Good evening. We are back. This is the city of Denton meeting agenda for the use of force
ad hoc committee tonight. The first items for consideration are the the minutes from last
week. If you've had an opportunity to look at the minutes, we'll need a motion to approve
with the second. So made. Motion. All those in favor, raise your hand. I motion carries.
The second is to receive a report, hold a discussion and develop findings, conclusions
and recommendations related to use of force in the Denton Police Department, including
policy and training, transparency and accountability and potential civilian oversight. And I think
right now this I'm going to turn this over to Patrick. And if you remember, Patrick was
here two weeks ago. And he's going to pretty much lead the discussion tonight. So there
you go, Patrick. Sure. Good evening, everyone. What we want to try to accomplish tonight
is fairly ambitious. And it's also part of your charge is to start doing some voting
to have a window down your priorities. And what we've done for the sake of kind of consolidating
is we've put some language together. Hopefully you received that email that Sarah sent out
earlier today that included a word document that was a memo drafted by me, along with
some city staff that encapsulated the background, the topics to be discussed tonight, including
the content of the recommendation. So we're going to be taking and hopefully if you have
that printed, great. If you have it up on your screen, great. If you don't, I can share
it. But I know that we're trying to make sure everybody sees everybody through this whole
process. We're going to take a series of votes. We're going to have an opportunity for discussion
as well. You've also had a number of meetings going back to June where you discuss these
items, all the different kind of the who's, the what's, the how tos, the different components,
the different dimensions. And now it's the time to kind of start to ship your idea, if
you will, and identify that language. I think there might be an opportunity we want to wordsmith
a little bit of the language tonight, but the gist of it, we want to try to keep as
reflective of the spirit of the majority of this group as possible. Assembling this is
a little bit like herding cats. So Sarah, I've met with all of you or several of you
prior to the September 1st meeting, she and some other staff members, they're just to
identify what you thought would be some solid recommendations. She's taking that language
and she and I have massaged that, that's what's in that memo that stated the City of Denton
Use of Force Committee draft memo dated yesterday, presented by me, the mayor on the group. Then
there's that language. And so here's kind of the way we thought it would work best tonight
is we're going to review each of those recommendations, if you wordsmith it a little bit, but not
spend an inordinate amount of time going back and hashing through things if this doesn't
fit perfectly the language that some one person wants. A part of this is we're trying to look
at the receptive to comments at the same time, look at this is somewhat of a majority rule.
And as we talked about voting, you know, there's different processes groups use, they use points
or colors or weighted. I think that complicates a simple process. We're just going to say
you either support it or you don't. And yes or no, and there'll be voice roll call votes.
And if the majority of the group votes for it, then we'll be included in the final report
which Sarah sent out a draft late this afternoon, that you're going to consider fully at your
next meeting, that would be included to the city council for their consideration. Remembering
your advising council and recommendations, right? That's always the challenge with appointed
boards, even boards and commissions, the city has a standing, their advisory. So the level
of authority is somewhat not as much as sometimes people would like. You're trying to offer
some recommendations for them to consider. And we know that sometimes council says thank
you. And they massage those recommendations more. Or sometimes they just say, we don't
like these recommendations. We don't know where that's going to play out here. But you're
trying to put your best foot forward, which I know you're all doing to volunteer to put
forth those recommendations. So we're going to look at each recommendation in and by itself,
discuss policy and training, and then go through alphabetically. And I have a roll call sheet
here in front of me. Do you support that? Do you not? Yes or no? Then we'll just tally
up the votes and I'll share with you the vote tally. Then we'll go through the second one,
transparency and accountability. Discuss that. Try to stay in the spirit of that. So I would
respectfully ask that people participate tonight but don't dominate. We're not trying to change
the gist of it. This really encapsulates the majority of what people shared in the conversation
they had with Sarah and staff a few weeks ago. We could wordsmith it some, but I think
we're just trying to find out balance. Does this capture the essence of what you want
as a recommendation? So those two votes we hope to knock out fairly quickly. Hopefully
I didn't just jinx us. And then the third one is a little bit more involved. We thought
it would be beneficial as you discussed the civilian oversight board. And I did watch
the video of the last week's meeting that we give you the opportunity to offer a perspective
just briefly as we go down the route alphabetically and find out if you yes or no, do you even
want to favor or offer a recommendation to city council for their consideration about
the civilian oversight board? In other words, we don't want to make the assumption that
this committee is definitely going to offer a recommendation. We just weren't sure. And
we know that issue has a lot of different buttons to it. A lot of different sort of
passion around that. So we want to give people a chance to, again, voice, roll call, voice
vote yes or no. Do you want to consider the option? We'll tally up those. And then we're
going to go into the next vote, hopefully the fourth one, which is of those six options,
which I hope you have that matrix handy. We're going to ask instead of trying to say, you
know, vote for the top, the top one, and then we may end up with five of them getting two
votes apiece. So that doesn't really serve us well. We're going to ask you to offer what
are your top two selections. Now, there might be a tendency as you get into these options
to kind of mix and match. We're going to try to avoid that. We don't want to try to dilute
the essence of each option. And remember, these are to recommend to the council for
their consideration. If you end up supporting a recommendation that's forwarded to the council,
they end up adopting some form of that recommendation. They may very well have it operationalized
by subcommittee of council or reconvene members of this group to actually work through the
details. Most often, as we know, these civilian oversight boards, there's a lot of moving
parts. It's a fairly protracted process, a lot of different viewpoints, a lot of different
options. We're not going to cover that even in the scheme of this committee from last
June up to this point. And we definitely aren't going to cover all of those sort of intricacies
and nuances tonight. We're trying to keep them somewhat separate and offer hopefully
one recommendation if that's the group's choice. So we're trying to keep this as simple as
possible, trying to narrow the focus. I hope you can appreciate that's where we are in
this process. That's where all groups have to sort of find themselves at some point is
to contemplate the options and vote yes or no, whether they support it. And that's why
we thought it would be beneficial for you to let you know that in advance. We've talked
about that previously because I know that can be sometimes uncomfortable for people.
But if we don't have a voice roll call vote, then I think we're left with everything's
a priority. And then I don't think that helps council process your recommendations. At some
point, they need to understand the level of support by the majority of this group. Okay.
So we try to make this process as simple as straightforward as possible. I appreciate
your patience and your persistence as we go through this.
Patrick, before you jump into that, I just want to let you know I don't I don't think
your headset is on. I think you're just talking. I just wanted to let you know the audio is
coming through from you, but it's not through the headset. It's just sounds like it doesn't
sound like it. It's you're still clear. I just wanted to point that out to you.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Oh, I thought it was I'll try to work on that. I apologize
for that. I've been on this all day. That's okay. We can still hear you. Okay. I believe
everyone on the committee. I just wanted to point that out to you. All right. Thank you.
I'll try to figure that out here. Maybe at the break or something. I apologize for that.
I'll get a little closer to the microphone here. Hey, Patrick. Will we have Smith has
a question? Yes. Mr. Ed Smith. I hope I pronounced that correctly. Yes. Am I understand if we
vote? If three doesn't pass, there's no need for four. Right? Isn't that correct? Yes,
sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. And that you're correct in that that if there's if
number three does not have a majority of the truth statement. You're breaking up there
a little bit, sir. I think what you're asking is we don't have to deal with four. Correct.
Yes, sir. That right? Yes. I believe what he was asking is if number three, if three
does not get the majority vote, we don't have to deal with four. Yes. Yes. He said yes,
Willie. Can you hear him? Well, I think there's some something going on with your audio because
you're breaking up and you're frozen. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're frozen. Yes. But
I didn't hear his answer. He said yes, said yes, sir. You're you're frozen. So I'm not
sure your audio is frozen. Okay. Yes, you were correct in what your statement was. Well,
never mind. He said he said yes, Willie, but you're frozen. So you're breaking up. Yeah.
So what did he say? If what I heard you saying was that if that number three, are you are
you hearing me now, sir? I'm not sure. He's frozen, at least from what I see. Okay, I'm
gonna get up. Okay. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments before we get started?
