up being a bi-annual report.

15:28>> Thank you. So, then this would be an

15:29approval of this bi-annual report.

15:31>> That's correct.

15:38>> Motion still on the floor?

15:40>> Yes, it's still discussion.

15:41>> Still discussion. Thank you.

15:49>> Call the question.

15:52>> Any further questions?

15:56>> So, you just said call the question. All

15:58in favor.

15:59>> Oh. All

16:01Sorry, call. All in favor.

16:03>> I.

16:04>> I.

16:04>> I.

16:06All opposed.

16:11>> So, the motion carries?

16:12>> Motion carries.

16:13>> Thank you.

16:16>> Uh the next item is an overview of the

16:18hearing process, and we invite uh the

16:20board liaison, Brandon Davis, to proceed

16:22with this presentation.

16:23>> Thank you. All right. So, again, uh for

16:26just all but one person today, this is

16:28your first uh Civilian Appeal Board

16:30hearing, uh which in some ways is

16:33exciting, right? Cuz you get to do the

16:34work of this board.

16:36Um

16:37but

16:38it also is uh I thought it would be uh

16:40beneficial for us just to have a quick

16:42overview of how the process works and

16:45things of that nature. So, we'll start

16:46with how do do the complaints even

16:48start? Um the vast majority of

16:50complaints that are filed um are

16:53actually filed from internally within

16:55the police department. Um but external

16:57complaints also uh come in. Those

16:59complaints can be filed to the police

17:01department. It can be filed through OPA,

17:03uh multiple places. Once those

17:05complaints are filed, the investigation

17:07happens through the Internal Affairs

17:09Division. On certain types of cases,

17:11cases that fall within the jurisdiction

17:13of the Civilian Appeals Board, um those

17:16cases um, can be appealed to CAP. Um In

17:20this case, the case we have present, it

17:22was appealed to CAP.

17:24Once the case gets to you at the stage

17:26of a hearing, you have two questions

17:28that stand before you uh, that you have

17:31to decide and decide in the case. The

17:32first question is whether or not you

17:34have enough information

17:35to make a decision as to whether or not

17:38you want to affirm, reverse,

17:41uh, modif- or modify the decision of the

17:43Internal Affairs Division. So,

17:45essentially when you look at the

17:47complaint disposition reports that you

17:48were provided, um, in those complaint

17:50disposition reports there are what we

17:52call findings. Generally, the findings

17:54are bolded. Um,

17:56you get to decide, this board has the

17:58authority to affirm, modify, or uh,

18:01reverse that decision.

18:04But, in order to do that, you need to

18:05make sure you have enough information,

18:07right? So, we're not just talking about,

18:09you know, what color was the paint in

18:10the room, right? [snorts] Like, we're

18:12not talking about that type of

18:13information, but if there's something

18:15uh, that you're looking at and saying, I

18:16really need to see this, understand

18:18this, know this in order to make a

18:19decision about this, then what you can

18:21do is is say that. Um, and that's not as

18:24an in- as an individual you can raise

18:26that point, uh, but the board would have

18:28to decide collectively that there needs

18:31to be additional investigation.

18:34Um,

18:35this board So, a few years ago through

18:37collective bargaining, the um, process

18:39allowed for OPA to now stand in the

18:41space to do that additional

18:43investigation, but it's directed

18:45investigation. Technically, Labor

18:47Relations can still, I believe based on

18:48the language, still do it, but um,

18:51the practice has been for OPA at this

18:53point. Uh, but that again, that's a

18:55specific These are the things we're

18:56looking for. Um, it wouldn't just be go

18:58do the investigation all over again,

19:00right? So, that is what uh, that process

19:03work- how that process works. If you

19:05find there is enough information,

19:08then the next step is to proceed to

19:10whether or not you affirm,

19:13reverse, or modify the decision of

19:15Internal Affairs. Generally, the first

19:17question that comes up is

19:20a motion to affirm. That's normally

19:21where this board starts. So, someone

19:23will move to affirm the decision

19:25whatever they see in but affirm the

19:26decision of Internal Affairs.

19:29And there's language in your packet that

19:31you can look at that that has the

19:34recommended language you can use in that

19:35space. Um

19:37but you would make that motion. Someone

19:40would second the motion and then there

19:42would be discussion related to that

19:43motion.

19:45Um

19:46so that's how those questions work.

19:47Prior to getting to the actual questions

19:50that you are deciding, we get to hear

19:53from staff who will provide you

19:55information. So, first representative

19:57from OPA will give you a overview of the

19:59case. So, in today's instance, that

20:01would be Mr. Nick Derick. He'll give you

20:03a overview of the case which is just a

20:05summary. You've all read the case.

20:07You've all seen the videos. So, that's

20:08just so the record has a summary in it.

20:11After that, representatives from the

20:12police department will be welcomed up

20:14and they are to respond to questions

20:17posed by the board. So, it's not

20:20it's not a space for them just to give

20:23their version of events. That's what the

20:24reports are for. Notice that in our

20:27hearings, we don't have the complainant

20:30come up and give a version of the events

20:31either. This is you know, that's not

20:34what this space is. This is an appellate

20:35space which feels a little different,

20:38right? Than what some of us may think of

20:40when we think of these type of spaces.

20:41But because it is an appellate space, it

20:43is not just come take testimony. It is

20:45questions being asked from this board

20:48posed to Internal Affairs. Or if you

20:50have

20:51um

20:52or the training unit as well. Or if you

20:54have questions from for the law

20:57department or for me, you can post

20:59questions to us as well.

21:01In the event that you would like to

21:02review video collectively or do

21:04something like that, that happens in

21:06closed session. So, you would have to

21:08request uh to go to closed session and

21:10say what that purpose is for. The same

21:12thing if there was a question regarding

21:14a Garrity statement or something like

21:16that. This is a reminder, that's not

21:18something that can be talked about in

21:19this public setting. So, that's

21:21something that would have to happen um

21:23in a closed session. Um if you don't

21:26need to do those things in order to make

21:27your decision, it is not required that

21:29you go in the closed session. It is not

21:30required that you re- re-review video.

