WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.000
 Good evening. We are back. This is the city of Denton meeting agenda for the use of force

00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.080
 ad hoc committee tonight. The first items for consideration are the the minutes from last

00:00:17.080 --> 00:00:22.680
 week. If you've had an opportunity to look at the minutes, we'll need a motion to approve

00:00:22.680 --> 00:00:41.000
 with the second. So made. Motion. All those in favor, raise your hand. I motion carries.

00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:45.720
 The second is to receive a report, hold a discussion and develop findings, conclusions

00:00:45.720 --> 00:00:50.040
 and recommendations related to use of force in the Denton Police Department, including

00:00:50.040 --> 00:00:58.280
 policy and training, transparency and accountability and potential civilian oversight. And I think

00:00:58.280 --> 00:01:04.000
 right now this I'm going to turn this over to Patrick. And if you remember, Patrick was

00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:10.840
 here two weeks ago. And he's going to pretty much lead the discussion tonight. So there

00:01:10.840 --> 00:01:16.380
 you go, Patrick. Sure. Good evening, everyone. What we want to try to accomplish tonight

00:01:16.380 --> 00:01:22.320
 is fairly ambitious. And it's also part of your charge is to start doing some voting

00:01:22.320 --> 00:01:28.440
 to have a window down your priorities. And what we've done for the sake of kind of consolidating

00:01:28.440 --> 00:01:32.080
 is we've put some language together. Hopefully you received that email that Sarah sent out

00:01:32.080 --> 00:01:36.480
 earlier today that included a word document that was a memo drafted by me, along with

00:01:36.480 --> 00:01:41.840
 some city staff that encapsulated the background, the topics to be discussed tonight, including

00:01:41.840 --> 00:01:47.060
 the content of the recommendation. So we're going to be taking and hopefully if you have

00:01:47.060 --> 00:01:51.120
 that printed, great. If you have it up on your screen, great. If you don't, I can share

00:01:51.120 --> 00:01:54.680
 it. But I know that we're trying to make sure everybody sees everybody through this whole

00:01:54.680 --> 00:01:57.960
 process. We're going to take a series of votes. We're going to have an opportunity for discussion

00:01:57.960 --> 00:02:02.160
 as well. You've also had a number of meetings going back to June where you discuss these

00:02:02.160 --> 00:02:06.200
 items, all the different kind of the who's, the what's, the how tos, the different components,

00:02:06.200 --> 00:02:09.860
 the different dimensions. And now it's the time to kind of start to ship your idea, if

00:02:09.860 --> 00:02:14.680
 you will, and identify that language. I think there might be an opportunity we want to wordsmith

00:02:14.680 --> 00:02:18.840
 a little bit of the language tonight, but the gist of it, we want to try to keep as

00:02:18.840 --> 00:02:23.240
 reflective of the spirit of the majority of this group as possible. Assembling this is

00:02:23.240 --> 00:02:28.240
 a little bit like herding cats. So Sarah, I've met with all of you or several of you

00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:31.680
 prior to the September 1st meeting, she and some other staff members, they're just to

00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:35.720
 identify what you thought would be some solid recommendations. She's taking that language

00:02:35.720 --> 00:02:39.880
 and she and I have massaged that, that's what's in that memo that stated the City of Denton

00:02:39.880 --> 00:02:45.120
 Use of Force Committee draft memo dated yesterday, presented by me, the mayor on the group. Then

00:02:45.120 --> 00:02:50.120
 there's that language. And so here's kind of the way we thought it would work best tonight

00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:55.360
 is we're going to review each of those recommendations, if you wordsmith it a little bit, but not

00:02:55.360 --> 00:02:59.840
 spend an inordinate amount of time going back and hashing through things if this doesn't

00:02:59.840 --> 00:03:05.680
 fit perfectly the language that some one person wants. A part of this is we're trying to look

00:03:05.680 --> 00:03:11.920
 at the receptive to comments at the same time, look at this is somewhat of a majority rule.

00:03:11.920 --> 00:03:17.040
 And as we talked about voting, you know, there's different processes groups use, they use points

00:03:17.040 --> 00:03:22.440
 or colors or weighted. I think that complicates a simple process. We're just going to say

00:03:22.440 --> 00:03:27.600
 you either support it or you don't. And yes or no, and there'll be voice roll call votes.

00:03:27.600 --> 00:03:31.560
 And if the majority of the group votes for it, then we'll be included in the final report

00:03:31.560 --> 00:03:36.020
 which Sarah sent out a draft late this afternoon, that you're going to consider fully at your

00:03:36.020 --> 00:03:40.880
 next meeting, that would be included to the city council for their consideration. Remembering

00:03:40.880 --> 00:03:45.920
 your advising council and recommendations, right? That's always the challenge with appointed

00:03:45.920 --> 00:03:51.160
 boards, even boards and commissions, the city has a standing, their advisory. So the level

00:03:51.160 --> 00:03:55.720
 of authority is somewhat not as much as sometimes people would like. You're trying to offer

00:03:55.720 --> 00:04:00.240
 some recommendations for them to consider. And we know that sometimes council says thank

00:04:00.240 --> 00:04:06.160
 you. And they massage those recommendations more. Or sometimes they just say, we don't

00:04:06.160 --> 00:04:09.280
 like these recommendations. We don't know where that's going to play out here. But you're

00:04:09.280 --> 00:04:13.640
 trying to put your best foot forward, which I know you're all doing to volunteer to put

00:04:13.640 --> 00:04:18.600
 forth those recommendations. So we're going to look at each recommendation in and by itself,

00:04:18.600 --> 00:04:22.720
 discuss policy and training, and then go through alphabetically. And I have a roll call sheet

00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:27.360
 here in front of me. Do you support that? Do you not? Yes or no? Then we'll just tally

00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:31.120
 up the votes and I'll share with you the vote tally. Then we'll go through the second one,

00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:37.000
 transparency and accountability. Discuss that. Try to stay in the spirit of that. So I would

00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:42.080
 respectfully ask that people participate tonight but don't dominate. We're not trying to change

00:04:42.080 --> 00:04:47.720
 the gist of it. This really encapsulates the majority of what people shared in the conversation

00:04:47.720 --> 00:04:55.120
 they had with Sarah and staff a few weeks ago. We could wordsmith it some, but I think

00:04:55.120 --> 00:04:58.320
 we're just trying to find out balance. Does this capture the essence of what you want

00:04:58.320 --> 00:05:03.920
 as a recommendation? So those two votes we hope to knock out fairly quickly. Hopefully

00:05:03.920 --> 00:05:09.040
 I didn't just jinx us. And then the third one is a little bit more involved. We thought

00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:13.000
 it would be beneficial as you discussed the civilian oversight board. And I did watch

00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:18.680
 the video of the last week's meeting that we give you the opportunity to offer a perspective

00:05:18.680 --> 00:05:24.960
 just briefly as we go down the route alphabetically and find out if you yes or no, do you even

00:05:24.960 --> 00:05:29.320
 want to favor or offer a recommendation to city council for their consideration about

00:05:29.320 --> 00:05:33.080
 the civilian oversight board? In other words, we don't want to make the assumption that

00:05:33.080 --> 00:05:36.920
 this committee is definitely going to offer a recommendation. We just weren't sure. And

00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:42.240
 we know that issue has a lot of different buttons to it. A lot of different sort of

00:05:42.240 --> 00:05:47.160
 passion around that. So we want to give people a chance to, again, voice, roll call, voice

00:05:47.160 --> 00:05:51.920
 vote yes or no. Do you want to consider the option? We'll tally up those. And then we're

00:05:51.920 --> 00:05:56.560
 going to go into the next vote, hopefully the fourth one, which is of those six options,

00:05:56.560 --> 00:06:00.700
 which I hope you have that matrix handy. We're going to ask instead of trying to say, you

00:06:00.700 --> 00:06:05.320
 know, vote for the top, the top one, and then we may end up with five of them getting two

00:06:05.320 --> 00:06:10.720
 votes apiece. So that doesn't really serve us well. We're going to ask you to offer what

00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:15.680
 are your top two selections. Now, there might be a tendency as you get into these options

00:06:15.680 --> 00:06:20.280
 to kind of mix and match. We're going to try to avoid that. We don't want to try to dilute

00:06:20.280 --> 00:06:23.880
 the essence of each option. And remember, these are to recommend to the council for

00:06:23.880 --> 00:06:28.920
 their consideration. If you end up supporting a recommendation that's forwarded to the council,

00:06:28.920 --> 00:06:33.560
 they end up adopting some form of that recommendation. They may very well have it operationalized

00:06:33.560 --> 00:06:39.080
 by subcommittee of council or reconvene members of this group to actually work through the

00:06:39.080 --> 00:06:42.800
 details. Most often, as we know, these civilian oversight boards, there's a lot of moving

00:06:42.800 --> 00:06:48.840
 parts. It's a fairly protracted process, a lot of different viewpoints, a lot of different

00:06:48.840 --> 00:06:52.480
 options. We're not going to cover that even in the scheme of this committee from last

00:06:52.480 --> 00:06:56.440
 June up to this point. And we definitely aren't going to cover all of those sort of intricacies

00:06:56.440 --> 00:07:01.400
 and nuances tonight. We're trying to keep them somewhat separate and offer hopefully

00:07:01.400 --> 00:07:07.520
 one recommendation if that's the group's choice. So we're trying to keep this as simple as

00:07:07.520 --> 00:07:11.200
 possible, trying to narrow the focus. I hope you can appreciate that's where we are in

00:07:11.200 --> 00:07:15.720
 this process. That's where all groups have to sort of find themselves at some point is

00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:21.240
 to contemplate the options and vote yes or no, whether they support it. And that's why

00:07:21.240 --> 00:07:25.520
 we thought it would be beneficial for you to let you know that in advance. We've talked

00:07:25.520 --> 00:07:29.960
 about that previously because I know that can be sometimes uncomfortable for people.

00:07:29.960 --> 00:07:34.760
 But if we don't have a voice roll call vote, then I think we're left with everything's

00:07:34.760 --> 00:07:38.920
 a priority. And then I don't think that helps council process your recommendations. At some

00:07:38.920 --> 00:07:46.280
 point, they need to understand the level of support by the majority of this group. Okay.

00:07:46.280 --> 00:07:50.780
 So we try to make this process as simple as straightforward as possible. I appreciate

00:07:50.780 --> 00:07:53.800
 your patience and your persistence as we go through this.

00:07:53.800 --> 00:07:57.240
 Patrick, before you jump into that, I just want to let you know I don't I don't think

00:07:57.240 --> 00:08:02.200
 your headset is on. I think you're just talking. I just wanted to let you know the audio is

00:08:02.200 --> 00:08:06.680
 coming through from you, but it's not through the headset. It's just sounds like it doesn't

00:08:06.680 --> 00:08:10.840
 sound like it. It's you're still clear. I just wanted to point that out to you.

00:08:10.840 --> 00:08:18.480
 Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Oh, I thought it was I'll try to work on that. I apologize

00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:23.200
 for that. I've been on this all day. That's okay. We can still hear you. Okay. I believe

00:08:23.200 --> 00:08:27.760
 everyone on the committee. I just wanted to point that out to you. All right. Thank you.

00:08:27.760 --> 00:08:30.980
 I'll try to figure that out here. Maybe at the break or something. I apologize for that.

00:08:30.980 --> 00:08:36.840
 I'll get a little closer to the microphone here. Hey, Patrick. Will we have Smith has

00:08:36.840 --> 00:08:47.840
 a question? Yes. Mr. Ed Smith. I hope I pronounced that correctly. Yes. Am I understand if we

00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:58.680
 vote? If three doesn't pass, there's no need for four. Right? Isn't that correct? Yes,

00:08:58.680 --> 00:09:04.400
 sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. And that you're correct in that that if there's if

00:09:04.400 --> 00:09:15.120
 number three does not have a majority of the truth statement. You're breaking up there

00:09:15.120 --> 00:09:20.320
 a little bit, sir. I think what you're asking is we don't have to deal with four. Correct.

00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:34.560
 Yes, sir. That right? Yes. I believe what he was asking is if number three, if three

00:09:34.560 --> 00:09:48.760
 does not get the majority vote, we don't have to deal with four. Yes. Yes. He said yes,

00:09:48.760 --> 00:09:55.760
 Willie. Can you hear him? Well, I think there's some something going on with your audio because

00:09:55.760 --> 00:10:11.840
 you're breaking up and you're frozen. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're frozen. Yes. But

00:10:11.840 --> 00:10:20.120
 I didn't hear his answer. He said yes, said yes, sir. You're you're frozen. So I'm not

00:10:20.120 --> 00:10:27.000
 sure your audio is frozen. Okay. Yes, you were correct in what your statement was. Well,

00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:37.520
 never mind. He said he said yes, Willie, but you're frozen. So you're breaking up. Yeah.

00:10:37.520 --> 00:10:51.160
 So what did he say? If what I heard you saying was that if that number three, are you are

00:10:51.160 --> 00:11:02.080
 you hearing me now, sir? I'm not sure. He's frozen, at least from what I see. Okay, I'm

00:11:02.080 --> 00:11:19.560
 gonna get up. Okay. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments before we get started?

00:11:19.560 --> 00:11:23.520
 So if you have that memo handy, I'm just going to start on item one under the policy and

00:11:23.520 --> 00:11:28.440
 training. I'll read this aloud, if that's okay. And then if you want to have a brief

00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:34.960
 discussion, policy number one, policy and training. Does the committee have any recommendations

00:11:34.960 --> 00:11:40.800
 for updates to policy language or training regarding use of force? bullet point one.