So if you have that memo handy, I'm just going to start on item one under the policy and
training. I'll read this aloud, if that's okay. And then if you want to have a brief
discussion, policy number one, policy and training. Does the committee have any recommendations
for updates to policy language or training regarding use of force? bullet point one.
After review, the committee felt that they could not offer any specific recommendations
or changes to policy. bullet point two, to continue emphasis on understanding and deescalating
situations, the police department should investigate continued opportunities for regular training
for officers on mental health, diversity and inclusion, inclusion, persons with physical
or intellectual disabilities, and LG, LGBTQ individuals. Such training should be balanced
to manage proper staffing for the department and other mandated trainings. The police department
should track and share general metrics on training encompasses a lot there about policy
and trading. Conversation about that comments, you talked about about this at length, about
the dashboard about the policy itself. You had several presentations on it. Chief Dixon
and his staff responded to questions. comments or questions before we take the vote? I'm
sorry, could you read it again? I for some reason, I really couldn't understand at the
very beginning, and I apologize, because it was, it's like an echo or something. Sorry.
So I'll reread it. Number item number one, policy and training. Does the committee have
any recommendations for updates to policy language or training regarding use of force
is the question. bullet point one. After review, the committee felt that they could not offer
any specific recommendations or changes to policy. Bullet point two, to continue emphasis
on understanding and deescalating situations. The police department should investigate continued
opportunities for regular training for officers on mental health, diversity and inclusion,
persons with physical or intellectual disabilities, and LGBTQ individuals. Such training should
be balanced to manage proper staffing for the department and other mandated trainings.
The police department should track and share general metrics on training. I hope that you
heard me that time. I think it was Katrina. I'm not sure. I'll answer questions about
that before we take a vote. Katina, I'm sorry, Katina, could you hear that? Yes, I can hear
it. And we're voting on that whole and part that everything that you just read is one
thing, Rick. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Oh, did you have your hand up? Yeah,
I just wanted to reemphasize, you know, in you know, where number one and two or number
two in particular can form number one. I brought that up a couple of times just where there's
opportunity along the way for the report that's going to be posted, you know, biannually,
where there's a clarity that, hey, this is a, this is something in regards to use of
force that we're learning, which may change over time that the police need to be more
trained in, you know, that comes out of number two, just that that would also inform number
one. Maybe that's assumed in the language there. And I'm missing it. I just, I just
wanted to say that, you know, again, I agree, because I'm trying to make sure that I understand
that if we're voting yes, we're voting that there needs to be changes. And if we're voting
no, there needs to be no additional changing changes and the statement of more training
and all of that stand. Is that correct? You're actually voting yes on the language that I
shared, that that would be included in the report as one of your recommendations. So
this is your, okay. Chief, I don't know if you wanted to address Bo's comment about the
biannual and number two and how you would kind of envision reporting that out.
So we already do an annual report, which we're going to continue. We go in front of council
and give them updated reports, but we're going to make a specific update that pertains to
everything that we have captured along the way here, moving forward. And you're going
to see those, we already look at every internal affairs investigation, ways to improve the
training behind what happened in it. No matter what it is, there's a training component,
whether it's individually to the officer, or if we think it's organizational, then we
send it out through the organization. Great. That's all I was, that's the only comment
I had. Any other comments or questions? I'm just
going to go alphabetically and if you're voting yes, that means you support what I read as
language in the final, you support that language that I read to include in the report that
you will be providing city council. And again, that's going to be discussed in more detail
the report itself at the next, at next Thursday's meeting.
And then Patrick, after we take this vote, we're going to take a quick break because
your headset is not working. So we can barely, I mean, we can hear you, but it's a, I don't
know if it is the mic or cause it sounds like you're just talking into your computer.
Sarah, maybe could you take this roll call vote so people can hear us? I'm sorry about
that. That's okay. Sure. Thank you very much. I apologize.
No problem. So this is for that number one, the policy
and training recommendations only. So we'll start with, and just going alphabetical by
last name, John Baines. I'm in favor of the language as it's presented.
Thank you. Jamel Butler. I vote for the policy for number one. Yes.
Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, pastor chambers, uh, Cameron combs. I do not see you on the
meeting, but I just want to make sure. Okay. Uh, camion Connor and just to let you know,
she did email and let me know she was going to be late to this meeting. So I don't believe
she's here yet. Uh, chair English. Yes. Yancey green. Yes. Pam. Yes. I'm in favor of the
language. Gary. Yes. Willie. Yes. Rhonda. Yes. Shay. Are you on the meeting? No, I do
not see Shay. Okay. Travis testing. Yes. I'm in favor. Okay. Um, and then Lillian is next
and she did email me and let me know that she may not be able to make it to the meeting
tonight. Um, but she did vote yes for this item. Um, so that's reflected and recorded.
Uh, Angela. Yes. Katina. Yes. Yes. Okay. And then, uh, Donna diamond Tyson is next and
she also emailed me and let me know she could not make it to this meeting. Um, but she was
a yes and in favor of this item. And then Jamie would be last and she is absent from
the meeting as well and it did not get her recommendations by email. So that is all the
members for the first item. Okay. Can you hear me better now? Okay. Great. Thank you
very much. Sorry about that. So many microphones, only one voice. Um, so that carried, I think
unanimously, I was trying to figure that out, but I thought I heard all yeses to that. Hey,
momentum. Let's talk that one up. Okay. So that's terrific. All right. Wonderful. Thank
you. Uh, moving on to number two and I'll read this aloud, uh, two is transparency and
accountability question. Does the committee have any recommendations to enhance reporting
of information to the public response or the recommendation is the police department shall
create a report that includes data on officer response calls where use of force was used
and summary information on complaints filed against police officers for improper use of
force and their disposition, including if the complaint was sustained and training was
recommended. This report shall be posted and presented online in a friendly, consumable
way. The frequency of the report shall be at least semi-annually where possible data
should be presented in a data dashboard format. You've discussed this at length about information
being provided in a way that is easy for people to consumable way, meaning that it's presented
for the public to process to understand that it's not so much in kind of a jargon, if you
will. And they would include that sort of information provided at least semi-annually
twice a year. Comments or questions about that? Uh, yes, Pam, it, I believe it falls
along these lines. When an event happens, um, I believe the public is seeking a compassionate,
help heartfelt response from Chief Dixon. Um, and I'm, I'm referring to when lethal
force occurs and not so much, um, speaking to the, you know, to the, if it's in relation
to what happened with the officer, but in relation to what happened with the person.
And I'm wondering if we can include some type of language or something where Chief Dixon
is willing to say something to the public and to the family, because I think sometimes
I hear that's missing and I feel like the public is asking for that. And I'd like to
discuss that tonight. Okay. Comments along that line and what Pam shared? I, what I hear
you saying, Pam, is this wouldn't be something included in the report per se. This is something
that you would recommend that the chief does during one of those incidents where when,
when something actually, an event happens and the response by the police chief to address
family, the family of those people that may be involved, expressing concern for the family
and the public, because I think it speaks volumes for the police force and for the chief
to express that concern, because I think that that's what I've heard is lacking from our
police force that we're not showing concern. And I think it's something that possibly needs
to be in the report. Maybe not, but I'd like to hear the viewpoint of others on that. Katina,
it looks like you have your hand raised. Thank you. Just a quick question. Sure. Is it required
that, is that, is it protocol for when families, when there is force or from, and a death is
the, is the result of force or, you know, by the police, are they required to notify
the family? I just want to know, understand the protocol and do they do it in person?