21:33And it's really not required for you to

21:35ask questions if you don't have them. Um

21:37however, every hearing I've ever seen

21:39there's been questions and I would

21:40anticipate there would be here today.

21:42Um so, that's the overview of the

21:44process, super high level. Happy to

21:46answer questions. Uh we also are here to

21:49guide you throughout the process, right?

21:51Um let me I I want to add just one more

21:53thing before questions. The questions

21:55that we're asking of Internal Affairs,

21:57of the Law Department, of the Training

22:00Unit, of OPA, the purpose of those

22:02questions is not um legal exploration or

22:07to um you know, think about

22:11maybe something you've read that you

22:12want to apply to the case directly. And

22:14then it should be germane to the facts

22:16in the case and the law applicable to

22:18the case. So, that's the other thing to

22:19keep in mind in that space. Questions?

22:23>> So, I I have a question with regards to

22:25process. Um I'm just wondering if it

22:28would not be more um

22:31um

22:33feasible uh or

22:34in this process to have the overview in

22:37that information brought forward before

22:38we put a motion on the floor and have

22:40discussion with the motion on the floor,

22:42which could take quite a while and

22:44could, you know, look different. So, I'm

22:46wondering if there's a the um

22:49the chance that we can kind of move that

22:51around where we get that overview and

22:52those we can ask those questions before

22:54we put a motion on the floor. I don't

22:56want it to sit there too long and have

22:58us kind of forget about that in in

23:00process. And then my other question is

23:02with regards to legal, who is the legal

23:05that would be in the room that would be

23:07advising us with regards to if we are

23:10asking questions that might be an

23:12overstep that would cause us to go into

23:14closed session.

23:15>> Okay, so I can take the second question

23:17first cuz it's the easiest. Ms. Sarah

23:18Hartman is the Deputy City Attorney for

23:20the city of Grand Rapids

23:22and she's here to represent the law

23:25department.

23:26Um

23:27experience-wise, we

23:30when when Ms. Terstroet was here, you

23:32know, we partnered on those spaces

23:33navigating the complexities of what a

23:36civilian appeals board looks like, but

23:39the representative from the law

23:40department is Ms. Hartman.

23:42To your first question, and I apologize

23:44if I was unclear about it. What I was

23:46saying was we do those steps first and

23:49then we go into the discussion and the

23:52motions.

23:52>> Thank you.

23:53>> Mhm.

23:55Any other questions or thoughts?

24:00Okay, thank you.

24:02>> Okay, hearing no further questions,

24:04we'll move on

24:05um to the public hearing on appeal CR

24:1025-082.

24:13Um

24:15and then we'll ask OPA to provide the

24:18overview on this appeal.

24:27>> Good afternoon.

24:34As Brandon mentioned, my name is Nick De

24:36Ryke. I am the Investigations and

24:37Accountability Manager for the Office of

24:39Oversight and Public Accountability.

24:42This appeal stems from an incident which

24:44occurred on September 28th of 2024.

24:47This is a summary of events as laid out

24:49in the complaint and the investigative

24:51documents.

24:52At around 8:40 p.m., officers received a

24:54dispatch to jump or Ball Park Party

24:57Store for the report of an armed subject

25:00inside the store being disorderly and

25:01threatening staff.

25:03The police report states that in store

25:05in store surveillance was later used to

25:07corroborate that the subject was making

25:09threats to shoot the store clerk.

25:12Police arrived and gave the complainant,

25:14whose name is Alec Vincent, several

25:16commands. Mr. Vincent initially goes

25:18back inside the store and goes into the

25:21employee only area of the store where

25:22there's a bathroom.

25:24He states that he did this because he

25:26got scared when police arrived and drew

25:28their weapons. He then goes back

25:30outside. Officers used a less than

25:32lethal or a less lethal 40 mm round to

25:34attempt to subdue Mr. Vincent.

25:36Mr. Vincent gets on his hands and knees.

25:38The complainant states that he was

25:39compliant and officers forced him face

25:42down into the ground. Video does show

25:44that the officers pushed him down onto

25:46the ground and held his head against the

25:47concrete in order to effectuate the

25:49arrest. Mr. Vincent alleges that

25:51officers placed a knee on his head

25:53pressing his face into the ground which

25:55caused bleeding and claim that that also

25:57included the loosening and ultimate loss

25:58of his front teeth. Mr. Vincent also

26:01claims that officers put him sideways in

26:03the rear of the patrol car which

26:04restricted his breathing.

26:06Mr. Vincent states that he offered no

26:08resistance and fully complied with

26:10officers. He alleges that the use of

26:12force in this matter was unreasonable.

26:14Upon internal affair the internal

26:16affairs unit review of the body camera

26:18and car video, internal affairs

26:20concluded that Mr. Vincent was not

26:22compliant with officers commands.

26:23Sergeant Cadsban did the investigation

26:25in this case. He concluded in his report

26:28that Mr. Vincent ignored officers

26:29commands when they first arrived by

26:31going back in the store, ignored

26:33officers commands after being hit with

26:34the bean bag round, resisted officers

26:37attempts to search him and which caused

26:38him to be pushed onto the hood of the

26:40car, and refused to cooperate when being

26:42put in the police car despite officers

26:44attempts to help him sit up.

26:46Captain Siver of the training unit

26:48reviewed the officers actions in this

26:49case and concluded that the officers use

26:51of force was reasonable under the

26:53circumstances.

26:54Internal Affairs also reviewed a dental

26:56referral made by Cherry Health and jail

26:58dental records for the complainant,

27:00which both indicate that Mr. Vincent had

27:02periodontal disease, which may be a

27:04factor in his tooth loss.

27:07The complainant also admitted in his

27:08interview with Internal Affairs that he

27:10was, quote, "a little drunk" during the

27:12incident in question. Internal Affairs

27:14concluded that the unreasonable force

27:16complaint is exonerated, which means

27:18that the complaint the complained-of act

27:21did occur, but they were justified and

27:23lawful.

27:29>> Thank you. The police department now has

27:30an opportunity to provide additional

27:32information and answer questions

27:33regarding this appeal.