00:11:40.800 --> 00:11:44.440
 After review, the committee felt that they could not offer any specific recommendations

00:11:44.440 --> 00:11:51.160
 or changes to policy. bullet point two, to continue emphasis on understanding and deescalating

00:11:51.160 --> 00:11:56.280
 situations, the police department should investigate continued opportunities for regular training

00:11:56.280 --> 00:12:01.440
 for officers on mental health, diversity and inclusion, inclusion, persons with physical

00:12:01.440 --> 00:12:07.720
 or intellectual disabilities, and LG, LGBTQ individuals. Such training should be balanced

00:12:07.720 --> 00:12:12.920
 to manage proper staffing for the department and other mandated trainings. The police department

00:12:12.920 --> 00:12:18.960
 should track and share general metrics on training encompasses a lot there about policy

00:12:18.960 --> 00:12:25.640
 and trading. Conversation about that comments, you talked about about this at length, about

00:12:25.640 --> 00:12:34.000
 the dashboard about the policy itself. You had several presentations on it. Chief Dixon

00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:42.880
 and his staff responded to questions. comments or questions before we take the vote? I'm

00:12:42.880 --> 00:12:48.240
 sorry, could you read it again? I for some reason, I really couldn't understand at the

00:12:48.240 --> 00:12:56.120
 very beginning, and I apologize, because it was, it's like an echo or something. Sorry.

00:12:56.120 --> 00:13:03.160
 So I'll reread it. Number item number one, policy and training. Does the committee have

00:13:03.160 --> 00:13:07.520
 any recommendations for updates to policy language or training regarding use of force

00:13:07.520 --> 00:13:13.040
 is the question. bullet point one. After review, the committee felt that they could not offer

00:13:13.040 --> 00:13:20.600
 any specific recommendations or changes to policy. Bullet point two, to continue emphasis

00:13:20.600 --> 00:13:25.720
 on understanding and deescalating situations. The police department should investigate continued

00:13:25.720 --> 00:13:31.560
 opportunities for regular training for officers on mental health, diversity and inclusion,

00:13:31.560 --> 00:13:37.160
 persons with physical or intellectual disabilities, and LGBTQ individuals. Such training should

00:13:37.160 --> 00:13:42.240
 be balanced to manage proper staffing for the department and other mandated trainings.

00:13:42.240 --> 00:13:47.040
 The police department should track and share general metrics on training. I hope that you

00:13:47.040 --> 00:13:54.720
 heard me that time. I think it was Katrina. I'm not sure. I'll answer questions about

00:13:54.720 --> 00:14:04.960
 that before we take a vote. Katina, I'm sorry, Katina, could you hear that? Yes, I can hear

00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:10.080
 it. And we're voting on that whole and part that everything that you just read is one

00:14:10.080 --> 00:14:18.680
 thing, Rick. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Oh, did you have your hand up? Yeah,

00:14:18.680 --> 00:14:25.800
 I just wanted to reemphasize, you know, in you know, where number one and two or number

00:14:25.800 --> 00:14:31.260
 two in particular can form number one. I brought that up a couple of times just where there's

00:14:31.260 --> 00:14:38.080
 opportunity along the way for the report that's going to be posted, you know, biannually,

00:14:38.080 --> 00:14:44.040
 where there's a clarity that, hey, this is a, this is something in regards to use of

00:14:44.040 --> 00:14:47.800
 force that we're learning, which may change over time that the police need to be more

00:14:47.800 --> 00:14:52.720
 trained in, you know, that comes out of number two, just that that would also inform number

00:14:52.720 --> 00:14:58.520
 one. Maybe that's assumed in the language there. And I'm missing it. I just, I just

00:14:58.520 --> 00:15:06.640
 wanted to say that, you know, again, I agree, because I'm trying to make sure that I understand

00:15:06.640 --> 00:15:12.160
 that if we're voting yes, we're voting that there needs to be changes. And if we're voting

00:15:12.160 --> 00:15:17.540
 no, there needs to be no additional changing changes and the statement of more training

00:15:17.540 --> 00:15:22.800
 and all of that stand. Is that correct? You're actually voting yes on the language that I

00:15:22.800 --> 00:15:28.040
 shared, that that would be included in the report as one of your recommendations. So

00:15:28.040 --> 00:15:34.000
 this is your, okay. Chief, I don't know if you wanted to address Bo's comment about the

00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:40.960
 biannual and number two and how you would kind of envision reporting that out.

00:15:40.960 --> 00:15:46.260
 So we already do an annual report, which we're going to continue. We go in front of council

00:15:46.260 --> 00:15:53.300
 and give them updated reports, but we're going to make a specific update that pertains to

00:15:53.300 --> 00:15:58.160
 everything that we have captured along the way here, moving forward. And you're going

00:15:58.160 --> 00:16:06.440
 to see those, we already look at every internal affairs investigation, ways to improve the

00:16:06.440 --> 00:16:12.120
 training behind what happened in it. No matter what it is, there's a training component,

00:16:12.120 --> 00:16:17.120
 whether it's individually to the officer, or if we think it's organizational, then we

00:16:17.120 --> 00:16:23.520
 send it out through the organization. Great. That's all I was, that's the only comment

00:16:23.520 --> 00:16:29.800
 I had. Any other comments or questions? I'm just

00:16:29.800 --> 00:16:33.680
 going to go alphabetically and if you're voting yes, that means you support what I read as

00:16:33.680 --> 00:16:39.680
 language in the final, you support that language that I read to include in the report that

00:16:39.680 --> 00:16:43.680
 you will be providing city council. And again, that's going to be discussed in more detail

00:16:43.680 --> 00:16:47.840
 the report itself at the next, at next Thursday's meeting.

00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:53.440
 And then Patrick, after we take this vote, we're going to take a quick break because

00:16:53.440 --> 00:17:00.120
 your headset is not working. So we can barely, I mean, we can hear you, but it's a, I don't

00:17:00.120 --> 00:17:04.840
 know if it is the mic or cause it sounds like you're just talking into your computer.

00:17:04.840 --> 00:17:10.560
 Sarah, maybe could you take this roll call vote so people can hear us? I'm sorry about

00:17:10.560 --> 00:17:17.080
 that. That's okay. Sure. Thank you very much. I apologize.

00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:20.960
 No problem. So this is for that number one, the policy

00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:26.300
 and training recommendations only. So we'll start with, and just going alphabetical by

00:17:26.300 --> 00:17:34.320
 last name, John Baines. I'm in favor of the language as it's presented.

00:17:34.320 --> 00:17:45.680
 Thank you. Jamel Butler. I vote for the policy for number one. Yes.

00:17:45.680 --> 00:17:56.440
 Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, pastor chambers, uh, Cameron combs. I do not see you on the

00:17:56.440 --> 00:18:03.800
 meeting, but I just want to make sure. Okay. Uh, camion Connor and just to let you know,

00:18:03.800 --> 00:18:09.000
 she did email and let me know she was going to be late to this meeting. So I don't believe

00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:27.000
 she's here yet. Uh, chair English. Yes. Yancey green. Yes. Pam. Yes. I'm in favor of the

00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:51.600
 language. Gary. Yes. Willie. Yes. Rhonda. Yes. Shay. Are you on the meeting? No, I do

00:18:51.600 --> 00:19:04.400
 not see Shay. Okay. Travis testing. Yes. I'm in favor. Okay. Um, and then Lillian is next

00:19:04.400 --> 00:19:08.240
 and she did email me and let me know that she may not be able to make it to the meeting

00:19:08.240 --> 00:19:14.480
 tonight. Um, but she did vote yes for this item. Um, so that's reflected and recorded.

00:19:14.480 --> 00:19:31.880
 Uh, Angela. Yes. Katina. Yes. Yes. Okay. And then, uh, Donna diamond Tyson is next and

00:19:31.880 --> 00:19:35.760
 she also emailed me and let me know she could not make it to this meeting. Um, but she was

00:19:35.760 --> 00:19:43.040
 a yes and in favor of this item. And then Jamie would be last and she is absent from

00:19:43.040 --> 00:19:51.720
 the meeting as well and it did not get her recommendations by email. So that is all the

00:19:51.720 --> 00:19:57.000
 members for the first item. Okay. Can you hear me better now? Okay. Great. Thank you

00:19:57.000 --> 00:20:02.680
 very much. Sorry about that. So many microphones, only one voice. Um, so that carried, I think

00:20:02.680 --> 00:20:07.080
 unanimously, I was trying to figure that out, but I thought I heard all yeses to that. Hey,

00:20:07.080 --> 00:20:13.280
 momentum. Let's talk that one up. Okay. So that's terrific. All right. Wonderful. Thank

00:20:13.280 --> 00:20:18.880
 you. Uh, moving on to number two and I'll read this aloud, uh, two is transparency and

00:20:18.880 --> 00:20:23.900
 accountability question. Does the committee have any recommendations to enhance reporting

00:20:23.900 --> 00:20:29.160
 of information to the public response or the recommendation is the police department shall

00:20:29.160 --> 00:20:34.400
 create a report that includes data on officer response calls where use of force was used

00:20:34.400 --> 00:20:40.000
 and summary information on complaints filed against police officers for improper use of

00:20:40.000 --> 00:20:44.680
 force and their disposition, including if the complaint was sustained and training was

00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:49.480
 recommended. This report shall be posted and presented online in a friendly, consumable

00:20:49.480 --> 00:20:54.620
 way. The frequency of the report shall be at least semi-annually where possible data

00:20:54.620 --> 00:21:01.160
 should be presented in a data dashboard format. You've discussed this at length about information

00:21:01.160 --> 00:21:05.960
 being provided in a way that is easy for people to consumable way, meaning that it's presented

00:21:05.960 --> 00:21:11.480
 for the public to process to understand that it's not so much in kind of a jargon, if you

00:21:11.480 --> 00:21:16.040
 will. And they would include that sort of information provided at least semi-annually

00:21:16.040 --> 00:21:26.600
 twice a year. Comments or questions about that? Uh, yes, Pam, it, I believe it falls

00:21:26.600 --> 00:21:33.800
 along these lines. When an event happens, um, I believe the public is seeking a compassionate,

00:21:33.800 --> 00:21:40.280
 help heartfelt response from Chief Dixon. Um, and I'm, I'm referring to when lethal

00:21:40.280 --> 00:21:50.960
 force occurs and not so much, um, speaking to the, you know, to the, if it's in relation

00:21:50.960 --> 00:21:56.780
 to what happened with the officer, but in relation to what happened with the person.

00:21:56.780 --> 00:22:02.880
 And I'm wondering if we can include some type of language or something where Chief Dixon

00:22:02.880 --> 00:22:08.720
 is willing to say something to the public and to the family, because I think sometimes

00:22:08.720 --> 00:22:14.000
 I hear that's missing and I feel like the public is asking for that. And I'd like to

00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:27.720
 discuss that tonight. Okay. Comments along that line and what Pam shared? I, what I hear

00:22:27.720 --> 00:22:32.040
 you saying, Pam, is this wouldn't be something included in the report per se. This is something

00:22:32.040 --> 00:22:38.320
 that you would recommend that the chief does during one of those incidents where when,

00:22:38.320 --> 00:22:43.200
 when something actually, an event happens and the response by the police chief to address

00:22:43.200 --> 00:22:49.200
 family, the family of those people that may be involved, expressing concern for the family

00:22:49.200 --> 00:22:54.720
 and the public, because I think it speaks volumes for the police force and for the chief

00:22:54.720 --> 00:23:01.300
 to express that concern, because I think that that's what I've heard is lacking from our

00:23:01.300 --> 00:23:07.920
 police force that we're not showing concern. And I think it's something that possibly needs

00:23:07.920 --> 00:23:18.080
 to be in the report. Maybe not, but I'd like to hear the viewpoint of others on that. Katina,

00:23:18.080 --> 00:23:23.680
 it looks like you have your hand raised. Thank you. Just a quick question. Sure. Is it required

00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:32.840
 that, is that, is it protocol for when families, when there is force or from, and a death is

00:23:32.840 --> 00:23:42.280
 the, is the result of force or, you know, by the police, are they required to notify

00:23:42.280 --> 00:23:48.040
 the family? I just want to know, understand the protocol and do they do it in person?

00:23:48.040 --> 00:23:52.280
 Do they attempt to go to their home? Do they call them on the phone? Just what the standard

00:23:52.280 --> 00:23:56.760
 protocol is. Thank you. Okay. Before I give chief Dixon a chance to response, hold on

00:23:56.760 --> 00:24:00.000
 one second, chief, if you would. John, you had your hand up. Just wanted to see if that

00:24:00.000 --> 00:24:11.040
 was related to that. Yes, I did want to respond to Pam's observation. It seems that the more

00:24:11.040 --> 00:24:20.280
 the officials can greet the public and express concern and rather than just allowing the

00:24:20.280 --> 00:24:30.600
 newspaper to communicate or the news, I think it adds a little more personalness when the

00:24:30.600 --> 00:24:36.320
 chief or the city official makes an official statement and expresses some empathy. So somehow

00:24:36.320 --> 00:24:40.680
 that does need to be incorporated. Thanks, John. Chief Dixon, do you want to respond

00:24:40.680 --> 00:24:46.800
 to the comments that were shared by committee members? Absolutely. So I fully understand

00:24:46.800 --> 00:24:52.520
 and actually agree with what you're saying, but there's a dichotomy here. We have an outside

00:24:52.520 --> 00:25:00.800
 agency come in to investigate those. So for me to stand up and make any kind of statement

00:25:00.800 --> 00:25:11.240
 having not had any part of the investigation can really send a completely poor message,

00:25:11.240 --> 00:25:15.760
 not just internally, but to the public. Now, the humanity part, I understand and I totally

00:25:15.760 --> 00:25:22.640
 agree with showing compassion for other human beings, but to make a statement on the event

00:25:22.640 --> 00:25:29.280
 itself, I think that would be very problematic or could potentially be very problematic if

00:25:29.280 --> 00:25:34.880
 myself, the mayor, or the city manager is getting out there making statements. So that

00:25:34.880 --> 00:25:39.480
 would be my only concern and something that I would like for the committee to take into

00:25:39.480 --> 00:25:47.560
 account. Thanks, chief. I agree, chief. I agree 100%. And I'm not speaking to making

00:25:47.560 --> 00:25:55.240
 comments about the event. I'm speaking more to showing compassion to the family, especially

00:25:55.240 --> 00:26:00.120
 if they've lost a loved one, not necessarily to, and that's why I was trying to make that

00:26:00.120 --> 00:26:06.040
 clear and I'm sorry if I didn't, more that the public needs to know that you were showing

00:26:06.040 --> 00:26:13.360
 compassion to the event. And I really like how Mr. Baines articulated it because I think

00:26:13.360 --> 00:26:20.400
 they look to you as a very high public official and they want to see that you have that compassion

00:26:20.400 --> 00:26:25.320
 and not necessarily talking about anything that happened, just that you feel bad that

00:26:25.320 --> 00:26:35.160
 they've lost someone. I won't talk about publicly, but I will tell you that I did meet privately

00:26:35.160 --> 00:26:38.840
 because I know what we're talking about. I did meet privately and do that. Thank you.