Do they attempt to go to their home? Do they call them on the phone? Just what the standard
protocol is. Thank you. Okay. Before I give chief Dixon a chance to response, hold on
one second, chief, if you would. John, you had your hand up. Just wanted to see if that
was related to that. Yes, I did want to respond to Pam's observation. It seems that the more
the officials can greet the public and express concern and rather than just allowing the
newspaper to communicate or the news, I think it adds a little more personalness when the
chief or the city official makes an official statement and expresses some empathy. So somehow
that does need to be incorporated. Thanks, John. Chief Dixon, do you want to respond
to the comments that were shared by committee members? Absolutely. So I fully understand
and actually agree with what you're saying, but there's a dichotomy here. We have an outside
agency come in to investigate those. So for me to stand up and make any kind of statement
having not had any part of the investigation can really send a completely poor message,
not just internally, but to the public. Now, the humanity part, I understand and I totally
agree with showing compassion for other human beings, but to make a statement on the event
itself, I think that would be very problematic or could potentially be very problematic if
myself, the mayor, or the city manager is getting out there making statements. So that
would be my only concern and something that I would like for the committee to take into
account. Thanks, chief. I agree, chief. I agree 100%. And I'm not speaking to making
comments about the event. I'm speaking more to showing compassion to the family, especially
if they've lost a loved one, not necessarily to, and that's why I was trying to make that
clear and I'm sorry if I didn't, more that the public needs to know that you were showing
compassion to the event. And I really like how Mr. Baines articulated it because I think
they look to you as a very high public official and they want to see that you have that compassion
and not necessarily talking about anything that happened, just that you feel bad that
they've lost someone. I won't talk about publicly, but I will tell you that I did meet privately
because I know what we're talking about. I did meet privately and do that. Thank you.
So to Kofina's point, the investigating agency is the ones that make contact with the family
and typically, I won't speak for the agencies that are doing it, but typically they do it
in person and not just over the phone. But again, when we have a third party coming in
to do those, we can't really control how they do it. We can't make recommendations to them.
Okay. Thanks, Chief. Bo?
So Pam, is part of what you're saying here under transparency and accountability, like
if there was another arrow there just saying in light of those sorts of events that the
chief makes a public statement regarding sanctity of human life, reaffirming the sanctity of
human life, in particular this life, and also the department's commitment to transparency
and accountability?
Yes. That's exactly... Thank you, Bo. You articulated it beautifully. That's... Yes.
Because I feel like, Chief, that you do that, but the public isn't seeing that. And I feel
like they need to see you... Like just what you said, you went and did that, but the public
isn't seeing that and they need to see you doing that. To me, that's incredibly important
that they see that. And I feel like it's important coming from our committee that we also recommend
that. And personally, it's very, very important to me. I don't know about the rest of the
committee, but it's something that I hold very dear. Thank you, Bo.
Okay. Other members' thoughts about... Yes. Mr. Hudspeth, and then I thought... Yes. Go
ahead. Willie. Did you have your hand up, Willie? Go right ahead.
Turn your mic on, Willie.
All right. There you go.
If we're looking at voting and looking at this statement here and thinking in terms
of what we're going to give to the city council, and it has to be something that generally
covers all aspects of transparency, I think the statement covers all that. What we're
getting into now is some specific things that we want to add to that process. But as far
as giving the city council something to look at that we have sent to them and said, "Consider
this." I think two is okay. The other, we got to do something else in a different situation,
but I think we just need to call for the vote to see what the rest of the committee members
think about. Does this cover, in essence, the issue of transparency?
Okay. Thanks, Willie. Did anybody else have thoughts? Yeah, Yancey, I think you have your
hand up.
I don't know if I'm just reading it incorrectly, or maybe you can clarify for it. On the line
where it says, "Just a summary of information on complaints filed against police officers
for improper use of force in their disposition," if we're going to put that language in there,
I think this should be all complaints for all use of force as opposed to just the improper
use of force where the officer was disciplined. Because in my opinion, as an officer, if we're
only going to publish a report where discipline was added, they're not showing on the report
where force was actually necessary and the officer's done the right thing. So we're going
to do it for improper use of force. As an officer, I would like to see it on there for
all use of force complaints, not just the improper one.
Okay. Other thoughts about that? Support for that?
I agree. I agree with that.
Chief, I don't know how, what your thoughts are about that. If that's two sides of the
same coin, essentially, how comfortable you are with including --
It's captured in the use of force report and the data that we presented to the committee.
So it's already manufactured. That's fine.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thanks. Thanks, Chief. So to Yancey's point, it sounds like while it is covered for emphasis,
to include complaints filed against officers for improper use of force in their disposition,
along with some language about all use as a force. So it's covering the entire spectrum
of that. We'll make sure and polish that language up, Yancey, and it be included for next week's
consideration. But that's the spirit, I think, of what you're looking for. Is that correct?
I think, Yancey, if we struck out improper and just said use of force, would that --
That's fine. Just the word "improper" would make it seem like only for disciplinary and
--
Okay. That's a very good point.
Okay. Thanks, Yancey. Okay. So with that one change, deleting the word "improper," the
rest of the language is intact. If you want to call for a vote now to see if it prevails
the way the language is, you know, some of this is a little bit of -- there's a little
bit of an ebb and a flow to this about the content of the recommendation. And adding
things on -- and this is the delicate side of a group setting, even if we were physically
all in the same room. The delicate side is when a few people bring things up, but nobody
else says anything, as a facilitator -- remember, I'm not a moderator. I'm a facilitator to
say, okay, well, I don't hear a lot of other comments to support their assertion, their
recommendation. So that leads me to believe there may not be support. I'm just interpreting
that. And to have a vote, if it passes, great. If it doesn't, they can have another discussion.
But I don't want to make the assumption because a few people made suggestions that we're going
to change the language of the recommendation, right? That's the delicate side. We're kind
of wordsmithing this in real time. So that's why I need people to step forward about whether
you want to have the vote, whether you want to have some additional language, what Pam
and some others have talked about. I need some feedback here before we just sort of
have a vote. And this is delicate, right? We're trying to incorporate your points of
view at the same time, not continually add and add and add, which may not reflect the
majority. And then some people go, well, I like number two, but I don't like number three.
And then it tends to be just -- well, I think it drains your energy. So I saw a couple of
hands up. I'm just trying to put that out there for you to consider. If we can put your
hands back up. I'm sorry I may have missed it. John, go right ahead. And then Katina
and then Willie. >> Very briefly, I think to address Pam's
concern are the points you brought up. It's not bad that something from a person of leadership
to confirm the sanctity of human life is good, irregardless of the setting. And then the
other item that Deansi brought up that we should remove the word improper, those are
my two suggestions. >> Okay. Thanks, John. Katina and then Willie.
Willie, go ahead. >> I think you're right. If we start putting
little bits and pieces in it, we'd be here just discussing one part or the other. I think
the essence of what is there is where it needs to be at this point. One -- but with that,
with Deansi's point, I thought was good, he -- we do need to not just look at the negatives.
But if we're looking at lethal force as an issue, then we say the report should cover
all forms of lethal force. And I said we need to just -- and also, again, let's not start
bringing in just little points. >> Okay.
>> I think we ought to have the vote now. >> Okay. Other comments? This is a bit of a
balancing act, right? Why don't we go ahead and take -- Pam, go ahead.
>> I appreciate Willie's comment very much, but I don't think the sanctity of human life
is a -- I think it's critical. So I hold that to the highest esteem. So while I appreciate
Willie's comment, I think it's something that we do need to consider. And I appreciate Mr.
Bain's comment and support and Katina's support in this. So I do think it needs to be considered
further. >> Okay. Willie, did you have your hand up
again? I thought I saw that. >> Yes, yes. You know, this is a back and
forth I'm talking about. I didn't say that we don't -- the sanctity of life is not important.
I'm talking about the report itself. It covers all of that. And if you want something specific,
this is not the place or the time for that. Something that -- in that situation. And I
resent being said to me that I don't honor the sanctity of life. So here we are in that
situation again. We do need to hear from the rest of the people and how you mis-iterate
from the rest of the people. Let's vote. >> Hold on one second. These issues as we get
into this, as you've had all along through these meetings prior to my participation and
right now, you're all passionate about that. We take that on face value. You're all volunteering
to be on this committee, bringing your time, attention, effort and energy to this. I think
we also want to make sure that we maintain some professional collegiality among all of
you because these are issues that are coming from the heart sometimes. And it's easy for
people to just mis-interpret or misunderstand. And we're trying to -- and even if we were
all in the same room, we would also have those delicacies. So I would just ask that we're
trying to understand people's points of view, show that empathy and understand a whole lot
about a group of people about how they handle disagreement because stress reveals character.