27:35>> They'll answer questions.

27:36>> They'll answer questions. Yeah.

27:38>> All right.

27:40Any questions for the police department?

27:42>> Okay. Board, do we have any questions

27:44for the police department at this time?

27:49Um, I have

27:50>> a few questions. Um, I would like to

27:52start by asking about policy. Policy

27:56with regards to interviewing,

27:58um,

27:59officers, uh, with regards to the

28:02process.

28:04Um, I noticed and so I'll just go there

28:07and say, um,

28:09there were were several different,

28:12um,

28:15lines of questionings that were quite

28:17leading and I'm wondering what the

28:19process is, um, particularly with

28:22regards to, um, I noted in the report

28:25there was line 165, 102, 124, 170.

28:30>> A Garrity?

28:31>> Uh, I don't I know it was There wasn't,

28:34uh, a Garrity. This Yeah.

28:35>> an officer?

28:36>> This is interview of an officer.

28:38>> So, so the the interviews with the

28:39officers are Garrity statements, so if

28:41you want to talk about the substance of

28:43those interviews, we need to go into

28:45close session.

28:46>> Okay. I'm asking about the any

28:49>> Then don't talk about

28:50>> questions at all with regards to

28:51interviews. If you just want

28:54>> If you want to talk about just the

28:55process of how interviews happen, that

28:58is okay out here, but if you're going to

28:59actually talk about the substance of the

29:01interview, the questions or the answers

29:03themselves, we have to go into closed

29:05session.

29:05>> Okay then, I need to go into closed

29:06session.

29:07>> Are there May I?

29:09>> Yeah, if there

29:10>> I

29:11So, thank you. Um

29:15So, we do know that there are questions

29:16that will require closed session. Before

29:18going into closed session, are there

29:20questions that anyone on the board has

29:22that would not require going into closed

29:24session?

29:25>> I do have another one. I would like to

29:27know whether or not we were provided all

29:29the evidence with regards to this case

29:32or were we provided all of the evidence

29:34that you used to make your decision?

29:39>> So, uh briefly, I'm Lieutenant Nathan

29:41May, I'm the commander of the Internal

29:42Affairs Unit. I've been in this space

29:43for

29:44uh unfortunately, almost 6 years now.

29:46So,

29:48um

29:49to answer your question, I uh it's

29:52you're asking me to answer an

29:53impossibility. I don't I guess I don't

29:55understand.

29:56>> Can we

29:57I

29:58It might be helpful we just talk about

29:59what's provided to uh the board when

30:02they when a request is made related to

30:05an appeal. So, when um an appeal is

30:08filed, OPA receives the appeal, we reach

30:11out to the police department to request

30:14the evidence attached to the case. Um

30:16can you tell us what type of information

30:18is provided back to OPA to provide to

30:20the board?

30:22>> Yeah, so all the information that we've

30:25intake uh and and collected and reviewed

30:29is typically turned over. Now, if it's a

30:32video that has nothing on it, it's

30:34irrelevant or it's redundant, likely not

30:37going to be uh sent over because there's

30:39nothing on it, but if it's referenced,

30:41you'll get it.

30:42>> Okay. So, I guess I was wondering if

30:45anyone could share with me specifically

30:47where we received the body cam footage

30:49for Officer Jones. I did not recall

30:51seeing that.

30:54>> I'm sorry. Officer Jones?

30:56>> Officer Jones.

30:57>> Um I would have to look [clears throat]

30:59at exactly what was sent over, so

31:03I don't I don't know what you reviewed.

31:05So, I I don't

31:07>> Um

31:09Do they not know what we received?

31:12>> Ev- every- everything that you were that

31:14has been provided to either OPR or the

31:16law department was provided to the board

31:19uh to review. Um but um

31:23I wouldn't expect this, you know, him to

31:25know off the top of his head everything

31:27that was provided um in the case. We can

31:29talk about what I can tell you was

31:31generally provided, which is the CDR,

31:33the complaint disposition reports, the

31:35relevant police reports that would be

31:37attached to that, any video. I think the

31:39question is about a specific video on a

31:41specific officer. Um

31:45Would Is there a way for you to look or

31:46be able to determine if that was one of

31:47the ones that was considered redundant

31:49or something

31:49>> As I'm assuming that uh if if you're

31:52referring to the actual takedown, the

31:54push

31:55>> Actually, I'm looking at the push as

31:57well as I was looking for his from his

32:00vantage point uh from when the um

32:04claimant was on the vehicle as well. I

32:06did not see his vantage point at all um

32:09as we looked through the documents. So,

32:11I I was wondering about that, why we

32:14because it seems as though um I don't

32:16know if I can say this. It seems as

32:18though he may have been the officer to

32:20have make the first initial contact

32:22>> Mhm.

32:23>> with the claimant. I was expecting to

32:25see his video as well as he was the

32:28officer who had him on the car where

32:31there was concerns about possible um

32:33exposure to bodily fluid and blood. I

32:36was expecting to see his video. I don't

32:38recall seeing that.

32:39>> It's very likely it wasn't sent because

32:41it didn't show anything.

32:43Uh if he's if he's the one that's on top

32:45of the individual, it's probably covered

32:47and you're not going to see anything.

32:48So, there's that would be a redundant or

32:51or

32:52useless video to send over.

32:54>> It would be useless to have the video of

32:55the officer who is alleged to have

32:58actually caused the injury?

33:00>> If it doesn't show anything, yeah. I

33:01mean, what's the point?

33:02>> Well, it didn't show him approach him.

33:04It didn't show him on the car. We don't

33:05We don't see any of that.

33:07>> Then you might want to explain why or

33:09how body worn camera works and what

33:13>> [clears throat]

33:14>> So, typically we

33:15we would provide a training on on kind

33:18of fish eye cameras, how it all works.

33:20So, we are an administrative

33:22investigating unit, okay? We're not a

33:24criminal unit. Our threshold for for

33:26proof is different than a criminal

33:27court. Criminal court is beyond a

33:29reasonable doubt. We're preponderance of

33:30the evidence, okay? So,

33:32we establish whether or not a violation

33:35occurred. And once we establish whether

33:37or not a violation occurred, we're we're

33:39not going to take all the evidence all

33:41the encompassing evidence and collect it

33:43cuz that's that's pointless because

33:45we're just trying to figure out if

33:46there's a violation of policy or not.