00:26:38.840 --> 00:26:45.560
 So to Kofina's point, the investigating agency is the ones that make contact with the family

00:26:45.560 --> 00:26:49.960
 and typically, I won't speak for the agencies that are doing it, but typically they do it

00:26:49.960 --> 00:26:56.200
 in person and not just over the phone. But again, when we have a third party coming in

00:26:56.200 --> 00:27:05.520
 to do those, we can't really control how they do it. We can't make recommendations to them.

00:27:05.520 --> 00:27:08.600
 Okay. Thanks, Chief. Bo?

00:27:08.600 --> 00:27:12.200
 So Pam, is part of what you're saying here under transparency and accountability, like

00:27:12.200 --> 00:27:20.160
 if there was another arrow there just saying in light of those sorts of events that the

00:27:20.160 --> 00:27:25.560
 chief makes a public statement regarding sanctity of human life, reaffirming the sanctity of

00:27:25.560 --> 00:27:31.240
 human life, in particular this life, and also the department's commitment to transparency

00:27:31.240 --> 00:27:32.240
 and accountability?

00:27:32.240 --> 00:27:37.320
 Yes. That's exactly... Thank you, Bo. You articulated it beautifully. That's... Yes.

00:27:37.320 --> 00:27:43.400
 Because I feel like, Chief, that you do that, but the public isn't seeing that. And I feel

00:27:43.400 --> 00:27:47.600
 like they need to see you... Like just what you said, you went and did that, but the public

00:27:47.600 --> 00:27:54.320
 isn't seeing that and they need to see you doing that. To me, that's incredibly important

00:27:54.320 --> 00:28:00.720
 that they see that. And I feel like it's important coming from our committee that we also recommend

00:28:00.720 --> 00:28:04.760
 that. And personally, it's very, very important to me. I don't know about the rest of the

00:28:04.760 --> 00:28:10.880
 committee, but it's something that I hold very dear. Thank you, Bo.

00:28:10.880 --> 00:28:18.040
 Okay. Other members' thoughts about... Yes. Mr. Hudspeth, and then I thought... Yes. Go

00:28:18.040 --> 00:28:28.480
 ahead. Willie. Did you have your hand up, Willie? Go right ahead.

00:28:28.480 --> 00:28:31.440
 Turn your mic on, Willie.

00:28:31.440 --> 00:28:34.920
 All right. There you go.

00:28:34.920 --> 00:28:40.840
 If we're looking at voting and looking at this statement here and thinking in terms

00:28:40.840 --> 00:28:47.880
 of what we're going to give to the city council, and it has to be something that generally

00:28:47.880 --> 00:28:57.520
 covers all aspects of transparency, I think the statement covers all that. What we're

00:28:57.520 --> 00:29:03.800
 getting into now is some specific things that we want to add to that process. But as far

00:29:03.800 --> 00:29:11.760
 as giving the city council something to look at that we have sent to them and said, "Consider

00:29:11.760 --> 00:29:17.720
 this." I think two is okay. The other, we got to do something else in a different situation,

00:29:17.720 --> 00:29:22.080
 but I think we just need to call for the vote to see what the rest of the committee members

00:29:22.080 --> 00:29:28.120
 think about. Does this cover, in essence, the issue of transparency?

00:29:28.120 --> 00:29:34.560
 Okay. Thanks, Willie. Did anybody else have thoughts? Yeah, Yancey, I think you have your

00:29:34.560 --> 00:29:35.560
 hand up.

00:29:35.560 --> 00:29:43.160
 I don't know if I'm just reading it incorrectly, or maybe you can clarify for it. On the line

00:29:43.160 --> 00:29:47.640
 where it says, "Just a summary of information on complaints filed against police officers

00:29:47.640 --> 00:29:53.360
 for improper use of force in their disposition," if we're going to put that language in there,

00:29:53.360 --> 00:29:58.560
 I think this should be all complaints for all use of force as opposed to just the improper

00:29:58.560 --> 00:30:04.200
 use of force where the officer was disciplined. Because in my opinion, as an officer, if we're

00:30:04.200 --> 00:30:10.640
 only going to publish a report where discipline was added, they're not showing on the report

00:30:10.640 --> 00:30:16.560
 where force was actually necessary and the officer's done the right thing. So we're going

00:30:16.560 --> 00:30:20.080
 to do it for improper use of force. As an officer, I would like to see it on there for

00:30:20.080 --> 00:30:25.200
 all use of force complaints, not just the improper one.

00:30:25.200 --> 00:30:33.080
 Okay. Other thoughts about that? Support for that?

00:30:33.080 --> 00:30:34.960
 I agree. I agree with that.

00:30:34.960 --> 00:30:41.760
 Chief, I don't know how, what your thoughts are about that. If that's two sides of the

00:30:41.760 --> 00:30:45.620
 same coin, essentially, how comfortable you are with including --

00:30:45.620 --> 00:30:49.600
 It's captured in the use of force report and the data that we presented to the committee.

00:30:49.600 --> 00:30:52.640
 So it's already manufactured. That's fine.

00:30:52.640 --> 00:30:53.640
 Okay.

00:30:53.640 --> 00:30:54.640
 Yeah.

00:30:54.640 --> 00:31:00.080
 Thanks. Thanks, Chief. So to Yancey's point, it sounds like while it is covered for emphasis,

00:31:00.080 --> 00:31:05.880
 to include complaints filed against officers for improper use of force in their disposition,

00:31:05.880 --> 00:31:10.760
 along with some language about all use as a force. So it's covering the entire spectrum

00:31:10.760 --> 00:31:15.560
 of that. We'll make sure and polish that language up, Yancey, and it be included for next week's

00:31:15.560 --> 00:31:20.120
 consideration. But that's the spirit, I think, of what you're looking for. Is that correct?

00:31:20.120 --> 00:31:25.120
 I think, Yancey, if we struck out improper and just said use of force, would that --

00:31:25.120 --> 00:31:31.880
 That's fine. Just the word "improper" would make it seem like only for disciplinary and

00:31:31.880 --> 00:31:32.880
 --

00:31:32.880 --> 00:31:35.960
 Okay. That's a very good point.

00:31:35.960 --> 00:31:44.000
 Okay. Thanks, Yancey. Okay. So with that one change, deleting the word "improper," the

00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:51.720
 rest of the language is intact. If you want to call for a vote now to see if it prevails

00:31:51.720 --> 00:31:58.000
 the way the language is, you know, some of this is a little bit of -- there's a little

00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:05.680
 bit of an ebb and a flow to this about the content of the recommendation. And adding

00:32:05.680 --> 00:32:09.800
 things on -- and this is the delicate side of a group setting, even if we were physically

00:32:09.800 --> 00:32:15.280
 all in the same room. The delicate side is when a few people bring things up, but nobody

00:32:15.280 --> 00:32:20.200
 else says anything, as a facilitator -- remember, I'm not a moderator. I'm a facilitator to

00:32:20.200 --> 00:32:25.160
 say, okay, well, I don't hear a lot of other comments to support their assertion, their

00:32:25.160 --> 00:32:28.760
 recommendation. So that leads me to believe there may not be support. I'm just interpreting

00:32:28.760 --> 00:32:35.960
 that. And to have a vote, if it passes, great. If it doesn't, they can have another discussion.

00:32:35.960 --> 00:32:41.120
 But I don't want to make the assumption because a few people made suggestions that we're going

00:32:41.120 --> 00:32:43.880
 to change the language of the recommendation, right? That's the delicate side. We're kind

00:32:43.880 --> 00:32:49.720
 of wordsmithing this in real time. So that's why I need people to step forward about whether

00:32:49.720 --> 00:32:53.160
 you want to have the vote, whether you want to have some additional language, what Pam

00:32:53.160 --> 00:32:59.160
 and some others have talked about. I need some feedback here before we just sort of

00:32:59.160 --> 00:33:04.000
 have a vote. And this is delicate, right? We're trying to incorporate your points of

00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:09.600
 view at the same time, not continually add and add and add, which may not reflect the

00:33:09.600 --> 00:33:12.600
 majority. And then some people go, well, I like number two, but I don't like number three.

00:33:12.600 --> 00:33:18.160
 And then it tends to be just -- well, I think it drains your energy. So I saw a couple of

00:33:18.160 --> 00:33:22.480
 hands up. I'm just trying to put that out there for you to consider. If we can put your

00:33:22.480 --> 00:33:27.920
 hands back up. I'm sorry I may have missed it. John, go right ahead. And then Katina

00:33:27.920 --> 00:33:35.940
 and then Willie. >> Very briefly, I think to address Pam's

00:33:35.940 --> 00:33:44.640
 concern are the points you brought up. It's not bad that something from a person of leadership

00:33:44.640 --> 00:33:52.360
 to confirm the sanctity of human life is good, irregardless of the setting. And then the

00:33:52.360 --> 00:33:56.920
 other item that Deansi brought up that we should remove the word improper, those are

00:33:56.920 --> 00:34:03.200
 my two suggestions. >> Okay. Thanks, John. Katina and then Willie.

00:34:03.200 --> 00:34:13.000
 Willie, go ahead. >> I think you're right. If we start putting

00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:19.240
 little bits and pieces in it, we'd be here just discussing one part or the other. I think

00:34:19.240 --> 00:34:26.120
 the essence of what is there is where it needs to be at this point. One -- but with that,

00:34:26.120 --> 00:34:36.480
 with Deansi's point, I thought was good, he -- we do need to not just look at the negatives.

00:34:36.480 --> 00:34:43.080
 But if we're looking at lethal force as an issue, then we say the report should cover

00:34:43.080 --> 00:34:51.600
 all forms of lethal force. And I said we need to just -- and also, again, let's not start

00:34:51.600 --> 00:34:56.480
 bringing in just little points. >> Okay.

00:34:56.480 --> 00:35:03.040
 >> I think we ought to have the vote now. >> Okay. Other comments? This is a bit of a

00:35:03.040 --> 00:35:11.060
 balancing act, right? Why don't we go ahead and take -- Pam, go ahead.

00:35:11.060 --> 00:35:15.920
 >> I appreciate Willie's comment very much, but I don't think the sanctity of human life

00:35:15.920 --> 00:35:25.320
 is a -- I think it's critical. So I hold that to the highest esteem. So while I appreciate

00:35:25.320 --> 00:35:31.040
 Willie's comment, I think it's something that we do need to consider. And I appreciate Mr.

00:35:31.040 --> 00:35:37.920
 Bain's comment and support and Katina's support in this. So I do think it needs to be considered

00:35:37.920 --> 00:35:42.320
 further. >> Okay. Willie, did you have your hand up

00:35:42.320 --> 00:35:47.800
 again? I thought I saw that. >> Yes, yes. You know, this is a back and

00:35:47.800 --> 00:35:54.640
 forth I'm talking about. I didn't say that we don't -- the sanctity of life is not important.

00:35:54.640 --> 00:36:01.300
 I'm talking about the report itself. It covers all of that. And if you want something specific,

00:36:01.300 --> 00:36:10.480
 this is not the place or the time for that. Something that -- in that situation. And I

00:36:10.480 --> 00:36:19.200
 resent being said to me that I don't honor the sanctity of life. So here we are in that

00:36:19.200 --> 00:36:25.600
 situation again. We do need to hear from the rest of the people and how you mis-iterate

00:36:25.600 --> 00:36:31.360
 from the rest of the people. Let's vote. >> Hold on one second. These issues as we get

00:36:31.360 --> 00:36:36.080
 into this, as you've had all along through these meetings prior to my participation and

00:36:36.080 --> 00:36:41.080
 right now, you're all passionate about that. We take that on face value. You're all volunteering

00:36:41.080 --> 00:36:46.360
 to be on this committee, bringing your time, attention, effort and energy to this. I think

00:36:46.360 --> 00:36:49.960
 we also want to make sure that we maintain some professional collegiality among all of

00:36:49.960 --> 00:36:53.600
 you because these are issues that are coming from the heart sometimes. And it's easy for

00:36:53.600 --> 00:36:57.840
 people to just mis-interpret or misunderstand. And we're trying to -- and even if we were

00:36:57.840 --> 00:37:01.960
 all in the same room, we would also have those delicacies. So I would just ask that we're

00:37:01.960 --> 00:37:09.120
 trying to understand people's points of view, show that empathy and understand a whole lot

00:37:09.120 --> 00:37:14.120
 about a group of people about how they handle disagreement because stress reveals character.