And you're all in agreement. It doesn't show us a whole lot. It does about the content
of what you're recommending, but sometimes when you don't. So I'm just asking for your
cooperation, your being collegial and professional. That way -- I'm not trying to -- I'm not taking
sides here, but just as a good reminder about how we have these conversations. Because you
all -- these are -- a lot of these things are near and dear to people's hearts and they're
passionate about that. And we love that passion. It's trying to do that in a way that's collegial
and collaborative. So I just offer that as a perspective. Bo, you've had your hand up
for a while and then Pam? >> Yeah, I just wanted to know from the committee,
is anybody against, under transparency and accountability, recommending the first one,
but then also adding the second one that says we recommend to the council that in the case
of deadly use of force, there be a statement made reaffirming the sanctity of life and
our commitment to transparency and accountability. That's just -- it seems like that's what Pam's
recommendation is. And is anybody on the committee against that? Adding that recommendation right
under the one that Willie's affirming is good to go?
>> Rhonda? Did you have your hand up, Rhonda? We can't hear you, Rhonda. And then I'll get
to you, Pam. I know you had something. >> That's fine.
>> Rhonda, you're -- unmute yourself. >> We're not exactly sticking to Robert's
rules of order, but let me suggest we fall back on them for a moment. There's no reason
why it was just suggested. It couldn't be seen as a friendly amendment. It doesn't require
a vote. It doesn't require anything other than just adding a few words, and then we
call the question. >> Okay. Thanks, Rhonda. Pam, you had something?
>> Mr. Willie, I was not intending to insult you, and I just wanted to say that. I apologize
if I did, because in no way was I intending to insult you, sir. I have utmost respect
for you, and I didn't mean to insult you at all. I was just -- I just wanted to discuss
it now, because I feel like it is the appropriate time. So I just wanted to apologize if I insulted
you. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Okay. Why don't we do it this way, just
for the sake of moving this forward? I appreciate all your comments. I'm going to, to Rhonda's
point, offer -- I'm going to include here, for the sake of the voting, a friendly amendment
to include that when there's a -- the passing, the death of someone, or even a serious matter,
including along those lines, that the Chief Dixon, the police department, elected officials
are strongly encouraged to make a public statement about the sanctity of human life and show
some acknowledgement publicly of that. Is that correct? I'm trying to paraphrase kind
of what you were getting at. In other words, it's not just for -- it's not for the media
to -- like John was saying, it's not just for the news media to report. It's for the
city to essentially be on point for that and make a statement about that, in particular
about the sanctity of human life, without necessarily discussing the merits of what
happened, even though that's what people will want to know. We know that, right?
>> Absolutely. Yes, that's correct. Thank you.
>> So something of that language. So I'm going to go ahead and include that and take a vote
if that's okay with everybody, so we can keep moving forward. Okay? So now that everybody
can hear me, I'll go ahead and take over the roll call vote. Thanks, Sarah. And just -- so
if you're voting yes, you're voting yes to support the language that I read earlier,
as well as what I just kind of cobbled together, that the Friendly Amendment about the sanctity
of human life -- and again, that will be in the report -- if that passes, then that would
be in the report. Angela? >> I just want to make sure I understand
what we're voting on. >> Yes.
>> You said the number two, but are we saying with the inclusion or removal --
>> Yes. With the inclusion of the Friendly Amendment about a public statement regarding
the sanctity of human life after an issue. >> I'm talking about removing the word "improper."
>> Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. You caught that. Yes. And "improper." Okay? So let me just
restate that. You're voting on transparency and accountability. The one recommendation
there that has deleted the word "improper" and we've added some language to be worked
out as a Friendly Amendment regarding a public statement shall be made by city officials
after an incident in the passing or regarding the sanctity of human life. Something along
those lines. I hope I captured the spirit of that. Okay? That's what you're voting
on. So let's go ahead and start. A yay vote means this would be included as a recommendation.
No means that you don't. You don't support it. So I'm just going to go alphabetically
here. John Baines? >> I support the recommendation with the
Friendly Amendments. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's what you're
all voting for. So please don't say I voted for without it, okay? That's what you're voting
for. All of you right now are voting with it to delete the word "improper" and add the
Friendly Amendment. That's the vote. Jamel? >> I vote yes.
>> Okay. Cedric? >> Yes.
>> Cameron? Is Cameron here? No? >> Absent.
>> I'm sorry if I mispronounced this. Kamyen? Connor?
>> Kamyen is also not on the call yet. >> Cheryl?
>> Yes. >> Yancey? Yes? Pam Gutierrez? Pam, yes, of
course. Gary? Anderson? >> Yes. >> Willie? Hudspeth? >> Yes.
>> Bo Hughes? >> Yes.
>> Rhonda? >> Yes.
>> Chevionne Moore? Hope I didn't mispronounce that.
>> She is also absent. >> Absent. Okay. Travis?
I don't know if he froze or -- are you there, Travis? I'll come back to you, Travis. Maybe
your camera froze. Lillian? I think she had voted yes for the original language that she
said in the e-mail. Angela? >> Yes. >> Katina? >> Yes.
>> Donna had voted I think yes in her e-mail for the original language. And Jamie? I think
-- >> Jamie is absent. >> And then I think Travis
rejoined us. Travis? >> Yes. >> Voting yes. So it was unanimous yeses
including that friendly amendment so we'll work on that language for you just to review
at some point likely at the next meeting, okay? Does that sound good? All right. The
next one is about the civilian yes or no on the civilian oversight. What we thought would
be beneficial here, trying to also be respectful of people's time is to give people the option
of offering a point of view about the civilian oversight board. And I was going to just try
to go alphabetically to keep it simple. Just offer a brief statement, your thoughts to
share. Once you wrap that up, I'd like for hopefully that to be brief, is to then ask
for a yes or no vote. Do you consider -- or should the committee consider any of the options
yes or no? If the number of votes is the majority yes, then we'll go on to the next vote, which
is of those options, which are your top two. And we can have those discussions as well,
right? And again, we may not get to the final vote tonight. Some of this is about time.
And I hope that you can understand the reason we're asking for your top two because I'm
afraid if we ask you just to vote for your top one, everyone will get two or three votes.
And then we're -- that's not making any progress. Then we're right back to where we started,
which is you got to be somewhat -- you got to prioritize there. So does that sound good
for the sake of the discussion? All right. So on this, what I'd like to do is just ask
for each of you, if you'd like, it's up to you, to offer a brief statement about what
you see about the civilian oversight board. You're not voting, but just offer a perspective
maybe to share with your colleagues about the value of it or just where you are on it,
right? Just your thoughts about it. I hope that's okay. And so I wanted to just go alphabetically
and start with you, Mr. Baines, if you would start us off. Just a brief statement.
>> Okay. I need just a point of clarification. So I'm looking at this matrix here, and it
has one, two, three, four, five options. >> Correct.
>> And you're asking us for our top two? >> Not yet. No. What are you asking for right
now? Let me just repeat. What we're asking for right now, no voting yet. If you'd like
to make just a general statement about your point of view about the civilian oversight
board, that's cool. If you say, hey, I'm good, and just move on to the next person. We just
thought we'd give everybody a chance to offer a perspective. Then when we finish those,
we're going to have a vote. And the vote will be, do you support the committee even considering
any of those options? We didn't want to make the assumption that everybody supports even
having a recommendation. We didn't want to make that assumption. So we wanted to give
people a chance to vote yes or no. Do you have it? Then if there's the majority of those
that support having an option, then we'll move on to what are your top two choices?
>> Patrick, there needs to be an opportunity for some citizen involvement. How that looks,
you know, I'm going to chime in later. But I do think there needs to be some citizen
involvement. Thank you. We've lost your audio, Patrick. >> Okay. Am I back? Okay. Jamell?
>> Yes, you're back. >> Okay. Thank you. All this technology. Jamell?
>> As far as the oversight committee goes, it's sort of hard for me to think of citizens
just joining in and saying what they think they know about situations other than what
the officers are trained to do. So I'm a little in between on this right now. So we're going
to -- >> Okay.