33:48So, if it's something where it's not

33:50showing anything, the likelihood of us

33:51actually keeping it and sending it is is

33:54pointless in this investigation because

33:57it doesn't show anything. It doesn't

33:58prove or disprove whether or not the

34:00violation of policy happened. So, I'm

34:02assuming that that's why you don't have

34:05it. But, when we talk about body worn

34:08cameras, body worn cameras are

34:10positioned in the in the base of the the

34:13body. And if you're making physical

34:14contact with somebody, especially in a

34:16tackle, it's going to be covered. It

34:18might fall off. It could be covered. So,

34:20there's a number of reasons why it won't

34:22show anything. It may not even show the

34:24approach because, again, the camera

34:27might be positioned this way. The head's

34:29facing this way. There's a number of

34:31reasons why it might not capture

34:32anything that is pertinent to this. So,

34:35there's a number of of reasons why

34:38it it may not

34:39be relevant.

34:40>> You want to go first?

34:41>> I was just going to add to it's not one

34:44of the videos that is identified in the

34:46disposition report as having been

34:48reviewed by IAA. So, is there any other

34:50reason why that would be the case?

34:53>> Likely all the other evidence were

34:55encompassing to the point where we

34:56didn't need additional evidence to to

34:58review it. We had our

35:00our findings.

35:12>> So, because we're walking through for

35:13the first time uh I

35:16I am using this as a teaching moment as

35:18well.

35:19Um I hope this works for the board. I

35:21don't want to over insert myself, but at

35:23the same time I want to make sure we're

35:24navigating process and learning from it.

35:26Um

35:27>> Going to say the same.

35:28>> Okay, perfect.

35:30Um what I what I was going to say is um

35:32so, when you think about video or the

35:35absence of video, those are one of the

35:37questions that could go to your that

35:40first question we talked about, right?

35:42Do you have enough information to make a

35:43decision? You very well can look and

35:45say, "Yes, we still have enough

35:46information to make the decision." Or

35:48you can say that's something that you

35:50want to have, but that's what that

35:52question is meant to be for, those types

35:54of questions. Does that make sense for

35:56everybody? Okay, thank you.

35:59Any other questions?

36:01>> I guess uh my only question is um is

36:04there a chance uh that officer Officer

36:07Jones and or Reed or

36:10uh those that uh we did not review,

36:12maybe they did not have a camera at that

36:14time?

36:16>> Uh I would if they didn't have a camera,

36:18we would have probably had another piece

36:20of paper that indicated they were in

36:22violation of the VAR policies, so

36:26>> Thank you.

36:35>> There aren't any other questions for

36:38uh

36:39the public discussion.

36:41Then, Madam Chair, it may be appropriate

36:43to take a motion to go to close session

36:45and discuss the questions that were

36:47close session questions.

36:48So, before we do that, any other board

36:50members have any questions?

36:54>> Not necessarily about just the the one

36:56issue that uh Ms. Williams raised, but

37:00about anything regarding this appeal.

37:04>> Thank you.

37:15>> Actually, I do have a question for the

37:16record as well. I'm just wondering, is

37:19there um we did receive uh evidence a

37:22video 2112

37:24DOH. I'm not sure if this is one or

37:27IA20538,

37:31and there was no audio for that video,

37:34and I'm wondering if there's a reason

37:35why there was a lack of audio. I thought

37:37this um particular video was pertinent,

37:39and for the audio to be missing.

37:44>> Do you recall what's on the audio or

37:45what's on the video?

37:47>> I notated what the video what the which

37:50video it was, um but I didn't notate

37:52exactly what what it was what I was

37:54looking for was

37:56to hear some of the conversation, and

37:58that was the only video where there was

38:00no audio.

38:01>> So, it's very likely they muted their

38:03their video,

38:04which is allowed under policy if we're

38:06having a a communication between two

38:08officers. We are allowed to mute our our

38:11body cams. So, I I don't know what's on

38:12the video, but if it's two officers

38:14talking, and they're not talking to any

38:16citizens, they are allowed by policy to

38:18mute that video.

38:20>> Which policy is that?

38:21>> Uh it's under the VAR policy.

38:24>> Under the what?

38:25>> VAR, video audio recording.

38:28>> I I would

38:30Uh, I would add to uh, just from my own

38:32experience that the first 30 seconds

38:35usually does not have audio

38:38um, just based on how they get

38:39triggered. So, the beginning of most

38:41videos don't have any audio.

38:45>> That's my recollection of uh, reviewing

38:47the videos was uh, the when the audio

38:50wasn't present, it was a pre-event time

38:52period leading up to the actual

38:54activation of the

38:56uh,

38:56recording.

38:59>> So, let me clarify how it works. So,

39:02when we trigger our body cameras,

39:03there's actually a 30-second loop that

39:05goes back in time. So, it's constantly

39:07recording on a 30-second loop. So, as

39:09soon as we trigger that, it captures

39:11that initial 30 seconds before we hit

39:13our button. There's no audio on that and

39:16that's for space saving. So, obviously

39:18we pay for storage. Uh, the less storage

39:20we have to use, so there's a reason for

39:22that, but it captures video

39:24but the audio doesn't kick in for 30

39:26seconds. So, the time they hit their uh,

39:28button, actually the audio kicks in

39:30then, but 30 seconds before that, no

39:32audio, just video. That's on both in-car

39:34cameras as well as body cameras.

39:36>> I I just found it peculiar that this was

39:38the only video that there was no

39:41no audio for at all and it was longer

39:43than 30 seconds. And I'd like to um, and

39:46it seemed to be relevant around some of

39:49the conversation particularly around

39:52um,

39:53this was I I believe if I recall

39:55correctly, this was the video at the at

39:58the car after the takedown. So, I I'm

40:00just um,

40:02wondering what that audio was with

40:04regards to that. I think that could be

40:06pertinent information with regards to

40:08uh, whether there is policy particularly

40:11concern being expressed by those

40:14officers in real time about their safety

40:16and we don't have that audio.