00:37:14.120 --> 00:37:17.000
 And you're all in agreement. It doesn't show us a whole lot. It does about the content

00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:20.720
 of what you're recommending, but sometimes when you don't. So I'm just asking for your

00:37:20.720 --> 00:37:25.180
 cooperation, your being collegial and professional. That way -- I'm not trying to -- I'm not taking

00:37:25.180 --> 00:37:28.840
 sides here, but just as a good reminder about how we have these conversations. Because you

00:37:28.840 --> 00:37:33.280
 all -- these are -- a lot of these things are near and dear to people's hearts and they're

00:37:33.280 --> 00:37:38.580
 passionate about that. And we love that passion. It's trying to do that in a way that's collegial

00:37:38.580 --> 00:37:41.880
 and collaborative. So I just offer that as a perspective. Bo, you've had your hand up

00:37:41.880 --> 00:37:47.680
 for a while and then Pam? >> Yeah, I just wanted to know from the committee,

00:37:47.680 --> 00:37:52.640
 is anybody against, under transparency and accountability, recommending the first one,

00:37:52.640 --> 00:37:57.280
 but then also adding the second one that says we recommend to the council that in the case

00:37:57.280 --> 00:38:06.320
 of deadly use of force, there be a statement made reaffirming the sanctity of life and

00:38:06.320 --> 00:38:10.920
 our commitment to transparency and accountability. That's just -- it seems like that's what Pam's

00:38:10.920 --> 00:38:16.560
 recommendation is. And is anybody on the committee against that? Adding that recommendation right

00:38:16.560 --> 00:38:19.760
 under the one that Willie's affirming is good to go?

00:38:19.760 --> 00:38:27.360
 >> Rhonda? Did you have your hand up, Rhonda? We can't hear you, Rhonda. And then I'll get

00:38:27.360 --> 00:38:29.640
 to you, Pam. I know you had something. >> That's fine.

00:38:29.640 --> 00:38:35.740
 >> Rhonda, you're -- unmute yourself. >> We're not exactly sticking to Robert's

00:38:35.740 --> 00:38:39.920
 rules of order, but let me suggest we fall back on them for a moment. There's no reason

00:38:39.920 --> 00:38:44.320
 why it was just suggested. It couldn't be seen as a friendly amendment. It doesn't require

00:38:44.320 --> 00:38:47.600
 a vote. It doesn't require anything other than just adding a few words, and then we

00:38:47.600 --> 00:38:53.500
 call the question. >> Okay. Thanks, Rhonda. Pam, you had something?

00:38:53.500 --> 00:38:58.560
 >> Mr. Willie, I was not intending to insult you, and I just wanted to say that. I apologize

00:38:58.560 --> 00:39:03.480
 if I did, because in no way was I intending to insult you, sir. I have utmost respect

00:39:03.480 --> 00:39:08.680
 for you, and I didn't mean to insult you at all. I was just -- I just wanted to discuss

00:39:08.680 --> 00:39:13.800
 it now, because I feel like it is the appropriate time. So I just wanted to apologize if I insulted

00:39:13.800 --> 00:39:18.000
 you. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Okay. Why don't we do it this way, just

00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:23.160
 for the sake of moving this forward? I appreciate all your comments. I'm going to, to Rhonda's

00:39:23.160 --> 00:39:28.940
 point, offer -- I'm going to include here, for the sake of the voting, a friendly amendment

00:39:28.940 --> 00:39:37.680
 to include that when there's a -- the passing, the death of someone, or even a serious matter,

00:39:37.680 --> 00:39:42.800
 including along those lines, that the Chief Dixon, the police department, elected officials

00:39:42.800 --> 00:39:47.400
 are strongly encouraged to make a public statement about the sanctity of human life and show

00:39:47.400 --> 00:39:51.560
 some acknowledgement publicly of that. Is that correct? I'm trying to paraphrase kind

00:39:51.560 --> 00:39:56.400
 of what you were getting at. In other words, it's not just for -- it's not for the media

00:39:56.400 --> 00:40:00.680
 to -- like John was saying, it's not just for the news media to report. It's for the

00:40:00.680 --> 00:40:05.200
 city to essentially be on point for that and make a statement about that, in particular

00:40:05.200 --> 00:40:09.400
 about the sanctity of human life, without necessarily discussing the merits of what

00:40:09.400 --> 00:40:12.320
 happened, even though that's what people will want to know. We know that, right?

00:40:12.320 --> 00:40:13.320
 >> Absolutely. Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

00:40:13.320 --> 00:40:18.720
 >> So something of that language. So I'm going to go ahead and include that and take a vote

00:40:18.720 --> 00:40:23.720
 if that's okay with everybody, so we can keep moving forward. Okay? So now that everybody

00:40:23.720 --> 00:40:27.600
 can hear me, I'll go ahead and take over the roll call vote. Thanks, Sarah. And just -- so

00:40:27.600 --> 00:40:31.740
 if you're voting yes, you're voting yes to support the language that I read earlier,

00:40:31.740 --> 00:40:35.960
 as well as what I just kind of cobbled together, that the Friendly Amendment about the sanctity

00:40:35.960 --> 00:40:40.120
 of human life -- and again, that will be in the report -- if that passes, then that would

00:40:40.120 --> 00:40:43.560
 be in the report. Angela? >> I just want to make sure I understand

00:40:43.560 --> 00:40:45.080
 what we're voting on. >> Yes.

00:40:45.080 --> 00:40:50.760
 >> You said the number two, but are we saying with the inclusion or removal --

00:40:50.760 --> 00:40:54.960
 >> Yes. With the inclusion of the Friendly Amendment about a public statement regarding

00:40:54.960 --> 00:40:59.680
 the sanctity of human life after an issue. >> I'm talking about removing the word "improper."

00:40:59.680 --> 00:41:05.080
 >> Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. You caught that. Yes. And "improper." Okay? So let me just

00:41:05.080 --> 00:41:09.800
 restate that. You're voting on transparency and accountability. The one recommendation

00:41:09.800 --> 00:41:17.120
 there that has deleted the word "improper" and we've added some language to be worked

00:41:17.120 --> 00:41:24.040
 out as a Friendly Amendment regarding a public statement shall be made by city officials

00:41:24.040 --> 00:41:29.240
 after an incident in the passing or regarding the sanctity of human life. Something along

00:41:29.240 --> 00:41:34.080
 those lines. I hope I captured the spirit of that. Okay? That's what you're voting

00:41:34.080 --> 00:41:39.160
 on. So let's go ahead and start. A yay vote means this would be included as a recommendation.

00:41:39.160 --> 00:41:45.240
 No means that you don't. You don't support it. So I'm just going to go alphabetically

00:41:45.240 --> 00:41:49.720
 here. John Baines? >> I support the recommendation with the

00:41:49.720 --> 00:41:52.360
 Friendly Amendments. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's what you're

00:41:52.360 --> 00:41:56.280
 all voting for. So please don't say I voted for without it, okay? That's what you're voting

00:41:56.280 --> 00:42:00.240
 for. All of you right now are voting with it to delete the word "improper" and add the

00:42:00.240 --> 00:42:06.400
 Friendly Amendment. That's the vote. Jamel? >> I vote yes.

00:42:06.400 --> 00:42:09.800
 >> Okay. Cedric? >> Yes.

00:42:09.800 --> 00:42:16.640
 >> Cameron? Is Cameron here? No? >> Absent.

00:42:16.640 --> 00:42:22.000
 >> I'm sorry if I mispronounced this. Kamyen? Connor?

00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:28.000
 >> Kamyen is also not on the call yet. >> Cheryl?

00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:40.400
 >> Yes. >> Yancey? Yes? Pam Gutierrez? Pam, yes, of

00:42:40.400 --> 00:42:52.520
 course. Gary? Anderson? >> Yes. >> Willie? Hudspeth? >> Yes.

00:42:52.520 --> 00:42:57.280
 >> Bo Hughes? >> Yes.

00:42:57.280 --> 00:42:59.520
 >> Rhonda? >> Yes.

00:42:59.520 --> 00:43:02.520
 >> Chevionne Moore? Hope I didn't mispronounce that.

00:43:02.520 --> 00:43:09.000
 >> She is also absent. >> Absent. Okay. Travis?

00:43:09.000 --> 00:43:21.800
 I don't know if he froze or -- are you there, Travis? I'll come back to you, Travis. Maybe

00:43:21.800 --> 00:43:27.780
 your camera froze. Lillian? I think she had voted yes for the original language that she

00:43:27.780 --> 00:43:42.720
 said in the e-mail. Angela? >> Yes. >> Katina? >> Yes.

00:43:42.720 --> 00:43:54.440
 >> Donna had voted I think yes in her e-mail for the original language. And Jamie? I think

00:43:54.440 --> 00:43:58.000
 -- >> Jamie is absent. >> And then I think Travis

00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:06.320
 rejoined us. Travis? >> Yes. >> Voting yes. So it was unanimous yeses

00:44:06.320 --> 00:44:10.560
 including that friendly amendment so we'll work on that language for you just to review

00:44:10.560 --> 00:44:17.840
 at some point likely at the next meeting, okay? Does that sound good? All right. The

00:44:17.840 --> 00:44:23.080
 next one is about the civilian yes or no on the civilian oversight. What we thought would

00:44:23.080 --> 00:44:29.680
 be beneficial here, trying to also be respectful of people's time is to give people the option

00:44:29.680 --> 00:44:34.920
 of offering a point of view about the civilian oversight board. And I was going to just try

00:44:34.920 --> 00:44:39.000
 to go alphabetically to keep it simple. Just offer a brief statement, your thoughts to

00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:44.520
 share. Once you wrap that up, I'd like for hopefully that to be brief, is to then ask

00:44:44.520 --> 00:44:50.440
 for a yes or no vote. Do you consider -- or should the committee consider any of the options

00:44:50.440 --> 00:44:57.040
 yes or no? If the number of votes is the majority yes, then we'll go on to the next vote, which

00:44:57.040 --> 00:45:03.560
 is of those options, which are your top two. And we can have those discussions as well,

00:45:03.560 --> 00:45:07.960
 right? And again, we may not get to the final vote tonight. Some of this is about time.

00:45:07.960 --> 00:45:10.800
 And I hope that you can understand the reason we're asking for your top two because I'm

00:45:10.800 --> 00:45:15.500
 afraid if we ask you just to vote for your top one, everyone will get two or three votes.

00:45:15.500 --> 00:45:20.080
 And then we're -- that's not making any progress. Then we're right back to where we started,

00:45:20.080 --> 00:45:24.720
 which is you got to be somewhat -- you got to prioritize there. So does that sound good

00:45:24.720 --> 00:45:30.000
 for the sake of the discussion? All right. So on this, what I'd like to do is just ask

00:45:30.000 --> 00:45:34.360
 for each of you, if you'd like, it's up to you, to offer a brief statement about what

00:45:34.360 --> 00:45:38.720
 you see about the civilian oversight board. You're not voting, but just offer a perspective

00:45:38.720 --> 00:45:44.920
 maybe to share with your colleagues about the value of it or just where you are on it,

00:45:44.920 --> 00:45:50.040
 right? Just your thoughts about it. I hope that's okay. And so I wanted to just go alphabetically

00:45:50.040 --> 00:45:53.600
 and start with you, Mr. Baines, if you would start us off. Just a brief statement.

00:45:53.600 --> 00:46:01.280
 >> Okay. I need just a point of clarification. So I'm looking at this matrix here, and it

00:46:01.280 --> 00:46:05.040
 has one, two, three, four, five options. >> Correct.

00:46:05.040 --> 00:46:09.400
 >> And you're asking us for our top two? >> Not yet. No. What are you asking for right

00:46:09.400 --> 00:46:14.440
 now? Let me just repeat. What we're asking for right now, no voting yet. If you'd like

00:46:14.440 --> 00:46:17.840
 to make just a general statement about your point of view about the civilian oversight

00:46:17.840 --> 00:46:21.940
 board, that's cool. If you say, hey, I'm good, and just move on to the next person. We just

00:46:21.940 --> 00:46:26.240
 thought we'd give everybody a chance to offer a perspective. Then when we finish those,

00:46:26.240 --> 00:46:30.600
 we're going to have a vote. And the vote will be, do you support the committee even considering

00:46:30.600 --> 00:46:35.160
 any of those options? We didn't want to make the assumption that everybody supports even

00:46:35.160 --> 00:46:39.080
 having a recommendation. We didn't want to make that assumption. So we wanted to give

00:46:39.080 --> 00:46:43.660
 people a chance to vote yes or no. Do you have it? Then if there's the majority of those

00:46:43.660 --> 00:46:48.280
 that support having an option, then we'll move on to what are your top two choices?

00:46:48.280 --> 00:46:57.920
 >> Patrick, there needs to be an opportunity for some citizen involvement. How that looks,

00:46:57.920 --> 00:47:01.840
 you know, I'm going to chime in later. But I do think there needs to be some citizen

00:47:01.840 --> 00:47:17.080
 involvement. Thank you. We've lost your audio, Patrick. >> Okay. Am I back? Okay. Jamell?

00:47:17.080 --> 00:47:27.160
 >> Yes, you're back. >> Okay. Thank you. All this technology. Jamell?

00:47:27.160 --> 00:47:37.200
 >> As far as the oversight committee goes, it's sort of hard for me to think of citizens

00:47:37.200 --> 00:47:46.720
 just joining in and saying what they think they know about situations other than what

00:47:46.720 --> 00:47:58.680
 the officers are trained to do. So I'm a little in between on this right now. So we're going

00:47:58.680 --> 00:48:03.280
 to -- >> Okay.

00:48:03.280 --> 00:48:09.960
 >> He froze. >> Yeah. I think we lost you there. Yeah,

00:48:09.960 --> 00:48:19.000
 you're back. >> He froze again. He did the willy again.