>> He froze. >> Yeah. I think we lost you there. Yeah,
you're back. >> He froze again. He did the willy again.
>> I'm sorry. >> That's okay. That was to all of us. So
you were sharing that you're a little -- you're not sure you're a little ambivalent. Anything
else to share, Jamell? >> I can't hear you guys. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. >> Okay. You can hear me. Okay. Like I said,
I just have some more -- I have to do some more thinking about what part the civilian
oversight committee will hold -- how they will be interactive with the police department
with this. So that's my thoughts. >> Okay. Thank you. Cedric? Cedric with us?
Did we lose Cedric? I don't see him. I'll move on. Maybe he'll join us, rejoin us. Cameron
is out. Cheryl? >> I'm here. You know, I'm at option one, a part-time monitor, because
I don't think we have enough incidents or a bigger department, a big department to have
a full-time person. Where we are with community -- I'm just a little hesitant about community
involvement because it takes certain points of expertise in policing, and I'm just not
there with that. But the monitor, yes. >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Cheryl. Yancey,
your thoughts, please. >> I have a couple of thoughts about it. We
just voted on number two, which was transparency, so we're going to be more transparent so the
citizens will have a chance to see, like, really what's going on. And like what was
just mentioned by Madam Chair and as well as Jamil, as far as citizens being on it,
they're going to have to have some type of training or something to even know the line
of work or the reasoning behind situations occur. It's just like being a judge. You got
to be an attorney before you can be a judge. If we do go along the lines of a civilian
review board, our civilian review committee, I know the citizens want to be a part of that.
However, in my opinion, I believe the citizens will also be upset when some of the information
that they are requiring or wanting, they're not allowed to see it by law. So therefore,
more along the lines of option one or option two for the monitor, that way they are falling
directly under the city manager of the chief who does have access. However, as the chief
mentioned before, and as well as other topics, in Denton, we really just don't have that
many incidents to go on. So is that even going to justify the cost of having somebody on
retainer or something like that along those lines? So that's where I'm at on it right
now, but it's just more talking to be done.
Okay. All right. Thanks, Yancey. Pam? Before you get started, Pam, just to let you know,
Patrick, Cedric did, he is on a bi-phone. Okay. We'll come back. Okay. Pam, can we
go ahead? Yeah, why don't we go to Cedric. Yeah. Cedric, go ahead. Cedric, are you there?
You're muted. He shows that, there you go. I'll wait for Ms. Pam to speak and then I'll
speak out to her. Okay. Thanks, Cedric. Pam? Thank you, Cedric. I do think we need a citizens
committee. I think they can be trained, but I am concerned about the cost because chief
has said we don't have enough incidents to have a full-time monitor. So, I mean, I thought
about number one, but then I thought about number five. So, I mean, again, I'm concerned
because I don't want to incur more costs for the city. So maybe a part-time monitor. I
think, you know, maybe I need more education as to what we need, but I do think we need
it. I think we need citizen involvement and I do think we need it. Okay. Thanks, Pam.
Cedric? I don't think that we have enough incidents to actually have an oversight committee
and then to spend unnecessary money on the monitor. Just a question, could we consider
using this same use of force committee without creating a whole other committee? And if anything
is needed, just actually use this committee that's already been created. I'm not sure
who wants to field the response to that question. Todd, I don't know if you want to. Yeah, I
certainly can. This is more of an ad hoc committee. The idea would be that it would be disbanded
after the recommendation report to council. That being said, I don't think there's anything
wrong with some kind of an annual report to be tied in to kind of check that box. It's
something the chief's already offered to do. But I think if anything's possible in terms
of establishing a committee, I think that's something that we could talk to the council
about the long run. But this one had a very short life on it in terms of just getting
through this report. But what that committee looks like down the road, if we want to sit
down in this kind of a venue, we can kind of change that recommendation if you want
to. Thanks, Todd. Thank you, sir. I'll let you hold my vote at this time. Yeah, and absolutely.
You're not voting right now. We're just trying to get your thoughts. We'll go back through
the whole list for the vote, yes or no, on whether you want to even consider some type
of civilian oversight without declaring which one. So thank you, Cedric and Pam. Gary, you're
up next. Thank you, Patrick. I think last week, Michael Kroening proved to us that there's
expertise within the city to provide viable solutions. I think number two, transparency
and accountability. And number three, civilian oversight really do go hand in hand with each
other and reinforce each other. I have tremendous trust in city staff to present a solution
that's both cost effective as well as transparent, accountable, and provides an additional level
of civilian outside of the chain of command oversight. Okay, thanks, Gary. Willie? I don't
think that an oversight committee, for me, is necessary. And one of the examples of two,
the chief seems to, he's a little different than most chiefs you've even had here in Denton
and chiefs that I see around the metro plants, in that he seems to be very honest and forthright.
He just comes out with what he thinks is what we should do. He tells me. So I don't see
the need for an oversight committee if that's happening. And so in the one example, we had
one demonstration, somebody was yelling that they couldn't file a report, they couldn't
file a report, and he was there. He was in front of the police department. He took that
person inside right then into the police station, helped them file a report, and then the person
came out with the report in a hand. So we got that kind of leadership. Why would we
need someone looking over his shoulder to tell him what's going on or ask him what's
going on? He's never refused to tell me what's going on. I just go ask him. So I don't see
the need. Okay. Thanks, Willie. Bo? Yeah, I think some sort of, you know, recommending
the council some sort of additional layer of transparency and accountability would be
wise. You know, like many of you, I'm sort of ambivalent back and forth between these
five options that we were given and even whether or not, you know, is there a difference between
the citizen involvement or panel on number four and number two and three? So until I
get some of those questions clarified, it's harder for me to recommend one of them in
particular, even a hybrid of them. But I think at least what I've sensed and heard from Todd
and Chief Dixon is just there's been benefit to this sort of citizen engagement at this
sort of level, especially as you guys have equipped us to think through some things from
a citizen perspective, but also connected in with what we didn't know about the police
department. And so in some form or fashion, I think that would be fruitful to continue
on and promote into the future. But the form of it I'm not as clear on. Okay. All right.
Thanks, Bo. Next person up is Rhonda. I don't think I've ever been as ambivalent about a
public policy proposal in my entire life. I think a lot of that is, I don't think we
should spend the money for a police monitor. I think we're very fortunate in having Chief
Dixon or anyone who might be like him. So I have a lot of trust in that the right thing
will be done. I think I appreciate exactly what Yancey said about you need to know the
job. On the other hand, there are many people who are expert in conflict resolution who've
never been police officers. And I think they ought to be listened to and how that listening
should be put into a form. I truly, I don't know, but I think we need to keep talking
about this. How's that? Okay. Thanks, Rhonda. It seemed like Camion. So after Rhonda, I'm
not sure. Somebody just joined us. I couldn't catch the person's name. Hey, it's me. It's
Camion. Sorry. Oh, there you are. Okay. That's okay. North Texas Giving Day and my job has
a lot of stuff going on. Okay. Okay. So we'll come back to you. Okay, Camion. We'll go back
through the alphabet. Okay. And so Chevion Moore, was that? He was absent. He was absent.
Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Travis. Okay. So I'm kind of feeling the same way
that many of the others before me have said. I just don't know what this committee, the
oversight committee would look like. One of my main concerns, like I mentioned last week,
was if this committee were to be created, I do feel that there should be, it should
at least consist of members that do have some kind of background or knowledge in the profession,
in the job field, to be able to pass judgment on what it is that police officers do. And
I think I was looking over the, I was looking over the other agencies that we were presented
with from last week. And I think one that kind of caught my eye was the San Antonio
model because they, according to their model, it had like half civilian and half law enforcement
background. So of any type of committee, if it were to be an oversight committee, I think
I would be leaning more towards that type of model. And yeah, I mean, that's just my
biggest thing, just making sure that people are educated and have some kind of knowledge
of the field and what goes on other than just to have civilians that may or may not have
any knowledge and just go on their good or their feelings at the current situation.
Okay. Thanks, Travis. Lillian is not here. Well, Angela?