40:18>> Yeah, it and it won't be there because

40:20they're allowed to to mute that.

40:23>> Is it that the video it was muted or we

40:25just did not get it?

40:27Is what I'm clarifying.

40:28>> I I'm

40:29I'm hoping you're not insinuating that

40:31we didn't send it on purpose.

40:33>> No, I'm asking whether or not it was

40:35available and it just wasn't sent to us

40:38because it wasn't thought to be relevant

40:40or it was not sent to us for other

40:42reasons. That's what I'm asking.

40:44>> mean we sent it. So, I mean we don't

40:46clip out the audio.

40:47We send it over

40:49what we have. So,

40:50>> Respectfully,

40:52this is this board's first hearing.

40:54There's a lot of questions they don't

40:55know the answers to. I think it's fair

40:57to to to ask the question related to

41:00whether or not it would automatically be

41:02sent. But, I also think we heard an

41:04answer related to it is that if the

41:06audio was there, it would have been sent

41:09attached to it. So, I think it was a

41:11perfectly appropriate question, also an

41:13appropriate answer to say if it would

41:15have been captured, it would have been

41:17sent over. Um but, that's also something

41:21that can be verified uh if necessary to

41:24go back and, you know, listen to to

41:27sure.

41:36>> Are there any other questions?

41:41Does anyone want to make a motion to

41:42move to close session?

41:46>> I move that we um enter closed session

41:48for discussion of um what is the legal

41:51name? Garrity?

41:52>> Garrity statement.

41:53>> Garrity statements.

41:56>> Second.

41:57>> Do we have a second?

42:01>> I'll second.

42:04>> Roll call vote.

42:04>> Roll call vote.

42:05>> Roll call vote.

42:10>> All right, Jordan Cross.

42:13>> Do you want

42:16>> Yes.

42:18>> [clears throat]

42:18>> Lori Hinkley.

42:21>> Yes.

42:23>> Ranisha Harden.

42:24>> Yes.

42:26>> Daniel Savage.

42:27>> Yes.

42:28>> Kimberly Williams.

42:29>> Yes.

42:35>> They'll be a recess for closed session

42:36and we'll return

42:39immediately following.

42:46>> [music]

42:56[music]

43:02[music]

43:09[music]

43:51[music]

44:00[music]

44:33[music]

44:54[music]

45:07[music]

45:17[music]

45:37[music]

45:58[music]

46:20[music]

46:32[music]

47:23[music]

48:07[music]

48:15[music]

48:21[music]

48:33[music]

48:55[music]

49:18[music]

50:28[music]

51:19[music]

51:25[music]

51:32[music]

51:39[music]

51:55[music]

52:01[music]

52:08[music]

52:17[music]

52:25[music]

52:35[music]

52:45[bell]

53:08[music]

53:16[music]

53:24[music]

53:36[music]

53:44[music]

54:03[music]

54:51[music]

55:37>> from closed session. Um, are there any

55:39further questions for

55:41the police department?

55:44>> So, so I had a question. Um, I was

55:48looking at the body cam of when he was

55:51slammed once against the um, side of the

55:54car and the other side and then the

55:56trunk of the car.

55:58Um,

56:00Um, and I don't know if it's Garrity or

56:02not. I'm sorry.

56:04>> If it If it's somebody's statement, an

56:06officer's statement, it would likely

56:09Officer's statement on the scene,

56:11likely not. An officer's statement in a

56:14uh, report or something like that, then

56:16it is.

56:17>> Okay. If I can

56:19>> I'll try to clarify, too. If it's

56:21something that an officer said on their

56:23body worn camera or you can see it in

56:24the video, then that's fine to discuss

56:26here. If it's something that was on that

56:28transcript that you read, that's the

56:30Garrity statement, we'd need to take

56:31that into closed session.

56:32>> Okay.

56:34No.

56:37Okay, so it was something I saw in the

56:38video. So, it was um,

56:42it was once he was slammed, he was asked

56:44to turn face forward. Um, I was just

56:47wondering what was the reason for the

56:50use of force

56:51um,

56:52for him being slammed twice into the

56:55vehicle.

56:56And um,

56:59was it reasonable

57:01um, use of force when the other officers

57:04around him was explaining to a

57:06belligerent person what was going on?

57:12>> So,

57:13>> [clears throat]

57:13>> blood borne pathogens are are

57:15a serious issue to contend with, right?

57:18So, blood in the mouth gets into your

57:21uh, mucus membranes, could cause uh, HIV

57:24exposure, number of different uh,

57:27diseases. So,

57:28telling him to face forward is is a a

57:30reasonable request, right? And he's turn

57:33and turn it towards him. The officers

57:34are concerned for that that spitter that

57:36that spittle to come out. So, that's

57:38reasonable for them to say, "Hey, face

57:40forward." But, they can still explain,

57:42"Hey,

57:43you know, what's going on." As he keeps

57:44turning, they keep redirecting him for

57:47that fear for that that blood. So, that

57:49bloody mouth, that's a huge concern, for

57:51sure.

57:53>> Right, but you only hear them say face

57:55forward after they've slammed him into

57:57the car twice. And I I I understand

57:59exactly what you're saying. I think my

58:01issue is with the fact that he had to be

58:05slammed twice as the other officers kind

58:08of understood that he was belligerent in

58:11explaining to him what was going on

58:14because he really didn't have a clue

58:15what was going on. He And it seemed to

58:17be as if he was either drunk or had He

58:20kept mentioning that he had cerebral

58:22palsy. So, I don't think he understood

58:24what was happening in the moment. The

58:26officer to the

58:30right

58:31um of Jones was able to explain to him

58:35very vividly a couple times and even

58:39after he was slammed, you know, this

58:41happened because you needed to face

58:42forward. So, there wasn't a command

58:44given to face forward before he was

58:46slammed into the vehicle. That's my

58:48apprehension for use of force.