00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:23.920
 >> I'm sorry. >> That's okay. That was to all of us. So

00:48:23.920 --> 00:48:28.840
 you were sharing that you're a little -- you're not sure you're a little ambivalent. Anything

00:48:28.840 --> 00:48:35.400
 else to share, Jamell? >> I can't hear you guys. Can you hear me?

00:48:35.400 --> 00:48:42.400
 >> Yes. >> Okay. You can hear me. Okay. Like I said,

00:48:42.400 --> 00:48:49.080
 I just have some more -- I have to do some more thinking about what part the civilian

00:48:49.080 --> 00:48:57.040
 oversight committee will hold -- how they will be interactive with the police department

00:48:57.040 --> 00:49:06.920
 with this. So that's my thoughts. >> Okay. Thank you. Cedric? Cedric with us?

00:49:06.920 --> 00:49:17.800
 Did we lose Cedric? I don't see him. I'll move on. Maybe he'll join us, rejoin us. Cameron

00:49:17.800 --> 00:49:34.800
 is out. Cheryl? >> I'm here. You know, I'm at option one, a part-time monitor, because

00:49:34.800 --> 00:49:40.720
 I don't think we have enough incidents or a bigger department, a big department to have

00:49:40.720 --> 00:49:52.960
 a full-time person. Where we are with community -- I'm just a little hesitant about community

00:49:52.960 --> 00:50:01.240
 involvement because it takes certain points of expertise in policing, and I'm just not

00:50:01.240 --> 00:50:11.720
 there with that. But the monitor, yes. >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Cheryl. Yancey,

00:50:11.720 --> 00:50:15.760
 your thoughts, please. >> I have a couple of thoughts about it. We

00:50:15.760 --> 00:50:21.320
 just voted on number two, which was transparency, so we're going to be more transparent so the

00:50:21.320 --> 00:50:26.960
 citizens will have a chance to see, like, really what's going on. And like what was

00:50:26.960 --> 00:50:33.160
 just mentioned by Madam Chair and as well as Jamil, as far as citizens being on it,

00:50:33.160 --> 00:50:38.560
 they're going to have to have some type of training or something to even know the line

00:50:38.560 --> 00:50:43.240
 of work or the reasoning behind situations occur. It's just like being a judge. You got

00:50:43.240 --> 00:50:51.520
 to be an attorney before you can be a judge. If we do go along the lines of a civilian

00:50:51.520 --> 00:50:57.520
 review board, our civilian review committee, I know the citizens want to be a part of that.

00:50:57.520 --> 00:51:04.080
 However, in my opinion, I believe the citizens will also be upset when some of the information

00:51:04.080 --> 00:51:10.800
 that they are requiring or wanting, they're not allowed to see it by law. So therefore,

00:51:10.800 --> 00:51:17.040
 more along the lines of option one or option two for the monitor, that way they are falling

00:51:17.040 --> 00:51:22.360
 directly under the city manager of the chief who does have access. However, as the chief

00:51:22.360 --> 00:51:28.400
 mentioned before, and as well as other topics, in Denton, we really just don't have that

00:51:28.400 --> 00:51:34.080
 many incidents to go on. So is that even going to justify the cost of having somebody on

00:51:34.080 --> 00:51:38.720
 retainer or something like that along those lines? So that's where I'm at on it right

00:51:38.720 --> 00:51:41.760
 now, but it's just more talking to be done.

00:51:41.760 --> 00:51:49.240
 Okay. All right. Thanks, Yancey. Pam? Before you get started, Pam, just to let you know,

00:51:49.240 --> 00:51:55.680
 Patrick, Cedric did, he is on a bi-phone. Okay. We'll come back. Okay. Pam, can we

00:51:55.680 --> 00:52:05.160
 go ahead? Yeah, why don't we go to Cedric. Yeah. Cedric, go ahead. Cedric, are you there?

00:52:05.160 --> 00:52:16.480
 You're muted. He shows that, there you go. I'll wait for Ms. Pam to speak and then I'll

00:52:16.480 --> 00:52:23.080
 speak out to her. Okay. Thanks, Cedric. Pam? Thank you, Cedric. I do think we need a citizens

00:52:23.080 --> 00:52:30.320
 committee. I think they can be trained, but I am concerned about the cost because chief

00:52:30.320 --> 00:52:35.960
 has said we don't have enough incidents to have a full-time monitor. So, I mean, I thought

00:52:35.960 --> 00:52:42.600
 about number one, but then I thought about number five. So, I mean, again, I'm concerned

00:52:42.600 --> 00:52:49.800
 because I don't want to incur more costs for the city. So maybe a part-time monitor. I

00:52:49.800 --> 00:52:58.040
 think, you know, maybe I need more education as to what we need, but I do think we need

00:52:58.040 --> 00:53:03.760
 it. I think we need citizen involvement and I do think we need it. Okay. Thanks, Pam.

00:53:03.760 --> 00:53:12.640
 Cedric? I don't think that we have enough incidents to actually have an oversight committee

00:53:12.640 --> 00:53:19.460
 and then to spend unnecessary money on the monitor. Just a question, could we consider

00:53:19.460 --> 00:53:27.360
 using this same use of force committee without creating a whole other committee? And if anything

00:53:27.360 --> 00:53:39.800
 is needed, just actually use this committee that's already been created. I'm not sure

00:53:39.800 --> 00:53:44.880
 who wants to field the response to that question. Todd, I don't know if you want to. Yeah, I

00:53:44.880 --> 00:53:50.880
 certainly can. This is more of an ad hoc committee. The idea would be that it would be disbanded

00:53:50.880 --> 00:53:56.880
 after the recommendation report to council. That being said, I don't think there's anything

00:53:56.880 --> 00:54:03.640
 wrong with some kind of an annual report to be tied in to kind of check that box. It's

00:54:03.640 --> 00:54:09.800
 something the chief's already offered to do. But I think if anything's possible in terms

00:54:09.800 --> 00:54:14.080
 of establishing a committee, I think that's something that we could talk to the council

00:54:14.080 --> 00:54:19.140
 about the long run. But this one had a very short life on it in terms of just getting

00:54:19.140 --> 00:54:24.440
 through this report. But what that committee looks like down the road, if we want to sit

00:54:24.440 --> 00:54:28.840
 down in this kind of a venue, we can kind of change that recommendation if you want

00:54:28.840 --> 00:54:38.840
 to. Thanks, Todd. Thank you, sir. I'll let you hold my vote at this time. Yeah, and absolutely.

00:54:38.840 --> 00:54:41.720
 You're not voting right now. We're just trying to get your thoughts. We'll go back through

00:54:41.720 --> 00:54:46.680
 the whole list for the vote, yes or no, on whether you want to even consider some type

00:54:46.680 --> 00:54:52.960
 of civilian oversight without declaring which one. So thank you, Cedric and Pam. Gary, you're

00:54:52.960 --> 00:54:59.320
 up next. Thank you, Patrick. I think last week, Michael Kroening proved to us that there's

00:54:59.320 --> 00:55:04.840
 expertise within the city to provide viable solutions. I think number two, transparency

00:55:04.840 --> 00:55:10.320
 and accountability. And number three, civilian oversight really do go hand in hand with each

00:55:10.320 --> 00:55:16.280
 other and reinforce each other. I have tremendous trust in city staff to present a solution

00:55:16.280 --> 00:55:23.200
 that's both cost effective as well as transparent, accountable, and provides an additional level

00:55:23.200 --> 00:55:38.280
 of civilian outside of the chain of command oversight. Okay, thanks, Gary. Willie? I don't

00:55:38.280 --> 00:55:49.880
 think that an oversight committee, for me, is necessary. And one of the examples of two,

00:55:49.880 --> 00:55:57.000
 the chief seems to, he's a little different than most chiefs you've even had here in Denton

00:55:57.000 --> 00:56:07.000
 and chiefs that I see around the metro plants, in that he seems to be very honest and forthright.

00:56:07.000 --> 00:56:13.680
 He just comes out with what he thinks is what we should do. He tells me. So I don't see

00:56:13.680 --> 00:56:21.360
 the need for an oversight committee if that's happening. And so in the one example, we had

00:56:21.360 --> 00:56:25.600
 one demonstration, somebody was yelling that they couldn't file a report, they couldn't

00:56:25.600 --> 00:56:31.400
 file a report, and he was there. He was in front of the police department. He took that

00:56:31.400 --> 00:56:38.960
 person inside right then into the police station, helped them file a report, and then the person

00:56:38.960 --> 00:56:44.400
 came out with the report in a hand. So we got that kind of leadership. Why would we

00:56:44.400 --> 00:56:49.520
 need someone looking over his shoulder to tell him what's going on or ask him what's

00:56:49.520 --> 00:56:54.800
 going on? He's never refused to tell me what's going on. I just go ask him. So I don't see

00:56:54.800 --> 00:57:02.120
 the need. Okay. Thanks, Willie. Bo? Yeah, I think some sort of, you know, recommending

00:57:02.120 --> 00:57:06.320
 the council some sort of additional layer of transparency and accountability would be

00:57:06.320 --> 00:57:13.640
 wise. You know, like many of you, I'm sort of ambivalent back and forth between these

00:57:13.640 --> 00:57:19.620
 five options that we were given and even whether or not, you know, is there a difference between

00:57:19.620 --> 00:57:24.280
 the citizen involvement or panel on number four and number two and three? So until I

00:57:24.280 --> 00:57:29.960
 get some of those questions clarified, it's harder for me to recommend one of them in

00:57:29.960 --> 00:57:38.800
 particular, even a hybrid of them. But I think at least what I've sensed and heard from Todd

00:57:38.800 --> 00:57:44.480
 and Chief Dixon is just there's been benefit to this sort of citizen engagement at this

00:57:44.480 --> 00:57:48.000
 sort of level, especially as you guys have equipped us to think through some things from

00:57:48.000 --> 00:57:52.920
 a citizen perspective, but also connected in with what we didn't know about the police

00:57:52.920 --> 00:57:59.240
 department. And so in some form or fashion, I think that would be fruitful to continue

00:57:59.240 --> 00:58:05.680
 on and promote into the future. But the form of it I'm not as clear on. Okay. All right.

00:58:05.680 --> 00:58:17.080
 Thanks, Bo. Next person up is Rhonda. I don't think I've ever been as ambivalent about a

00:58:17.080 --> 00:58:22.400
 public policy proposal in my entire life. I think a lot of that is, I don't think we

00:58:22.400 --> 00:58:29.320
 should spend the money for a police monitor. I think we're very fortunate in having Chief

00:58:29.320 --> 00:58:36.280
 Dixon or anyone who might be like him. So I have a lot of trust in that the right thing

00:58:36.280 --> 00:58:45.000
 will be done. I think I appreciate exactly what Yancey said about you need to know the

00:58:45.000 --> 00:58:55.760
 job. On the other hand, there are many people who are expert in conflict resolution who've

00:58:55.760 --> 00:59:02.160
 never been police officers. And I think they ought to be listened to and how that listening

00:59:02.160 --> 00:59:08.520
 should be put into a form. I truly, I don't know, but I think we need to keep talking

00:59:08.520 --> 00:59:25.720
 about this. How's that? Okay. Thanks, Rhonda. It seemed like Camion. So after Rhonda, I'm

00:59:25.720 --> 00:59:31.480
 not sure. Somebody just joined us. I couldn't catch the person's name. Hey, it's me. It's

00:59:31.480 --> 00:59:36.240
 Camion. Sorry. Oh, there you are. Okay. That's okay. North Texas Giving Day and my job has

00:59:36.240 --> 00:59:45.800
 a lot of stuff going on. Okay. Okay. So we'll come back to you. Okay, Camion. We'll go back

00:59:45.800 --> 00:59:51.920
 through the alphabet. Okay. And so Chevion Moore, was that? He was absent. He was absent.

00:59:51.920 --> 01:00:06.760
 Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Travis. Okay. So I'm kind of feeling the same way

01:00:06.760 --> 01:00:13.280
 that many of the others before me have said. I just don't know what this committee, the

01:00:13.280 --> 01:00:23.040
 oversight committee would look like. One of my main concerns, like I mentioned last week,

01:00:23.040 --> 01:00:32.400
 was if this committee were to be created, I do feel that there should be, it should

01:00:32.400 --> 01:00:38.000
 at least consist of members that do have some kind of background or knowledge in the profession,

01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:49.920
 in the job field, to be able to pass judgment on what it is that police officers do. And

01:00:49.920 --> 01:00:56.280
 I think I was looking over the, I was looking over the other agencies that we were presented

01:00:56.280 --> 01:01:01.480
 with from last week. And I think one that kind of caught my eye was the San Antonio

01:01:01.480 --> 01:01:09.840
 model because they, according to their model, it had like half civilian and half law enforcement

01:01:09.840 --> 01:01:16.400
 background. So of any type of committee, if it were to be an oversight committee, I think

01:01:16.400 --> 01:01:25.640
 I would be leaning more towards that type of model. And yeah, I mean, that's just my

01:01:25.640 --> 01:01:31.440
 biggest thing, just making sure that people are educated and have some kind of knowledge

01:01:31.440 --> 01:01:37.800
 of the field and what goes on other than just to have civilians that may or may not have

01:01:37.800 --> 01:01:46.440
 any knowledge and just go on their good or their feelings at the current situation.

01:01:46.440 --> 01:02:00.480
 Okay. Thanks, Travis. Lillian is not here. Well, Angela?