I do think you can bring a group of people together who don't all have law enforcement
background and that group can support the efforts of the police. I don't see this as
a group against the police or passing judgment on the police, but a group of professionals
that are able to bring a different lens or perspective when you're looking at a particular
situation. And in that sense, I would like to see some type of civilian committee work
in collaboration with the police department. While I agree with everyone that Chief Dixon
is doing an amazing job for the city of Denver, he may not always be here or he may. And so
we really shouldn't make our decisions based on him sitting in that seat because one day
it could be somebody else sitting in that seat who maybe doesn't present themselves
or have the same unifying properties that our current chief has. So from that perspective,
I would like to see some type of civilian oversight committee considered. I definitely
agree that there would need to be some training for that committee. But I think a group of
professionals with a variety of professional qualities could be of support to the police
department in that oversight role. That's my thought.
Okay. Thanks, Angela. Katina?
I think that it needs to be a combination of one, two, and three. Basically, I'm thinking
an annual audit review where if anyone on the committee determines that or basically
wants to inquire about an issue, then it can be reviewed. But also I think that defendants
should be able to, or a defendant advocate, whether it was a family member or an attorney,
should be able to request it after all of the other complaint protocols have been exhausted.
So I'm sure that there is some type of protocol for complaints for citizens. But after that's
been exhausted, because that would fall under just the regular duties of the police department.
So once those that have been exhausted and the defendant would want to request an audit,
then it would fall to this committee, which is a combination of officers, those who are
knowledgeable of law, as well as citizens. But yeah, so does that make sense?
Okay. Everybody?
Thanks Katina. Thank you.
Dawn is not here. Jamie's not here. So I'm going to go back through the alphabet because
we had some people that joined us. Let's see. Cameon. So I'm not sure if you caught the
discussion here is to just offer a brief statement about your point of view about the civilian
oversight board. Once we get through everybody, then we're going to have a vote on whether
or not yes or no, the group wants to even consider a recommendation, and then we'll
have another vote about the top two choices by each committee member. So right now it's
just about a brief statement about your thoughts about a civilian oversight board, and you're
on Cameon.
I'm ready to be on. Though I have missed some of the discussion, I'm trying to see these
hybrids. Okay. So I think that a combination of probably two, three and five or something
like that. I need to look at it a little bit more, but I am leaning, not even leaning.
I adamantly think that we need a community oversight board. I am, if there's a vote,
I'm going that direction. I think one of the main reasons for me is because in listening
from the folks at DPD on these calls, one of the things they have really wanted to do
is find a way to bridge the gap between what's happening at the police department and with
the community members, and I think that this is an actual way you can do that. I think
I sent some recommendations about the oversight board, like 20 bullet points or something.
I don't feel that law enforcement necessarily has to be on the committee to engage with
the committee. I think that there is a way that there can be an advisor from law enforcement
that's not necessarily a committee seat person. And yeah, I think, and I say that because
the research that we heard said that all the advisory boards that people have, they don't
have police involvement. So I think it would be difficult to create something that doesn't
already exist, but I believe in Denton, and my goal is for us to have a community oversight
board. And if that means that we have to figure out a way for the DPD to work with the community
oversight board, then I think that that's necessary. I think that folks could, from
the community, could be very much capable of making decisions, synthesizing data, understanding
what's being given to them. I use this committee as an example. Many of us came here without
very much working knowledge about DPD, the policies, the complaint process, and all of
that. We were able to understand it and make great suggestions and recommendations that
the police department's already been implementing. So I think that this could be an extension
of that. I agree with Angela that we can't just think about the community oversight board
from a perspective of Denton doesn't need it now because we don't know what could happen.
I say at my job, what if I got abducted by aliens? Because I'm not trying to put any
bad karma out there on myself. So what if I got abducted by aliens? What if Chief Dixon
was abducted by aliens? Who's going to fill the role? How do we ensure that the next person
that comes in uplifts the legacy that he's created? Is what it sounds like folks on this
committee really are leaning into. So I think that this is something that we could frame
for the betterment of Denton throughout history moving forward. That's not just about right
now and the time we're in. It's for much more than that. And I want us to think forward
more than that about our kids, grandkids, children that we don't even know are going
to exist in this town and the ways that we can support those with a community oversight
board. So I think those are my main thoughts. Thanks, Camion. And I think, Lillian, I think
you were the person we missed the first time around. Yes, thank you. Of course. Apologies
for being late, but I was listening since the beginning of the meeting. I just want
to say, Camion pretty much said everything that I feel. I was sad to hear all the comments
about people thinking that someone has to have a background in policing to be able to
serve on such a committee. I am in favor of creating an oversight committee. I think we
desperately need it. I think not just for the police department, but just for the community
in general. But I echo everything that she just said. I trust Chief Dixon wholeheartedly.
But like she mentioned, I mean, we don't know what can happen. Even the conversation about
the press release is early or the press conference is in line. It's not just for the family of
the victim. It's for the community at large. I do want to just echo what I said last week.
I think people that are going to be appointed to this committee, obviously, there's going
to be a list of qualifications, a list of recommendations of people. And just like we
trust our city council, like we trust our school board, people that don't have a background
in education, but are serving in that capacity, people can still learn and still serve. I
am not in favor of the police monitor. In my opinion, that's just another person that
works for the police department. That's another person that's on payroll. And so what's the
point of that? The whole point that we're trying to make is that we're trying to bring
people from the outside, the community, to represent the voices of the community that
are not always heard. And so my vote is definitely going to be for an oversight committee. And
I'm leaning towards five and two. Okay. Did I miss anybody on that round? Okay, so now
we're going to take Rhonda. Yeah, I don't know if this is a point of order information,
but you know, I think we're using different words that are conceptually and practically
different. I hear oversight, advisory, community connections, all of these things going on.
And I see those as all very different. So while we're thinking about this, I think we
need more clarity in our own minds about what we're talking about. Thank you.
Thanks, Rhonda. Comments about Rhonda's point there, and maybe to reflect on your presentation
last week, Bo? Yeah, I mean, that was kind of the question
I brought up earlier about, or at least I was trying to, what Rhonda did was better
than what I'd said. But the citizen panel, what's the difference? And Mr. Cronin, maybe
you can speak to this or whoever had a hand in putting this together. But like the difference
between the citizen panel on number four, and then the citizen advisory board, and then
the citizen panel on number two and three, like what's the difference between those?
They're all citizen involved, but is it a different function? What's the same? What's
different about those three citizen groups? Sure. On number two, that was specifically
created by the San Antonio, excuse me, police meet and confer agreement, where they created
it as part of the police department. I think the panels that we're talking about would
not be part of the police department, would not report directly to the chief. They would
be separate and independent. So that's really what the difference, when I use the word advisory
board to the chief, I was talking as really kind of a part of the department, whereas
the other boards are totally independent of the police department. Does that clarify it
a little better? Yeah. So number three, could you do the same thing? So what would number
three be then? Who would they report to? Who would they connect to? And number four. Yeah,
the annual audit would be the police department would just do an annual audit and we could
have a citizen panel or citizen participation as part of that audit. So if the chief wanted
to put together a 10 person panel to do an audit of the department, he could include
some civilians on that. So that would be part of the police department, but just having
some citizen volunteers to participate as panel members. And then number four. Number
four is what Austin has right now, which is a hybrid where they have a police monitor
who was actually a city employee that reports to the city manager. And then they have a
citizen panel that you just see here. They are selected by, they just put it into place.
So actually I don't have it right in front of me, my PowerPoint from last week, but they
are not city employees. I believe they're either appointed by the council or the city
manager. I just don't remember offhand which reporting to the police. No, they make recommendations
to the chief, but they are totally separate and not part of the police department. So
that's kind of a hybrid model that has a city employee as well as a citizen panel. So the
citizen number four is not the exact same as the citizen panel on number five though.
Sorry, that's my last. No, because number five would be just a panel only, no police
monitor at all. And the police monitor in Austin, for example, kind of helps guide the
panel when the panel does reviews, the monitors kind of like the facilitator. So it's a hybrid
kind of system. But the panel itself and number four, if they didn't have the monitor, which
I know is part of the point, that's what makes a difference. But that panel would be very
similar to number five. Yes. According to the police, it's yes. The panel, the citizen
panels on number two and three are very similar and on four and five. Yes. Okay. Very helpful.