58:51>> Uh I would direct you to

58:54page 11 of

58:56the complaint disposition report that

58:58page 11 overall. Page 107 of the

59:00complaint disposition report on the

59:02bottom. The review of the body worn

59:04camera will

59:06gives minute marks. Also, kind of

59:08explains exactly what happens through

59:10this process. Um they begin to search

59:13him

59:14uh in front of the car. He appears to be

59:16um take exception to the search. He

59:19turns around. Uh they're putting gloves

59:21on. He turns around. Uh one of the

59:23officers says, "Because you're

59:24bleeding." He keeps turning around,

59:25tries to face them as they're trying to

59:27search. She's uh uncooperative with the

59:29search. So, I think that's why you see

59:31the the turn and redirect twice is

59:34because he keeps he keeps turning into

59:36them. And they have to redirect him cuz

59:39they're worried about him turning in

59:41that spittle. So,

59:42Well, he probably is he probably did

59:44give a a

59:45at the second time like, "Hey, knock it

59:47off, man." Like, they tried redirecting

59:49him.

59:50And then finally like, "Hey, knock it

59:51off. Like, stop turning it towards us."

59:54>> And And in response to that question,

59:56can you talk about the use of force

59:58continuum and how a determination is

1:00:00made regarding whether the use of force

1:00:04is reasonable as opposed to and the

1:00:07difference in that between the one

1:00:09officer's decision of what they would do

1:00:11and another officer's decision of what

1:00:12they would do in that space?

1:00:13>> Yeah, so the officers that are in close

1:00:15proximity or who actually have physical

1:00:17hands-on the individual have more of a a

1:00:20responsibility for their safety, right?

1:00:22So, if Officer Jones over here talking

1:00:25to him, he's

1:00:27a a less threat to Officer Jones than he

1:00:29is to me who I'm holding on to him and

1:00:31he's turning towards me with that blood

1:00:33at close proximity, right? He's bigger

1:00:34threat to me. So, hit my actions are

1:00:37independent from Officer Jones' actions.

1:00:39So, I make a determination based on

1:00:41totality of circumstances uh of whether

1:00:43or not I need to apply some level of

1:00:45force based on the resistance I'm

1:00:47receiving. So,

1:00:48that that officer's decision all all

1:00:50three officers' decisions are

1:00:51independent of each other. So, it's what

1:00:53they perceive at the time in which

1:00:55they're applying the force. So, in this

1:00:57in this instance, as he's turning,

1:00:59right? I don't I don't necessarily have

1:01:00to give him commands because if I give

1:01:02him commands and and he spits at me,

1:01:04it's too late, right? So, I might

1:01:06quickly redirect him. And then or he

1:01:08does again, redirect him and like, "Hey,

1:01:09man, knock it off, right?" So, it's all

1:01:11dependent on the officer's perspective

1:01:13at the time in which force is applied.

1:01:18>> Right. So,

1:01:20so that was that's part of my question.

1:01:22So, both of the officers had hands on

1:01:24them and the one that was

1:01:26that he could have potentially harmed

1:01:28with the blood in his mouth and spitting

1:01:30on him was the one who didn't use force.

1:01:33And now I guess that was my issue with

1:01:36it. He was he talked him through the

1:01:37process. You know what I mean? But as he

1:01:40was talking him through the process and

1:01:42letting him know what was going on and

1:01:44he needed to be searched the other

1:01:45officer just slammed him against the the

1:01:48wall of the car and then the hood of the

1:01:50car. So they both were in proximity and

1:01:53holding him and searching him on on

1:01:55either side. So I guess

1:01:57so they both would so

1:01:59>> So if the if the assisting officer feels

1:02:01that pull

1:02:02right he's going to react. Right he's

1:02:03he's he's not going to ask officer Jones

1:02:05do you feel threatened? He's going to

1:02:07he's going to perceive that and he's

1:02:08going to make that reaction, right? So

1:02:10he's perceiving something from one side.

1:02:12He feels that pull away towards that

1:02:14officer. It's his responsibility to

1:02:16redirect him to keep him from

1:02:18either attacking or whatever he's going

1:02:20to do, right? So again, two different

1:02:22perspectives. Officer Jones might be

1:02:23here and and like okay, I'm not feeling

1:02:26it because he's turning into me. This

1:02:28officer feels him pulling away. So there

1:02:29there's might be a reason why he needs

1:02:31to make that quick correction.

1:02:34>> Thank you.

1:02:35>> Mhm.

1:02:41>> Are there any other questions

1:02:45for the police department?

1:02:51Seeing no other questions, Madam Chair,

1:02:53I recommend that

1:02:54uh

1:02:55entertain a motion that would have

1:02:58discussion attached to it.

1:03:06>> All right.

1:03:07Is there a motion

1:03:09um

1:03:11to

1:03:19>> Is there motion to find that there is

1:03:20sufficient information to make a

1:03:22determination in this matter,

1:03:28and if the board thinks there is

1:03:30sufficient information that someone

1:03:31would make a motion related to that,

1:03:32someone would second it, and then there

1:03:34would be discussion. If the board does

1:03:36not think there If someone does not

1:03:38think there's sufficient information,

1:03:39they can make a motion to find that

1:03:40there is not,

1:03:42um,

1:03:42and then have discussion related to that

1:03:44as well.

1:03:46>> I'll just chime in then the discussion

1:03:48would be whether or not you'd need to,

1:03:50um,

1:03:52send it back for further,

1:03:54uh, supplemental investigation by OPA,

1:03:57um, or and what that what the parameters

1:03:59of that would be.

1:04:03>> I would make a motion to,

1:04:05um,

1:04:06uh, proceed with a decision.

1:04:09>> So, a motion to find that there is

1:04:10sufficient information to proceed.

1:04:12>> And then you would ask for

1:04:13>> Correct.

1:04:15>> Is there a second?

1:04:17>> I second.

1:04:19>> Any discussion?

1:04:20>> Any discussion?

1:04:28Hearing none, I call the question.

1:04:30>> Roll call vote.

1:04:31>> Roll call vote.

1:04:42>> All right, Jordan Cross.

1:04:46>> Uh, yes.