01:02:00.480 --> 01:02:08.560
 I do think you can bring a group of people together who don't all have law enforcement

01:02:08.560 --> 01:02:18.440
 background and that group can support the efforts of the police. I don't see this as

01:02:18.440 --> 01:02:24.240
 a group against the police or passing judgment on the police, but a group of professionals

01:02:24.240 --> 01:02:28.880
 that are able to bring a different lens or perspective when you're looking at a particular

01:02:28.880 --> 01:02:39.200
 situation. And in that sense, I would like to see some type of civilian committee work

01:02:39.200 --> 01:02:46.920
 in collaboration with the police department. While I agree with everyone that Chief Dixon

01:02:46.920 --> 01:02:53.240
 is doing an amazing job for the city of Denver, he may not always be here or he may. And so

01:02:53.240 --> 01:02:58.520
 we really shouldn't make our decisions based on him sitting in that seat because one day

01:02:58.520 --> 01:03:04.600
 it could be somebody else sitting in that seat who maybe doesn't present themselves

01:03:04.600 --> 01:03:12.880
 or have the same unifying properties that our current chief has. So from that perspective,

01:03:12.880 --> 01:03:19.500
 I would like to see some type of civilian oversight committee considered. I definitely

01:03:19.500 --> 01:03:25.920
 agree that there would need to be some training for that committee. But I think a group of

01:03:25.920 --> 01:03:33.200
 professionals with a variety of professional qualities could be of support to the police

01:03:33.200 --> 01:03:37.920
 department in that oversight role. That's my thought.

01:03:37.920 --> 01:03:42.960
 Okay. Thanks, Angela. Katina?

01:03:42.960 --> 01:03:52.360
 I think that it needs to be a combination of one, two, and three. Basically, I'm thinking

01:03:52.360 --> 01:04:05.000
 an annual audit review where if anyone on the committee determines that or basically

01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:11.280
 wants to inquire about an issue, then it can be reviewed. But also I think that defendants

01:04:11.280 --> 01:04:17.280
 should be able to, or a defendant advocate, whether it was a family member or an attorney,

01:04:17.280 --> 01:04:24.660
 should be able to request it after all of the other complaint protocols have been exhausted.

01:04:24.660 --> 01:04:31.860
 So I'm sure that there is some type of protocol for complaints for citizens. But after that's

01:04:31.860 --> 01:04:39.140
 been exhausted, because that would fall under just the regular duties of the police department.

01:04:39.140 --> 01:04:44.920
 So once those that have been exhausted and the defendant would want to request an audit,

01:04:44.920 --> 01:04:55.680
 then it would fall to this committee, which is a combination of officers, those who are

01:04:55.680 --> 01:05:03.320
 knowledgeable of law, as well as citizens. But yeah, so does that make sense?

01:05:03.320 --> 01:05:06.080
 Okay. Everybody?

01:05:06.080 --> 01:05:08.560
 Thanks Katina. Thank you.

01:05:08.560 --> 01:05:12.440
 Dawn is not here. Jamie's not here. So I'm going to go back through the alphabet because

01:05:12.440 --> 01:05:21.360
 we had some people that joined us. Let's see. Cameon. So I'm not sure if you caught the

01:05:21.360 --> 01:05:26.560
 discussion here is to just offer a brief statement about your point of view about the civilian

01:05:26.560 --> 01:05:30.560
 oversight board. Once we get through everybody, then we're going to have a vote on whether

01:05:30.560 --> 01:05:34.800
 or not yes or no, the group wants to even consider a recommendation, and then we'll

01:05:34.800 --> 01:05:38.840
 have another vote about the top two choices by each committee member. So right now it's

01:05:38.840 --> 01:05:42.560
 just about a brief statement about your thoughts about a civilian oversight board, and you're

01:05:42.560 --> 01:05:43.960
 on Cameon.

01:05:43.960 --> 01:05:50.160
 I'm ready to be on. Though I have missed some of the discussion, I'm trying to see these

01:05:50.160 --> 01:06:03.120
 hybrids. Okay. So I think that a combination of probably two, three and five or something

01:06:03.120 --> 01:06:09.880
 like that. I need to look at it a little bit more, but I am leaning, not even leaning.

01:06:09.880 --> 01:06:16.160
 I adamantly think that we need a community oversight board. I am, if there's a vote,

01:06:16.160 --> 01:06:23.920
 I'm going that direction. I think one of the main reasons for me is because in listening

01:06:23.920 --> 01:06:29.400
 from the folks at DPD on these calls, one of the things they have really wanted to do

01:06:29.400 --> 01:06:34.640
 is find a way to bridge the gap between what's happening at the police department and with

01:06:34.640 --> 01:06:43.240
 the community members, and I think that this is an actual way you can do that. I think

01:06:43.240 --> 01:06:52.200
 I sent some recommendations about the oversight board, like 20 bullet points or something.

01:06:52.200 --> 01:06:57.760
 I don't feel that law enforcement necessarily has to be on the committee to engage with

01:06:57.760 --> 01:07:04.960
 the committee. I think that there is a way that there can be an advisor from law enforcement

01:07:04.960 --> 01:07:13.840
 that's not necessarily a committee seat person. And yeah, I think, and I say that because

01:07:13.840 --> 01:07:19.000
 the research that we heard said that all the advisory boards that people have, they don't

01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:26.040
 have police involvement. So I think it would be difficult to create something that doesn't

01:07:26.040 --> 01:07:31.360
 already exist, but I believe in Denton, and my goal is for us to have a community oversight

01:07:31.360 --> 01:07:37.480
 board. And if that means that we have to figure out a way for the DPD to work with the community

01:07:37.480 --> 01:07:42.520
 oversight board, then I think that that's necessary. I think that folks could, from

01:07:42.520 --> 01:07:54.440
 the community, could be very much capable of making decisions, synthesizing data, understanding

01:07:54.440 --> 01:07:59.280
 what's being given to them. I use this committee as an example. Many of us came here without

01:07:59.280 --> 01:08:05.240
 very much working knowledge about DPD, the policies, the complaint process, and all of

01:08:05.240 --> 01:08:09.920
 that. We were able to understand it and make great suggestions and recommendations that

01:08:09.920 --> 01:08:14.000
 the police department's already been implementing. So I think that this could be an extension

01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:19.640
 of that. I agree with Angela that we can't just think about the community oversight board

01:08:19.640 --> 01:08:26.160
 from a perspective of Denton doesn't need it now because we don't know what could happen.

01:08:26.160 --> 01:08:30.320
 I say at my job, what if I got abducted by aliens? Because I'm not trying to put any

01:08:30.320 --> 01:08:35.040
 bad karma out there on myself. So what if I got abducted by aliens? What if Chief Dixon

01:08:35.040 --> 01:08:39.960
 was abducted by aliens? Who's going to fill the role? How do we ensure that the next person

01:08:39.960 --> 01:08:44.600
 that comes in uplifts the legacy that he's created? Is what it sounds like folks on this

01:08:44.600 --> 01:08:50.360
 committee really are leaning into. So I think that this is something that we could frame

01:08:50.360 --> 01:08:55.400
 for the betterment of Denton throughout history moving forward. That's not just about right

01:08:55.400 --> 01:09:00.900
 now and the time we're in. It's for much more than that. And I want us to think forward

01:09:00.900 --> 01:09:05.120
 more than that about our kids, grandkids, children that we don't even know are going

01:09:05.120 --> 01:09:09.960
 to exist in this town and the ways that we can support those with a community oversight

01:09:09.960 --> 01:09:19.080
 board. So I think those are my main thoughts. Thanks, Camion. And I think, Lillian, I think

01:09:19.080 --> 01:09:24.280
 you were the person we missed the first time around. Yes, thank you. Of course. Apologies

01:09:24.280 --> 01:09:28.480
 for being late, but I was listening since the beginning of the meeting. I just want

01:09:28.480 --> 01:09:34.680
 to say, Camion pretty much said everything that I feel. I was sad to hear all the comments

01:09:34.680 --> 01:09:39.480
 about people thinking that someone has to have a background in policing to be able to

01:09:39.480 --> 01:09:43.520
 serve on such a committee. I am in favor of creating an oversight committee. I think we

01:09:43.520 --> 01:09:48.560
 desperately need it. I think not just for the police department, but just for the community

01:09:48.560 --> 01:09:55.280
 in general. But I echo everything that she just said. I trust Chief Dixon wholeheartedly.

01:09:55.280 --> 01:10:01.080
 But like she mentioned, I mean, we don't know what can happen. Even the conversation about

01:10:01.080 --> 01:10:06.680
 the press release is early or the press conference is in line. It's not just for the family of

01:10:06.680 --> 01:10:11.640
 the victim. It's for the community at large. I do want to just echo what I said last week.

01:10:11.640 --> 01:10:15.080
 I think people that are going to be appointed to this committee, obviously, there's going

01:10:15.080 --> 01:10:20.000
 to be a list of qualifications, a list of recommendations of people. And just like we

01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:23.520
 trust our city council, like we trust our school board, people that don't have a background

01:10:23.520 --> 01:10:28.360
 in education, but are serving in that capacity, people can still learn and still serve. I

01:10:28.360 --> 01:10:32.320
 am not in favor of the police monitor. In my opinion, that's just another person that

01:10:32.320 --> 01:10:35.400
 works for the police department. That's another person that's on payroll. And so what's the

01:10:35.400 --> 01:10:38.160
 point of that? The whole point that we're trying to make is that we're trying to bring

01:10:38.160 --> 01:10:43.460
 people from the outside, the community, to represent the voices of the community that

01:10:43.460 --> 01:10:48.200
 are not always heard. And so my vote is definitely going to be for an oversight committee. And

01:10:48.200 --> 01:10:55.800
 I'm leaning towards five and two. Okay. Did I miss anybody on that round? Okay, so now

01:10:55.800 --> 01:11:01.080
 we're going to take Rhonda. Yeah, I don't know if this is a point of order information,

01:11:01.080 --> 01:11:08.400
 but you know, I think we're using different words that are conceptually and practically

01:11:08.400 --> 01:11:16.120
 different. I hear oversight, advisory, community connections, all of these things going on.

01:11:16.120 --> 01:11:20.760
 And I see those as all very different. So while we're thinking about this, I think we

01:11:20.760 --> 01:11:26.080
 need more clarity in our own minds about what we're talking about. Thank you.

01:11:26.080 --> 01:11:35.560
 Thanks, Rhonda. Comments about Rhonda's point there, and maybe to reflect on your presentation

01:11:35.560 --> 01:11:39.360
 last week, Bo? Yeah, I mean, that was kind of the question

01:11:39.360 --> 01:11:43.400
 I brought up earlier about, or at least I was trying to, what Rhonda did was better

01:11:43.400 --> 01:11:48.720
 than what I'd said. But the citizen panel, what's the difference? And Mr. Cronin, maybe

01:11:48.720 --> 01:11:53.280
 you can speak to this or whoever had a hand in putting this together. But like the difference

01:11:53.280 --> 01:12:02.200
 between the citizen panel on number four, and then the citizen advisory board, and then

01:12:02.200 --> 01:12:06.220
 the citizen panel on number two and three, like what's the difference between those?

01:12:06.220 --> 01:12:13.320
 They're all citizen involved, but is it a different function? What's the same? What's

01:12:13.320 --> 01:12:20.060
 different about those three citizen groups? Sure. On number two, that was specifically

01:12:20.060 --> 01:12:27.680
 created by the San Antonio, excuse me, police meet and confer agreement, where they created

01:12:27.680 --> 01:12:34.040
 it as part of the police department. I think the panels that we're talking about would

01:12:34.040 --> 01:12:39.000
 not be part of the police department, would not report directly to the chief. They would

01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:44.320
 be separate and independent. So that's really what the difference, when I use the word advisory

01:12:44.320 --> 01:12:50.680
 board to the chief, I was talking as really kind of a part of the department, whereas

01:12:50.680 --> 01:12:55.880
 the other boards are totally independent of the police department. Does that clarify it

01:12:55.880 --> 01:13:00.160
 a little better? Yeah. So number three, could you do the same thing? So what would number

01:13:00.160 --> 01:13:08.400
 three be then? Who would they report to? Who would they connect to? And number four. Yeah,

01:13:08.400 --> 01:13:13.200
 the annual audit would be the police department would just do an annual audit and we could

01:13:13.200 --> 01:13:20.040
 have a citizen panel or citizen participation as part of that audit. So if the chief wanted

01:13:20.040 --> 01:13:25.760
 to put together a 10 person panel to do an audit of the department, he could include

01:13:25.760 --> 01:13:31.880
 some civilians on that. So that would be part of the police department, but just having

01:13:31.880 --> 01:13:39.660
 some citizen volunteers to participate as panel members. And then number four. Number

01:13:39.660 --> 01:13:45.920
 four is what Austin has right now, which is a hybrid where they have a police monitor

01:13:45.920 --> 01:13:51.140
 who was actually a city employee that reports to the city manager. And then they have a

01:13:51.140 --> 01:14:01.880
 citizen panel that you just see here. They are selected by, they just put it into place.

01:14:01.880 --> 01:14:10.600
 So actually I don't have it right in front of me, my PowerPoint from last week, but they

01:14:10.600 --> 01:14:17.080
 are not city employees. I believe they're either appointed by the council or the city

01:14:17.080 --> 01:14:24.560
 manager. I just don't remember offhand which reporting to the police. No, they make recommendations

01:14:24.560 --> 01:14:30.240
 to the chief, but they are totally separate and not part of the police department. So

01:14:30.240 --> 01:14:37.480
 that's kind of a hybrid model that has a city employee as well as a citizen panel. So the

01:14:37.480 --> 01:14:42.720
 citizen number four is not the exact same as the citizen panel on number five though.