Okay. Unless there's other questions, I'm going to go ahead and take a roll call voice
vote on this vote is only about whether or not you think that your committee should can
options. So you're not voting on which numbers should go yes or no, but you're supporting
yes means you think the group should vote on these different options for a civilian
oversight board, whatever that looks like. A no vote means you don't support the group
even voting for it. Okay, we're trying to give people the option. We didn't want to
make the assumption that everybody wants one. That was as evident by the comments that we've
heard. Okay. So yes means you agree to have the next vote, which will be you make some
two choices, but you're not doing that now. Just right now is only yes or no. Yes. You
think the committee should vote for a particular option on the survey oversight board. No means
there's no more voting. You're not going to consider it. Okay. Is that clear? Yes. All
right. John, you're first up. John Baines. Yes. Jamal. No. Cedric. No. Cameron's not
here. Camion. Yes. Cheryl. No. Yancey. Oh, I'm sorry, Yancey. Oh, okay. Thanks, Yancey.
Pam. Yes. Gary. Yes. Willie. No. Bo. Yes. Rhonda. Yes. Chevion's not here. Travis. Yes. I'm
sorry. No. Lillian. Yes. Angela. Yes. Katina. Yes. And Donna Diamond. Donna, she'd voted
yes, right, Sarah? Yeah, which she had emailed in. And then Jamie, we did not know. So I've
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.
So majority would say we move on to the next vote, which are you're selecting your top
two options. Try to keep to two, right? Not you like 1 and 2, 3, 4 and 5, and those are
your two options. We're trying to be somewhat clear here to vote for your top two options.
You don't have to prioritize them like my first vote, my second vote, just your top
two. We're trying to make a cut here. This is about some editing, windowing it down because
I'm afraid if we have all five options and you make you vote for one, I think we'd get
five with five votes or five with four votes or what have you. So I'm going to ask to go
through this again. You've discussed it. What are your top two options? Okay. Just two votes,
your top two options. Okay. We'll see if we can window it down some to a smaller number.
That's what we're trying to do. John, you're up first. Patrick, words are very important.
So I'm struggling with the word and let me tell you why. Committee, please forgive me.
I don't know if anybody has my particular background, but I was trained to fight in
Vietnam. Okay. So that was a hard experience. I ended up in Germany and I was in Munich
during the 1972 Olympics when they had the terrorists overtake the Olympics and the soldiers
were called in. I was one of the soldiers there who had to be on the offensive. And
the reason I mention all this is because for me to come in and tell a police officer, I
mean, I don't do their job every day. So I don't like the word oversight, but I think
there needs to be some type of involvement in police activity. So I thank you committee
for allowing me to have that preface. Okay. So I don't like the word oversight, but to
be involved somehow is what I'm looking at. So with that being said, I would have as an
option, please forgive me here to see. It would probably be number four or number five.
All right. Jamel. Thanks, John. I would go with number three or number four. Okay. Cedric.
Are you there? We'll come back to you, Cedric. Camion. I'm going to have to go with number
two or number four. Okay. Two and four. Remember you're selecting two. Okay. Yeah. All right.
Thanks, Cheryl. I would say number one and number two. Okay. Yancey. I'm going to have
to go with definitely number one for one, but one and two. Okay. Thanks, Yancey. Pam.
Two and five. Gary. Two, please. I'm sorry. One and two. One and two. Okay. I missed you.
Willie? Pass. Okay. Bo? Four or two. Rhonda? Two and four, but I feel very strongly about
the use of the language. Are we talking about advisory or oversight? It's a big deal. Okay.
Let's see. Travis? Number two. Okay. Yeah. Just number two. Okay. Let's see. Lillian,
I think you had voted earlier, right? You had sent us an email with number two and five.
Do you want to keep that? Okay. Yes. All right. Angela? Two and four. Katina? Two and three.
Donna had voted number five. She voted by email. I'm going to go back up here. Cedric?
Number one and two. Has everybody had a chance to vote now? Did I miss anybody? Cheryl, do
we want to take a quick 10 minute break and I'll tally up the votes and come back and
see where we are. I know people have been sitting now about 90 minutes. Yeah, that'll
be fine. Okay. So 10 minutes of biology break. Yes. All right. Go ahead. All right. Thanks,
Cheryl. I'm pretty good at counting that down. Thank you. Okay. So we're back live here.
So let me give you the tally of the votes. It may have been difficult for you to capture.
I'm just going to go by each option and share with you what the number of votes were. Number
one, the police monitor received four votes. Number two, the advisory board to the chief
received 12 votes. That was the top vote getter. Number three, the annual audit with citizen
participation report to the council by the chief received two votes. Number four, the
hybrid was the second leading vote getter that had six votes, which was monitor and
a citizen panel that is not part of the police department. And number five, community panel
only received four votes. So the top vote getter, if you have that matrix out, you might
want to circle that just for the sake of discussion here. The top vote getter was number two with
12 votes, and the second top vote getter was number four with six votes. And then there
was a break between four and two votes. Now, this is what I would recommend to move forward
since we have some momentum is that now it's to vote on your top choice. And I would consider
that only number two and four are the options that you're considering since those are the
top two vote getters. We're trying to win on this down. Number two and four, and you'd
vote for only one of those. And then we would see how the vote breaks. If there's a majority,
it might end up being a tie. We just don't know. But I think it's important that you
give best you can a recommendation included in your report to the council for them to
consider. If all of the options are there as we that that's not really practical for
them to consider, you're trying to winnow it down. So if the group is okay with considering
option two and four, and your opportunity here is to vote for just one of those, and
you would share with me as we do the final vote, which one do you favor for the group
to consider as its recommendation? Understanding that some of the language here is not perfect,
polished and packaged. It is what it is at this moment. It's trying to, you know, reflect
intent and conversations you've all had and practical application the way was discussed
Michael discussed last week. So unless I hear any objections otherwise, I'm just gonna start
on this. That's good. Sure. I'm sorry, Lillian. Go ahead. I was just gonna ask. So because
you said that four and five are two two votes away right from each other. Six and four,
Lillian? No, no, no. Number four has six votes. That's the second leading vote getter. Right.
And number five had four votes. Right. Okay. But the only difference between four and five
is that four has a monitor attached to it. And five is without the monitor, but still
the panel, right? Um, can you repeat that, Lillian? I'm sorry. Four is basically like
number five, but it has a monitor attached. Number four does include the monitor. Correct.
Okay, but number five is just like number four, except without the monitor. That's the
way I understand. Is that right, Michael? Yes. Okay, so my only my my only suggestion
of why we would include number five as a voting option would be because if council decides
that they like the option, but they don't want to attach a cost and the cost of the
monitor, then I would like them to be given an opportunity to say, Okay, I like number
four, but we don't want to allocate money towards it. So we want to go with the number
five, which is the panel advisory, right? I was going to say number one Lillian also
had four. And it's the same as number four option four, except that it doesn't have the
citizen panel. We just but we just voted that we do want citizen input. Right. Yeah, I'm
just I'm I'm clear on my mind around it with you is what I'm Yeah. Yeah. I'd like the option
to include number five. I think also at first glance, I assumed a hybrid could be a mix
of a couple of these things. And with a closer look at the monitor, which I don't necessarily
think the city needs, I would like the option to vote for an option that doesn't have a
monitor. Okay, I need to hear from some other people, right? Uh, Nancy, I think we've already
took a vote from the panel. So the vote has is carried. Everybody had their voice and
everybody had a vote. So now we're down to the run off, which is two options. Yeah, I
mean, if we're only gonna exclude number three, which only received two votes, you know, now
we're back to we have four options. And I'm not sure, you know, then we're gonna divide
and then everybody there's if several of them get three or four votes, you don't have a
recommendation. This is not a perfect process, right? I'm trying to be supportive of this.
I don't know, Todd, what your thoughts are that if they winnow it down to two, they only
consider two, but those that maybe didn't make the vote can be included in the report.