1:04:47>> Ranesha Hardin.

1:04:48>> No.

1:04:49>> Lori Hinckley.

1:04:51>> Yes.

1:04:52>> Daniel Savage.

1:04:54>> Yes.

1:04:55>> Kimberly Williams.

1:04:56>> Yes.

1:04:59Motion passes.

1:05:09>> Do we have a motion to affirm the

1:05:11Internal Affairs Unit's findings

1:05:14um

1:05:15exonerating the allegations of

1:05:17unreasonable use of force

1:05:20against the officers.

1:05:23>> I move to affirm the Internal Affairs

1:05:26finding of exoneration against all the

1:05:29officers.

1:05:31>> Is there a second?

1:05:35>> I will second that motion.

1:05:38>> Any discussion?

1:05:43>> I I can put it on.

1:05:45Um with regards to um the information we

1:05:48saw in the reports and the um process

1:05:53for uh leading questions, I did have

1:05:55some concern and I did want to put that

1:05:57on the record.

1:06:02>> Any other discussion?

1:06:09>> I think so.

1:06:10>> No discussion, you can call the

1:06:11question.

1:06:12>> Call the question?

1:06:14>> Roll call vote?

1:06:14>> Yeah, roll call vote.

1:06:15>> Roll call vote.

1:06:18>> All right, Jordan Cross.

1:06:19>> Yes.

1:06:21>> Reneisha Harden.

1:06:21>> Yes.

1:06:23>> Lori Hinckley.

1:06:25>> Yes.

1:06:26>> Daniel Savage.

1:06:27>> Yes.

1:06:28>> Kimberly Williams.

1:06:29>> Yes.

1:06:30>> Motion passes.

1:06:32>> Motion passes.

1:06:36>> So for the record, this board determined

1:06:38to decided to affirm the decision

1:06:41of Internal Affairs in CR 25-082.

1:06:46I will say in record time. I don't know

1:06:48if I've ever seen it uh

1:06:50be so quick. So

1:06:52uh then Madam Chair, that would take us

1:06:54to open discussion.

1:06:58>> Are there any further issues the board

1:07:01would like to discuss?

1:07:04>> Um I would ask that um

1:07:06we receive um

1:07:09uh in our booklets that we receive the

1:07:12policy that is used for, um,

1:07:15processing procedures,

1:07:16um,

1:07:18in the future. I think, um, I know that

1:07:20there are some policy with regards to

1:07:22their investigation, but if there are,

1:07:25um,

1:07:25again, some of those techniques are

1:07:28I believe that it will help us if we

1:07:30have that, um, more clear

1:07:33so that we can consult that and read

1:07:35that in real time as we're reading the

1:07:36reports as well.

1:07:38>> I appreciate the request. I'm not

1:07:40I'm not sure that there are written

1:07:42policies on, you know, each of the

1:07:43things or we always know exactly which

1:07:45ones those are. What's happened in the

1:07:46past is if a board member sees something

1:07:49is like, "Hey, I got a question about

1:07:50this." When they're in with the law

1:07:51department, you know, reviewing video or

1:07:53when it was OPA and our office reviewing

1:07:55video,

1:07:56they would say, "Hey, this is something

1:07:57we might be interested in and we can in

1:07:59advance pull policy, um,

1:08:02cuz like

1:08:04for example, reasonable force is a

1:08:06policy that would make sense in this

1:08:07case. I would understand what you're

1:08:08saying. But a discussion regarding like

1:08:10the barred question wouldn't be

1:08:12something we necessarily know to

1:08:13provide, um, information about ahead of

1:08:16time. But we'll take that into account

1:08:18as we next

1:08:19>> And then even so that even we know that

1:08:21because when I went in there was no one,

1:08:24um, there to assist me if I had

1:08:26questions or concerns. It was just like,

1:08:28"Here's a video, watch that and I'll be

1:08:30back. Let me know when you're done."

1:08:32versus me understanding that that is a

1:08:35person that I could say, "These are some

1:08:37things that I might want to see or have

1:08:38questions about." I didn't have that

1:08:40knowledge at the time and I think, uh,

1:08:43understanding that I would have been

1:08:45able to

1:08:45>> That makes sense.

1:08:46>> have that

1:08:47>> That makes a lot of sense. That's one of

1:08:48those things about a first time with the

1:08:50new board, uh, and such a large

1:08:52percentage of the board being new that,

1:08:53you know, it's stuff to navigate, but I

1:08:55appreciate that. Um, go ahead.

1:08:57>> I'll jump in, too. Since you do do that

1:08:59review, uh, in the law department, if

1:09:01you see me around and you've got

1:09:02questions, please uh feel free to come

1:09:05come down, come to my office, my door.

1:09:07If I'm not in a meeting or on a call,

1:09:08I'm usually, you know, available.

1:09:11Um and if you don't uh catch catch

1:09:13myself, um you know, ask our

1:09:15administrative staff if somebody can

1:09:17answer some questions for you. Uh they'd

1:09:19be happy to point you in the direction

1:09:21of Phil Strom or or someone else who

1:09:22might be able to help you out. Uh or

1:09:25else I would say, you know, email or

1:09:27call Brandon or myself um available

1:09:30anytime and we'd be happy to answer

1:09:32those questions for you. Uh even if it's

1:09:33not where you're right then and there.

1:09:35Uh I will note, too, that all most of

1:09:38the police department's policies,

1:09:39especially the ones that would be

1:09:41addressed here, would be available

1:09:42online. So, if you do need to pull those

1:09:45later on uh to, you know, answer those

1:09:47questions for yourself, um I'm happy to

1:09:49show you where that's found on the

1:09:50city's website.

1:09:51>> Uh thank you. Tr- Traditionally, the

1:09:54email method is how board members have

1:09:55done it. So, they would say, "Hey, I

1:09:57reviewed this question about what the

1:09:58policy is related to the way questions

1:10:01are asked, right?" And that would be

1:10:02enough for us to know to try to find

1:10:04something like that if it exists. Any

1:10:07other I'm sorry. Any other questions?