01:14:42.720 --> 01:14:48.120
 Sorry, that's my last. No, because number five would be just a panel only, no police

01:14:48.120 --> 01:14:54.880
 monitor at all. And the police monitor in Austin, for example, kind of helps guide the

01:14:54.880 --> 01:15:01.440
 panel when the panel does reviews, the monitors kind of like the facilitator. So it's a hybrid

01:15:01.440 --> 01:15:07.080
 kind of system. But the panel itself and number four, if they didn't have the monitor, which

01:15:07.080 --> 01:15:10.240
 I know is part of the point, that's what makes a difference. But that panel would be very

01:15:10.240 --> 01:15:17.120
 similar to number five. Yes. According to the police, it's yes. The panel, the citizen

01:15:17.120 --> 01:15:25.800
 panels on number two and three are very similar and on four and five. Yes. Okay. Very helpful.

01:15:25.800 --> 01:15:29.240
 Okay. Unless there's other questions, I'm going to go ahead and take a roll call voice

01:15:29.240 --> 01:15:35.680
 vote on this vote is only about whether or not you think that your committee should can

01:15:35.680 --> 01:15:41.480
 options. So you're not voting on which numbers should go yes or no, but you're supporting

01:15:41.480 --> 01:15:45.240
 yes means you think the group should vote on these different options for a civilian

01:15:45.240 --> 01:15:50.280
 oversight board, whatever that looks like. A no vote means you don't support the group

01:15:50.280 --> 01:15:53.680
 even voting for it. Okay, we're trying to give people the option. We didn't want to

01:15:53.680 --> 01:15:58.320
 make the assumption that everybody wants one. That was as evident by the comments that we've

01:15:58.320 --> 01:16:04.920
 heard. Okay. So yes means you agree to have the next vote, which will be you make some

01:16:04.920 --> 01:16:09.840
 two choices, but you're not doing that now. Just right now is only yes or no. Yes. You

01:16:09.840 --> 01:16:16.260
 think the committee should vote for a particular option on the survey oversight board. No means

01:16:16.260 --> 01:16:24.120
 there's no more voting. You're not going to consider it. Okay. Is that clear? Yes. All

01:16:24.120 --> 01:16:42.440
 right. John, you're first up. John Baines. Yes. Jamal. No. Cedric. No. Cameron's not

01:16:42.440 --> 01:16:59.880
 here. Camion. Yes. Cheryl. No. Yancey. Oh, I'm sorry, Yancey. Oh, okay. Thanks, Yancey.

01:16:59.880 --> 01:17:29.240
 Pam. Yes. Gary. Yes. Willie. No. Bo. Yes. Rhonda. Yes. Chevion's not here. Travis. Yes. I'm

01:17:29.240 --> 01:17:53.640
 sorry. No. Lillian. Yes. Angela. Yes. Katina. Yes. And Donna Diamond. Donna, she'd voted

01:17:53.640 --> 01:18:01.200
 yes, right, Sarah? Yeah, which she had emailed in. And then Jamie, we did not know. So I've

01:18:01.200 --> 01:18:17.800
 got to say 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I count 10 yeses and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 nos.

01:18:17.800 --> 01:18:22.760
 So majority would say we move on to the next vote, which are you're selecting your top

01:18:22.760 --> 01:18:29.680
 two options. Try to keep to two, right? Not you like 1 and 2, 3, 4 and 5, and those are

01:18:29.680 --> 01:18:35.800
 your two options. We're trying to be somewhat clear here to vote for your top two options.

01:18:35.800 --> 01:18:39.680
 You don't have to prioritize them like my first vote, my second vote, just your top

01:18:39.680 --> 01:18:45.520
 two. We're trying to make a cut here. This is about some editing, windowing it down because

01:18:45.520 --> 01:18:50.000
 I'm afraid if we have all five options and you make you vote for one, I think we'd get

01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:55.320
 five with five votes or five with four votes or what have you. So I'm going to ask to go

01:18:55.320 --> 01:19:01.160
 through this again. You've discussed it. What are your top two options? Okay. Just two votes,

01:19:01.160 --> 01:19:06.200
 your top two options. Okay. We'll see if we can window it down some to a smaller number.

01:19:06.200 --> 01:19:19.160
 That's what we're trying to do. John, you're up first. Patrick, words are very important.

01:19:19.160 --> 01:19:29.880
 So I'm struggling with the word and let me tell you why. Committee, please forgive me.

01:19:29.880 --> 01:19:37.160
 I don't know if anybody has my particular background, but I was trained to fight in

01:19:37.160 --> 01:19:50.920
 Vietnam. Okay. So that was a hard experience. I ended up in Germany and I was in Munich

01:19:50.920 --> 01:20:00.360
 during the 1972 Olympics when they had the terrorists overtake the Olympics and the soldiers

01:20:00.360 --> 01:20:07.240
 were called in. I was one of the soldiers there who had to be on the offensive. And

01:20:07.240 --> 01:20:17.560
 the reason I mention all this is because for me to come in and tell a police officer, I

01:20:17.560 --> 01:20:24.560
 mean, I don't do their job every day. So I don't like the word oversight, but I think

01:20:24.560 --> 01:20:29.640
 there needs to be some type of involvement in police activity. So I thank you committee

01:20:29.640 --> 01:20:34.440
 for allowing me to have that preface. Okay. So I don't like the word oversight, but to

01:20:34.440 --> 01:20:42.040
 be involved somehow is what I'm looking at. So with that being said, I would have as an

01:20:42.040 --> 01:20:52.800
 option, please forgive me here to see. It would probably be number four or number five.

01:20:52.800 --> 01:21:08.240
 All right. Jamel. Thanks, John. I would go with number three or number four. Okay. Cedric.

01:21:08.240 --> 01:21:31.200
 Are you there? We'll come back to you, Cedric. Camion. I'm going to have to go with number

01:21:31.200 --> 01:21:42.500
 two or number four. Okay. Two and four. Remember you're selecting two. Okay. Yeah. All right.

01:21:42.500 --> 01:22:02.040
 Thanks, Cheryl. I would say number one and number two. Okay. Yancey. I'm going to have

01:22:02.040 --> 01:22:15.600
 to go with definitely number one for one, but one and two. Okay. Thanks, Yancey. Pam.

01:22:15.600 --> 01:22:33.040
 Two and five. Gary. Two, please. I'm sorry. One and two. One and two. Okay. I missed you.

01:22:33.040 --> 01:22:52.880
 Willie? Pass. Okay. Bo? Four or two. Rhonda? Two and four, but I feel very strongly about

01:22:52.880 --> 01:22:59.840
 the use of the language. Are we talking about advisory or oversight? It's a big deal. Okay.

01:22:59.840 --> 01:23:21.000
 Let's see. Travis? Number two. Okay. Yeah. Just number two. Okay. Let's see. Lillian,

01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:25.280
 I think you had voted earlier, right? You had sent us an email with number two and five.

01:23:25.280 --> 01:23:44.840
 Do you want to keep that? Okay. Yes. All right. Angela? Two and four. Katina? Two and three.

01:23:44.840 --> 01:23:51.480
 Donna had voted number five. She voted by email. I'm going to go back up here. Cedric?

01:23:51.480 --> 01:24:00.880
 Number one and two. Has everybody had a chance to vote now? Did I miss anybody? Cheryl, do

01:24:00.880 --> 01:24:03.920
 we want to take a quick 10 minute break and I'll tally up the votes and come back and

01:24:03.920 --> 01:24:07.160
 see where we are. I know people have been sitting now about 90 minutes. Yeah, that'll

01:24:07.160 --> 01:24:18.760
 be fine. Okay. So 10 minutes of biology break. Yes. All right. Go ahead. All right. Thanks,

01:24:18.760 --> 01:24:24.840
 Cheryl. I'm pretty good at counting that down. Thank you. Okay. So we're back live here.

01:24:24.840 --> 01:24:28.120
 So let me give you the tally of the votes. It may have been difficult for you to capture.

01:24:28.120 --> 01:24:33.200
 I'm just going to go by each option and share with you what the number of votes were. Number

01:24:33.200 --> 01:24:39.080
 one, the police monitor received four votes. Number two, the advisory board to the chief

01:24:39.080 --> 01:24:44.600
 received 12 votes. That was the top vote getter. Number three, the annual audit with citizen

01:24:44.600 --> 01:24:49.720
 participation report to the council by the chief received two votes. Number four, the

01:24:49.720 --> 01:24:55.200
 hybrid was the second leading vote getter that had six votes, which was monitor and

01:24:55.200 --> 01:25:00.000
 a citizen panel that is not part of the police department. And number five, community panel

01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:04.880
 only received four votes. So the top vote getter, if you have that matrix out, you might

01:25:04.880 --> 01:25:09.160
 want to circle that just for the sake of discussion here. The top vote getter was number two with

01:25:09.160 --> 01:25:15.240
 12 votes, and the second top vote getter was number four with six votes. And then there

01:25:15.240 --> 01:25:19.880
 was a break between four and two votes. Now, this is what I would recommend to move forward

01:25:19.880 --> 01:25:25.780
 since we have some momentum is that now it's to vote on your top choice. And I would consider

01:25:25.780 --> 01:25:29.560
 that only number two and four are the options that you're considering since those are the

01:25:29.560 --> 01:25:39.040
 top two vote getters. We're trying to win on this down. Number two and four, and you'd

01:25:39.040 --> 01:25:43.920
 vote for only one of those. And then we would see how the vote breaks. If there's a majority,

01:25:43.920 --> 01:25:48.040
 it might end up being a tie. We just don't know. But I think it's important that you

01:25:48.040 --> 01:25:53.000
 give best you can a recommendation included in your report to the council for them to

01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:59.000
 consider. If all of the options are there as we that that's not really practical for

01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:04.060
 them to consider, you're trying to winnow it down. So if the group is okay with considering

01:26:04.060 --> 01:26:08.840
 option two and four, and your opportunity here is to vote for just one of those, and

01:26:08.840 --> 01:26:14.020
 you would share with me as we do the final vote, which one do you favor for the group

01:26:14.020 --> 01:26:20.240
 to consider as its recommendation? Understanding that some of the language here is not perfect,

01:26:20.240 --> 01:26:25.500
 polished and packaged. It is what it is at this moment. It's trying to, you know, reflect

01:26:25.500 --> 01:26:31.240
 intent and conversations you've all had and practical application the way was discussed

01:26:31.240 --> 01:26:37.220
 Michael discussed last week. So unless I hear any objections otherwise, I'm just gonna start

01:26:37.220 --> 01:26:46.400
 on this. That's good. Sure. I'm sorry, Lillian. Go ahead. I was just gonna ask. So because

01:26:46.400 --> 01:26:51.480
 you said that four and five are two two votes away right from each other. Six and four,

01:26:51.480 --> 01:26:57.240
 Lillian? No, no, no. Number four has six votes. That's the second leading vote getter. Right.

01:26:57.240 --> 01:27:01.760
 And number five had four votes. Right. Okay. But the only difference between four and five

01:27:01.760 --> 01:27:05.760
 is that four has a monitor attached to it. And five is without the monitor, but still

01:27:05.760 --> 01:27:16.360
 the panel, right? Um, can you repeat that, Lillian? I'm sorry. Four is basically like

01:27:16.360 --> 01:27:21.280
 number five, but it has a monitor attached. Number four does include the monitor. Correct.

01:27:21.280 --> 01:27:25.600
 Okay, but number five is just like number four, except without the monitor. That's the

01:27:25.600 --> 01:27:31.000
 way I understand. Is that right, Michael? Yes. Okay, so my only my my only suggestion

01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:35.480
 of why we would include number five as a voting option would be because if council decides

01:27:35.480 --> 01:27:40.040
 that they like the option, but they don't want to attach a cost and the cost of the

01:27:40.040 --> 01:27:44.160
 monitor, then I would like them to be given an opportunity to say, Okay, I like number

01:27:44.160 --> 01:27:47.340
 four, but we don't want to allocate money towards it. So we want to go with the number

01:27:47.340 --> 01:27:55.800
 five, which is the panel advisory, right? I was going to say number one Lillian also

01:27:55.800 --> 01:28:02.100
 had four. And it's the same as number four option four, except that it doesn't have the

01:28:02.100 --> 01:28:11.480
 citizen panel. We just but we just voted that we do want citizen input. Right. Yeah, I'm

01:28:11.480 --> 01:28:22.280
 just I'm I'm clear on my mind around it with you is what I'm Yeah. Yeah. I'd like the option

01:28:22.280 --> 01:28:30.040
 to include number five. I think also at first glance, I assumed a hybrid could be a mix

01:28:30.040 --> 01:28:36.680
 of a couple of these things. And with a closer look at the monitor, which I don't necessarily

01:28:36.680 --> 01:28:42.600
 think the city needs, I would like the option to vote for an option that doesn't have a

01:28:42.600 --> 01:28:54.680
 monitor. Okay, I need to hear from some other people, right? Uh, Nancy, I think we've already

01:28:54.680 --> 01:28:59.600
 took a vote from the panel. So the vote has is carried. Everybody had their voice and

01:28:59.600 --> 01:29:09.840
 everybody had a vote. So now we're down to the run off, which is two options. Yeah, I

01:29:09.840 --> 01:29:13.760
 mean, if we're only gonna exclude number three, which only received two votes, you know, now

01:29:13.760 --> 01:29:18.840
 we're back to we have four options. And I'm not sure, you know, then we're gonna divide

01:29:18.840 --> 01:29:22.200
 and then everybody there's if several of them get three or four votes, you don't have a

01:29:22.200 --> 01:29:29.480
 recommendation. This is not a perfect process, right? I'm trying to be supportive of this.

01:29:29.480 --> 01:29:34.760
 I don't know, Todd, what your thoughts are that if they winnow it down to two, they only

01:29:34.760 --> 01:29:39.000
 consider two, but those that maybe didn't make the vote can be included in the report.

01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:45.440
 So counsel can see all of that. We will. We'll certainly have that record for them that these

01:29:45.440 --> 01:29:49.400
 five options were considered. The committee withered it down to these two. And we'll.