So counsel can see all of that. We will. We'll certainly have that record for them that these
five options were considered. The committee withered it down to these two. And we'll.
So we'll show them that thought process. So the information here would be included in
the final report, along with what the voting was and what your top selection was. So those
of you that are concerned that you know, and Council may mix and match these anyway, you're
trying to put your best foot forward with what you think this group will put your top
recommendation is. If it's a little of this, a little of that, a little of that, a little
of this, I think you dilute your whole recommendation where it's all over the place. We're just
trying to run. We're trying to be somewhat just go ahead, Todd. I think a couple of things
I've heard a couple of different things on the monitor. And first of all, that position,
the whole point of a monitor is it doesn't report to the police chief that would be reporting
to my office. So, so there isn't that there is that disconnect with the police department.
The second thing is, is given the caseload that we're talking about and with the monitor,
you're really not talking about a ton of money there. So anything in terms of saving money,
this is easily put in the budget if we decided to go that way. So I just wanted to disabuse
those two issues. We're not talking a lot of money to bring a police monitor on board.
There's with the workload here would probably somebody half time or you'd contract out when
the cases were necessary. Okay. Thanks, Todd, for that clarification. So I'm back to trying
to help the group window this down to your top recommendation. Yeah, John. I'm needing
a little clarification, please, because, you know, that that choice of words, I don't like
the word oversight, but I feel like the community wants to have an idea of what's going on and
also have some, some input, possibly sway. I don't know, but some input. So when you
look at these two options that are there, number two and number four, only number four has
citizen panel. What are those other people come from on number two? How are we getting
there? What are the people come from? I would say that's, I would think that's a process
that the council would decide about how they're going to be appointing board members, whether
they take applications, but Michael, you were going to say, yeah, and is was mentioned before
for the San Antonio version. I believe it's 14 members, seven of police officers, seven
of citizens. So council could determine that that's the type of makeup they want. So there
is the possibility of having citizens actually on the chief's advisory panel. Thank you for
that clarification.
And I think one other thing that probably needs to be pointed out to Mr. Bain's point
was on number two, you're talking about something that can be implemented today. We, there's
obviously tons of details work out option for requires significant negotiation and possibly
opening up the meet and confer contract. So that could be several months, if not years
out. So we tried to, we tried to basically, if you'd look at the require a change to 143,
those areas where you see a no means they can be implemented quickly. The yes is going
to take significant negotiation, possibly you've got 143 to deal with and also opening
up the meet and confer contract to even permit that committee to exist. So that's really
the big difference between two and four.
Good to see Patrick. So pardon me. I mean, may I offer a little suggestion here that the
weight would be towards the citizens rather than the police. Cause I think that's where
there's a desire there. And once again, I don't like the word oversight. I don't think
we can oversee people that do this job, but we do want to be in the loop. People want
to be in the loop. They want to know what's going on. They want to feel like they have
a voice at the table. So however we restructure the language to catch that thought is what
I think we need to do.
Okay. Comments. So I'm back to where when we can reconvene after the break, which is
to at least consider those top two and see how the vote shakes out. Unless people object,
we're going to proceed with that. So I'm going to go alphabetically. You're down to number
two and number four. And I would ask you to identify which one you favor you support as
the sole recommendation from this group from yourself. I'm sorry. We'll see where the numbers
shake out. Okay. We'll see how that works. Um, Mr. Baines, please start us off.
I will go with, uh, option number two with a heavy emphasis on the weighted for the citizen
input.
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Baines. Mr. Butler.
I will go with option number two. Okay. Mr. Chambers, is he still with us, Cedric? We'll
come back to Cedric. I don't see him right on. Maybe something got hung up. Uh, Ms. Connor.
Came me on.
I was trying to get off mute. I think I'm going with option four. Okay. Uh, Cheryl,
Miss English. Option two. Mr. Green. Option two. Miss Gutierrez. Option two. Mr. Anderson.
Option two. Mr. Hudspeth. Pass. Mr. Hughes. Option four. Love. Uh, two. Chevion's absent.
Mr. Nicholas Travis. You with it? There you are. Option two. Lillian. Four. Angela. Miss
Ricks. Two, please. Ms. Stone Butler. Katina. Four. Donna had recommended number five and
via email earlier today. And Jamie is absent. So I can't, um, Cedric, did you join us again?
Cameron is absent. So everybody give a chance to vote. Looks like it. So I have one, two,
three, four. Nine for number two and four for number four. Is that correct, Sarah? Is
that what you had? Yes, I believe so. Nine, nine for two. I'm sorry. Nine for two and
four for number four. So number two would see. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Would be the recommendation
of this committee, the advisory board to the chief, part of the police department with
the language spelled out there in the matrix, considering also Mr. Baines. And I'm assuming
just from the spirit of the conversation that maybe recommended the council that the board
members at least be considered about the composition of that board. Maybe it's not 50 50. Somehow
some some configuration to make sure there's community support and, um, and work out through
the mechanics of all that. So there were also whether one or two abstentions. Yes, I'm sorry,
Mr. Hudspeth abstained. And then we had some absence. We had some absences. Cameron was
not here. Chevion was not. And Jamie was not. We also had a number five that was from Donna.
So okay, so nine people voted for this. That's majority of people that voted. So that would
seem to be the recommendation. Cheryl, did you have some thoughts about this or want
to contribute there? No, I was trying to get a hold of Cedric to see what he was on. So
I don't know what happened. Yeah. So the purpose of tonight was try to winnow it down. I think
you made great progress. It was unanimous vote on the policy and training. I believe
it was unanimous vote transparency and accountability with some slight tweaking of the language.
And then there was a pretty strong vote 10 to 6 on the civilian oversight board. You
did your voting preferences, the top two, and then you selected as the top recommendation
number to the advisory board to the chief. And as Todd mentioned, the other options as
the part of the matrix will be included in the report that's forwarded to council. You
received the draft report from Sarah earlier today. The point of the meeting next week,
I believe, Sarah, you want to share sort of the focus of next week's meeting, if you would,
please? Sure. So as Patrick just mentioned, I can share it on my screen quickly so you
see it as well. But it did come through email. Staff has been working on drafting a report
that could really provide an overview of everything. This all of the work that the committee has
done, all of the topics and information that have been covered, as well as links and appendixes
so people can see all of the information that you received as well. Just trying to kind
of outline that. So staff has done that work, sent that by email this afternoon. If you
do see anything that's missing or if you have comments, please send those to me as quickly
as possible. But by Monday, if possible, we can always make some additions or changes.
But what we will do is following the recommendations made tonight, we will work on drafting the
findings and recommendations section, as well as allow the opportunity for the chair and
the police chief to include a message. So we'll have a final draft with both those sections
included to the committee by Monday. And then between Monday and Thursday morning, I would
ask if you have any feedback, if you could send that to me, and that will help with the
discussion for next week. Next week Thursday, the committee will vote on that final report
to deliver it to city council. And excuse me, Sarah, Patrick, I did get a hold of Cedric.
He had to jump off to another call. He voted for number two. Okay. So that would make that
10 votes for number two. Okay, thanks, Cheryl. Cheryl, did you have anything else for the
purposes of the meeting this evening, or is that a wrap? I think it's a wrap for tonight.
Okay. Unless Sarah has something else, but I think she already did her part. So we'll
be back again next week. We thank you all for your participation tonight. We know these
are matters that are near and dear to your heart, and these are significant to the community.
I thought your processing, your discussion was very collaborative, very professional.
And the voting process can be awkward. So I appreciate your courage to be able to put
your voice out there about which items you support. And that's what all communities need
is people that are willing to step forward like all of you are and put their voice to
the vote about what you believe is the next steps for the community. I know council appreciates
and I know staff does too, because communities are only as good as the people who choose
to participate. So your participation is valued and you're all volunteers. So I just wanted
to kind of applaud, you know, take my hat off to you for having these kinds of conversations
and winnowing through and indulging me on these processes, trying to make the voting
somewhat simple and straightforward so as not to muddy the water. So if I don't have
anything else, Cheryl, do you want to adjourn the meeting?
Meeting adjourned.
Thank you. All right. See you all.