1:10:09>> No, I just had a uh follow-up to that. I

1:10:11I think that's uh

1:10:13uh

1:10:14real good idea. I mean, as far as for

1:10:15the policies, for the understanding. And

1:10:17maybe just uh during the prep for the

1:10:20book, if there is something related that

1:10:21you can anticipate, uh maybe just a link

1:10:24to that uh public policy that uh we

1:10:27could just

1:10:28click on easily as opposed to going

1:10:29through everything. So, I think that

1:10:31would be a good idea.

1:10:32>> Mhm.

1:10:33>> I have one thing. I just, as a new board

1:10:35member,

1:10:36um

1:10:37I know it's hard for us with our

1:10:39schedules and we're all volunteers, but

1:10:42um if maybe we could talk about at the

1:10:44next meeting

1:10:46if the time 4:00 on Wednesdays isn't

1:10:49working for people cuz it seems like

1:10:51we're having a hard time getting people

1:10:52to be here.

1:10:54And we have new members, if maybe we

1:10:56should look at a different time because

1:10:59I feel bad. I already missed one

1:11:01meeting. I know

1:11:02we had Dan had one where where we

1:11:05already had something scheduled on a

1:11:06Wednesday. We're having trouble getting

1:11:08quorums. We've we're missing people

1:11:10tonight. That's unfair to the

1:11:12complainant. It's unfair to the officers

1:11:15who have these appeals hanging for

1:11:17months and months and months.

1:11:19It's so important for us to be here

1:11:21regularly. It's a commitment. I know

1:11:23that. If we could maybe explore things

1:11:26that we could do so that we could make

1:11:28sure that we're here when we need to be

1:11:30so we can fulfill our duties. And if

1:11:32that means changing a meeting or

1:11:33whatever, I I would be willing to

1:11:35explore that.

1:11:37>> Thank you for that. We'll take that back

1:11:39as staff and think through the

1:11:41implications of all of that. Part of the

1:11:43reason So, the time has been this at

1:11:46least for the last I think since the

1:11:48board was created, but at least for the

1:11:49last 8 years.

1:11:51And the reason being is that when people

1:11:53sign up to be on the board, we

1:11:55established the time so people know this

1:11:58is the date and time that the board

1:11:59meets. When deciding to serve on this

1:12:01board, you have this firm space that you

1:12:04can plan around. We've also worked that

1:12:06into staff schedules that way.

1:12:08Obviously, staff schedules can change if

1:12:09necessary.

1:12:11Um

1:12:12So, we'll talk about, you know, what

1:12:13that would look like. What the board

1:12:14does have the authority to do is

1:12:15schedule special meetings though when

1:12:17there's something happens and the you

1:12:20know, the majority board can't do it. If

1:12:21the board wants to schedule a special

1:12:22meeting, that's possible for sure.

1:12:24Great feedback.

1:12:26Any other discussion?

1:12:29>> Um my last question, is there any

1:12:31additional um

1:12:34training that we need or that is coming

1:12:37up? And then I did want to circle back.

1:12:39I understood that there was some

1:12:41uh

1:12:42community meetings that were going to be

1:12:44taking place to kind of uh talk with the

1:12:46community about

1:12:48um

1:12:49uh looking at this board and possible

1:12:51updates or changes to the work of this

1:12:53board or

1:12:55the type of board I should say.

1:12:57Um so if you could provide information

1:12:59regarding that.

1:13:00>> Yes. First question related to training.

1:13:02Um so you all have received the core

1:13:05training for the Civilian Appeals Board.

1:13:08There are issue specific trainings that

1:13:10we do when issues come up, right? So if

1:13:13there was a nuanced area of the law that

1:13:16was implicated in one of the cases, then

1:13:20either OPA, the law department, or

1:13:22police department, I guess somebody

1:13:23external if we saw fit, would come in

1:13:25and provide a training to you related to

1:13:27that topic before you heard the hearing.

1:13:30Um

1:13:31offentimes it's the, you know, similar

1:13:34different fact patterns but similar

1:13:35rules or laws are in place like Fourth

1:13:38Amendment issue or something like that.

1:13:41So you don't get a new training about

1:13:42that every time, but if it was something

1:13:44that you haven't covered or something

1:13:46like that, we would provide it to you.

1:13:48Um the Go ahead, sir.

1:13:50The other thing that you asked about is

1:13:53the review of the Civilian Appeal Board

1:13:55process in general, which is a separate

1:13:58function from this board. However, this

1:13:59board is being invited to participate as

1:14:02one of the stakeholders in it. That

1:14:04process um

1:14:06is a very involved process. There are

1:14:08multiple city departments currently

1:14:10working on

1:14:12structuring how this all works to do it

1:14:14well. The big thing to remember is that

1:14:16this is still an employment issue

1:14:19um and

1:14:21in many ways it impacts collective

1:14:22bargaining. So we're working through all

1:14:24those nuances. When it's time to involve

1:14:27this board in that space, we'll make

1:14:28sure in one of my board liaison reports,

1:14:30we tell you what that's going to look

1:14:31like. It'll likely involve, I think,

1:14:34using you all's meeting time to navigate

1:14:36that. Um but we're not at that stage

1:14:38yet. So we'll keep you posted as we

1:14:39navigate this space.

1:14:41>> Would add to, especially given that

1:14:43there were some questions today about

1:14:45the Internal Affairs process, that uh

1:14:47I'm sure that if there was some training

1:14:49around how that works that any the the

1:14:52board would like that we could probably

1:14:54get that set up with IA.

1:14:57>> Sure, we'll get that we'll get that

1:14:58scheduled one day.

1:15:00>> Let me say that again. I would

1:15:02appreciate it but I don't want to stress

1:15:03anybody else's schedule so

1:15:05I am you know

1:15:07I don't want to over obligate anyone.

1:15:11>> We usually work it into any trainings we

1:15:13try to into the board meeting times so

1:15:16you know only time we do something

1:15:17different is when the board's not

1:15:18available during the board meeting time.

1:15:22>> Okay, well now move on to public

1:15:24comment.

1:15:25Comment is limited to 3 minutes.

1:15:31Seeing none, meeting is adjourned.