01:29:49.400 --> 01:29:56.680
 So we'll show them that thought process. So the information here would be included in

01:29:56.680 --> 01:30:01.560
 the final report, along with what the voting was and what your top selection was. So those

01:30:01.560 --> 01:30:05.920
 of you that are concerned that you know, and Council may mix and match these anyway, you're

01:30:05.920 --> 01:30:09.720
 trying to put your best foot forward with what you think this group will put your top

01:30:09.720 --> 01:30:14.720
 recommendation is. If it's a little of this, a little of that, a little of that, a little

01:30:14.720 --> 01:30:19.600
 of this, I think you dilute your whole recommendation where it's all over the place. We're just

01:30:19.600 --> 01:30:23.720
 trying to run. We're trying to be somewhat just go ahead, Todd. I think a couple of things

01:30:23.720 --> 01:30:29.240
 I've heard a couple of different things on the monitor. And first of all, that position,

01:30:29.240 --> 01:30:32.640
 the whole point of a monitor is it doesn't report to the police chief that would be reporting

01:30:32.640 --> 01:30:38.480
 to my office. So, so there isn't that there is that disconnect with the police department.

01:30:38.480 --> 01:30:44.360
 The second thing is, is given the caseload that we're talking about and with the monitor,

01:30:44.360 --> 01:30:49.760
 you're really not talking about a ton of money there. So anything in terms of saving money,

01:30:49.760 --> 01:30:54.080
 this is easily put in the budget if we decided to go that way. So I just wanted to disabuse

01:30:54.080 --> 01:30:59.200
 those two issues. We're not talking a lot of money to bring a police monitor on board.

01:30:59.200 --> 01:31:04.040
 There's with the workload here would probably somebody half time or you'd contract out when

01:31:04.040 --> 01:31:12.640
 the cases were necessary. Okay. Thanks, Todd, for that clarification. So I'm back to trying

01:31:12.640 --> 01:31:18.240
 to help the group window this down to your top recommendation. Yeah, John. I'm needing

01:31:18.240 --> 01:31:26.240
 a little clarification, please, because, you know, that that choice of words, I don't like

01:31:26.240 --> 01:31:33.480
 the word oversight, but I feel like the community wants to have an idea of what's going on and

01:31:33.480 --> 01:31:40.440
 also have some, some input, possibly sway. I don't know, but some input. So when you

01:31:40.440 --> 01:31:49.840
 look at these two options that are there, number two and number four, only number four has

01:31:49.840 --> 01:31:54.680
 citizen panel. What are those other people come from on number two? How are we getting

01:31:54.680 --> 01:32:02.520
 there? What are the people come from? I would say that's, I would think that's a process

01:32:02.520 --> 01:32:05.720
 that the council would decide about how they're going to be appointing board members, whether

01:32:05.720 --> 01:32:10.760
 they take applications, but Michael, you were going to say, yeah, and is was mentioned before

01:32:10.760 --> 01:32:17.000
 for the San Antonio version. I believe it's 14 members, seven of police officers, seven

01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:23.040
 of citizens. So council could determine that that's the type of makeup they want. So there

01:32:23.040 --> 01:32:30.880
 is the possibility of having citizens actually on the chief's advisory panel. Thank you for

01:32:30.880 --> 01:32:36.520
 that clarification.

01:32:36.520 --> 01:32:40.560
 And I think one other thing that probably needs to be pointed out to Mr. Bain's point

01:32:40.560 --> 01:32:47.080
 was on number two, you're talking about something that can be implemented today. We, there's

01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:53.320
 obviously tons of details work out option for requires significant negotiation and possibly

01:32:53.320 --> 01:32:57.680
 opening up the meet and confer contract. So that could be several months, if not years

01:32:57.680 --> 01:33:05.440
 out. So we tried to, we tried to basically, if you'd look at the require a change to 143,

01:33:05.440 --> 01:33:09.800
 those areas where you see a no means they can be implemented quickly. The yes is going

01:33:09.800 --> 01:33:16.600
 to take significant negotiation, possibly you've got 143 to deal with and also opening

01:33:16.600 --> 01:33:21.640
 up the meet and confer contract to even permit that committee to exist. So that's really

01:33:21.640 --> 01:33:27.200
 the big difference between two and four.

01:33:27.200 --> 01:33:36.240
 Good to see Patrick. So pardon me. I mean, may I offer a little suggestion here that the

01:33:36.240 --> 01:33:44.880
 weight would be towards the citizens rather than the police. Cause I think that's where

01:33:44.880 --> 01:33:49.200
 there's a desire there. And once again, I don't like the word oversight. I don't think

01:33:49.200 --> 01:33:54.640
 we can oversee people that do this job, but we do want to be in the loop. People want

01:33:54.640 --> 01:33:57.520
 to be in the loop. They want to know what's going on. They want to feel like they have

01:33:57.520 --> 01:34:04.120
 a voice at the table. So however we restructure the language to catch that thought is what

01:34:04.120 --> 01:34:09.560
 I think we need to do.

01:34:09.560 --> 01:34:20.000
 Okay. Comments. So I'm back to where when we can reconvene after the break, which is

01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:28.400
 to at least consider those top two and see how the vote shakes out. Unless people object,

01:34:28.400 --> 01:34:33.200
 we're going to proceed with that. So I'm going to go alphabetically. You're down to number

01:34:33.200 --> 01:34:39.000
 two and number four. And I would ask you to identify which one you favor you support as

01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:43.600
 the sole recommendation from this group from yourself. I'm sorry. We'll see where the numbers

01:34:43.600 --> 01:34:51.160
 shake out. Okay. We'll see how that works. Um, Mr. Baines, please start us off.

01:34:51.160 --> 01:34:58.320
 I will go with, uh, option number two with a heavy emphasis on the weighted for the citizen

01:34:58.320 --> 01:34:59.320
 input.

01:34:59.320 --> 01:35:03.920
 Okay. Thanks, Mr. Baines. Mr. Butler.

01:35:03.920 --> 01:35:15.380
 I will go with option number two. Okay. Mr. Chambers, is he still with us, Cedric? We'll

01:35:15.380 --> 01:35:23.840
 come back to Cedric. I don't see him right on. Maybe something got hung up. Uh, Ms. Connor.

01:35:23.840 --> 01:35:24.840
 Came me on.

01:35:24.840 --> 01:35:34.880
 I was trying to get off mute. I think I'm going with option four. Okay. Uh, Cheryl,

01:35:34.880 --> 01:35:50.760
 Miss English. Option two. Mr. Green. Option two. Miss Gutierrez. Option two. Mr. Anderson.

01:35:50.760 --> 01:36:11.800
 Option two. Mr. Hudspeth. Pass. Mr. Hughes. Option four. Love. Uh, two. Chevion's absent.

01:36:11.800 --> 01:36:24.320
 Mr. Nicholas Travis. You with it? There you are. Option two. Lillian. Four. Angela. Miss

01:36:24.320 --> 01:36:39.080
 Ricks. Two, please. Ms. Stone Butler. Katina. Four. Donna had recommended number five and

01:36:39.080 --> 01:36:50.080
 via email earlier today. And Jamie is absent. So I can't, um, Cedric, did you join us again?

01:36:50.080 --> 01:37:00.160
 Cameron is absent. So everybody give a chance to vote. Looks like it. So I have one, two,

01:37:00.160 --> 01:37:14.600
 three, four. Nine for number two and four for number four. Is that correct, Sarah? Is

01:37:14.600 --> 01:37:23.560
 that what you had? Yes, I believe so. Nine, nine for two. I'm sorry. Nine for two and

01:37:23.560 --> 01:37:29.800
 four for number four. So number two would see. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Would be the recommendation

01:37:29.800 --> 01:37:34.200
 of this committee, the advisory board to the chief, part of the police department with

01:37:34.200 --> 01:37:41.360
 the language spelled out there in the matrix, considering also Mr. Baines. And I'm assuming

01:37:41.360 --> 01:37:46.840
 just from the spirit of the conversation that maybe recommended the council that the board

01:37:46.840 --> 01:37:54.080
 members at least be considered about the composition of that board. Maybe it's not 50 50. Somehow

01:37:54.080 --> 01:38:01.080
 some some configuration to make sure there's community support and, um, and work out through

01:38:01.080 --> 01:38:09.800
 the mechanics of all that. So there were also whether one or two abstentions. Yes, I'm sorry,

01:38:09.800 --> 01:38:14.640
 Mr. Hudspeth abstained. And then we had some absence. We had some absences. Cameron was

01:38:14.640 --> 01:38:23.600
 not here. Chevion was not. And Jamie was not. We also had a number five that was from Donna.

01:38:23.600 --> 01:38:41.520
 So okay, so nine people voted for this. That's majority of people that voted. So that would

01:38:41.520 --> 01:38:48.760
 seem to be the recommendation. Cheryl, did you have some thoughts about this or want

01:38:48.760 --> 01:38:56.200
 to contribute there? No, I was trying to get a hold of Cedric to see what he was on. So

01:38:56.200 --> 01:39:08.000
 I don't know what happened. Yeah. So the purpose of tonight was try to winnow it down. I think

01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:13.480
 you made great progress. It was unanimous vote on the policy and training. I believe

01:39:13.480 --> 01:39:18.720
 it was unanimous vote transparency and accountability with some slight tweaking of the language.

01:39:18.720 --> 01:39:23.680
 And then there was a pretty strong vote 10 to 6 on the civilian oversight board. You

01:39:23.680 --> 01:39:29.760
 did your voting preferences, the top two, and then you selected as the top recommendation

01:39:29.760 --> 01:39:34.480
 number to the advisory board to the chief. And as Todd mentioned, the other options as

01:39:34.480 --> 01:39:38.800
 the part of the matrix will be included in the report that's forwarded to council. You

01:39:38.800 --> 01:39:44.600
 received the draft report from Sarah earlier today. The point of the meeting next week,

01:39:44.600 --> 01:39:49.240
 I believe, Sarah, you want to share sort of the focus of next week's meeting, if you would,

01:39:49.240 --> 01:39:53.800
 please? Sure. So as Patrick just mentioned, I can share it on my screen quickly so you

01:39:53.800 --> 01:40:00.280
 see it as well. But it did come through email. Staff has been working on drafting a report

01:40:00.280 --> 01:40:05.920
 that could really provide an overview of everything. This all of the work that the committee has

01:40:05.920 --> 01:40:11.800
 done, all of the topics and information that have been covered, as well as links and appendixes

01:40:11.800 --> 01:40:16.320
 so people can see all of the information that you received as well. Just trying to kind

01:40:16.320 --> 01:40:21.520
 of outline that. So staff has done that work, sent that by email this afternoon. If you

01:40:21.520 --> 01:40:25.680
 do see anything that's missing or if you have comments, please send those to me as quickly

01:40:25.680 --> 01:40:31.520
 as possible. But by Monday, if possible, we can always make some additions or changes.

01:40:31.520 --> 01:40:37.520
 But what we will do is following the recommendations made tonight, we will work on drafting the

01:40:37.520 --> 01:40:42.580
 findings and recommendations section, as well as allow the opportunity for the chair and

01:40:42.580 --> 01:40:48.060
 the police chief to include a message. So we'll have a final draft with both those sections

01:40:48.060 --> 01:40:53.080
 included to the committee by Monday. And then between Monday and Thursday morning, I would

01:40:53.080 --> 01:40:57.280
 ask if you have any feedback, if you could send that to me, and that will help with the

01:40:57.280 --> 01:41:03.760
 discussion for next week. Next week Thursday, the committee will vote on that final report

01:41:03.760 --> 01:41:10.040
 to deliver it to city council. And excuse me, Sarah, Patrick, I did get a hold of Cedric.

01:41:10.040 --> 01:41:19.640
 He had to jump off to another call. He voted for number two. Okay. So that would make that

01:41:19.640 --> 01:41:29.240
 10 votes for number two. Okay, thanks, Cheryl. Cheryl, did you have anything else for the

01:41:29.240 --> 01:41:34.520
 purposes of the meeting this evening, or is that a wrap? I think it's a wrap for tonight.

01:41:34.520 --> 01:41:39.840
 Okay. Unless Sarah has something else, but I think she already did her part. So we'll

01:41:39.840 --> 01:41:44.280
 be back again next week. We thank you all for your participation tonight. We know these

01:41:44.280 --> 01:41:48.960
 are matters that are near and dear to your heart, and these are significant to the community.

01:41:48.960 --> 01:41:54.040
 I thought your processing, your discussion was very collaborative, very professional.

01:41:54.040 --> 01:41:58.440
 And the voting process can be awkward. So I appreciate your courage to be able to put

01:41:58.440 --> 01:42:02.360
 your voice out there about which items you support. And that's what all communities need

01:42:02.360 --> 01:42:06.240
 is people that are willing to step forward like all of you are and put their voice to

01:42:06.240 --> 01:42:10.480
 the vote about what you believe is the next steps for the community. I know council appreciates

01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:14.400
 and I know staff does too, because communities are only as good as the people who choose

01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:19.200
 to participate. So your participation is valued and you're all volunteers. So I just wanted

01:42:19.200 --> 01:42:23.360
 to kind of applaud, you know, take my hat off to you for having these kinds of conversations

01:42:23.360 --> 01:42:27.800
 and winnowing through and indulging me on these processes, trying to make the voting

01:42:27.800 --> 01:42:32.840
 somewhat simple and straightforward so as not to muddy the water. So if I don't have

01:42:32.840 --> 01:42:36.680
 anything else, Cheryl, do you want to adjourn the meeting?

01:42:36.680 --> 01:42:37.680
 Meeting adjourned.

01:42:37.680 --> 01:42:40.040
 Thank you. All right. See you all.