[*A portion of this meeting is without audio]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
[00:00:20]
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE QUORUM TO CONTINUE THIS MEETING.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION IF THERE WERE ANY GUESTS THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS AN ENDING FOR TODAY.
GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
NUMBER ONE, APPROVAL OF OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR CALL MEETING OF MAY 15TH, 2026.COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE A COPY AVAILABLE TO YOU IN FRONT OF YOU, AS WELL AS ONLINE.
COULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
IF I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES.
COMMISSIONER LAUREN PENA? YES.
COMMISSIONER LAUREN PENA? YES.
[10. Selection of new commissioners appointed by the City Manager to fill alternate vacancies. ]
ON.I WILL BE SKIPPING TO ITEM NUMBER 10 IN THE BACK OF YOUR AGENDA.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. IT'S SELECTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS.
I APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER TO FILL ALTERNATE VACANCIES.
I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR LIAISONS WILL BE HANDLING.
KEVIN MASTERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT, UH, IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCE.
WE ARE GOING TO SELECT SOME CANDIDATES TO BE, UH, ALTERNATE MEMBERS FOR THE CPRC.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE NO ONE ON THE LIST, SO IF A VACANCY OCCURS, THERE'S NO ONE TO MOVE UP TO AN ACTIVE POSITION IN OUR, I WON'T KNOW IF IT'S OUR, WON'T SAY NECESSARY.
IT'S OUR POLICY, BUT IT'S OUR PROCESS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AT LEAST A LIST OF ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS READILY AND AVAILABLE TO BE SELECTED AND TO HAVE BEEN, UH, PARTIALLY TRAINED SO THAT THEY CAN STEP IN AS NEEDED WHEN THE NEED ARISES.
SO, UH, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A RANDOM SELECTION.
SO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE APPLICATIONS FOR THE POSITION.
RYAN IS GOING TO SPIN THE WHEEL.
HE'S GONNA PULL IT OUT AND HAND IT TO ME, AND I WILL NA I WILL ANNOUNCE THE NAME AND THEY WILL BE IN RANK ORDER.
SO WE WILL BE SELECTING FOUR CANDIDATES FOR THE ALTERNATE LIST.
SO THE FIRST NAME WILL BE ONE ON THE LIST AND ASCENDING DOWNWARD, NO DRUM ROLL.
THE FIRST ALTERNATE WILL BE STEVEN NUGEN.
THE SECOND ALTERNATE WILL BE SOPHIE PREMIER.
THE SPELLING ON THAT IS P-R-I-M-E-A-U-X.
THE THIRD ALTERNATE ON THE LIST WILL BE MOSTLY PARKS, AND THE FORD ALTERNATE WILL BE JACOB RENFRO.
SO THOSE ARE THE RANK ORDER CANDIDATES THAT WILL BE ON THE ALTERNATES LIST.
[00:05:01]
BE TO SUBMIT, UH, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR APPOINTMENT, AND A LETTER FROM MAYOR AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL WILL BE, UH, DEVELOPED.UH, WE WILL CONTACT THESE PEOPLE AND START THE TRAINING PROCESS IN PROBABLY LATE JULY, EARLY AUGUST, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP THE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE RECENTLY APPLIED IN THE EVENT WE GO THROUGH HERE.
AND WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, EITHER THE LIST IS DEPLETED OR WE FIND OURSELVES WITH NOT ENOUGH CANDIDATES INSTEAD OF REOPENING THE PROCESS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO PULL FROM THAT POOL FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 12 MONTHS.
SO CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE CANDIDATES THAT WERE SELECTED.
AND CONGRATULATIONS, STEVEN, SOPHIE, MO AND JACOB.
WE HOPE TO BE HEARING FROM YOU SOON.
SO BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THOSE EMAILS.
UH, WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE SELECTION PROCESS, THE NEW POSSIBLE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I WILL
[Items 2 & 3]
LOOP BACK UP TO OUR STAFF BRIEFINGS.ITEM NUMBER TWO, STAFF BRIEFING UPDATES REGARDING PROGRESS OF WORK WITH THE POLICE TECHNOLOGY UNIT ON AN INTERNAL DRIVE FOR THE CPRC TO ACCESS CASE FILES.
SO THE LAST WEEKS OF MAY, AND THROUGH MOST OF JUNE, A PO MET WITH ROBIN AARON ROBINSON.
SHE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER.
THE VENDOR WHO CONDUCTS OUR MEDIATION TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH THE CLOSEOUT PROCESS, UH, AND WITH THE CLOSEOUT PROCESS WILL BE WAS DRC WILL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CLOSURE DOCUMENT FOR A PO AND A PD TO SUMMARIZE THE MEDIATION AND ANY AGREEMENTS REACHED DURING THE PROCESS, THE OUTCOME IS BINDING FOR BOTH PARTIES.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MEDIATION IS CONFIDENTIAL EXCEPT FOR THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT.
A PO SUBMITTED ONE CASE TO A PD, UH, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF MEDIATION.
THE OFFICER AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION.
HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT DEC DECLINED.
THEREFORE, THE CASE WILL GO THROUGH THE NORMAL FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS.
ON JUNE 1ST, DIRECTOR MCCANN AND I MET WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THEY HAD ABOUT THE 2024 ANNUAL REPORT AND PROVIDE A SNAPSHOT OF THE 2025 ANNUAL REPORT DATE AND ANNUAL AND, AND REPORT DATA FROM 2025.
UH, A PO AND IED, WE HAD OUR MONTHLY LEADERSHIP MEETING ON JUNE 2ND TO DISCUSS HIGH LEVEL POLICY, PROCESS AND OPERATIONAL TO TOPICS.
UH, DIRECTOR MCCANN AND I ATTENDED THE CITY OF AUSTIN INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS PLANNING WORKSHOP.
THE WORKSHOP IS DESIGNED TO BRING TOGETHER DEPARTMENT HEADS TO DISCUSS CRITICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE PLANNING AND TRAINING.
WE WORK TO IDENTIFY GAPS IN EXISTING TRAINING AND NEW AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDER MAY NEED ADDITIONAL TRAINING.
ON JUNE 23RD, THE FULL STAFF OF A PO UH, PARTICIPATED IN INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION AND ASSESSMENT TACTICS.
THAT'S ICAT TRAINING THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY A MEMBER OF PERF PERF DEVELOP THE, THE CURRICULUM AND ITS EVIDENCE-BASED DEESCALATION PROGRAM TO HELP FIRST RESPONDERS HANDLE CRITICAL INCIDENT RESEARCH SUGGESTS IT RESULTS IN FEWER USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS, FEWER OFFICER AND SUBJECT INJURY RESULTING FROM USE OF FORCE.
AND IT ENHANCES DECISION MAKING BY OFFICERS.
DURING CALLS, A PD HAS BEGAN IMPLEMENTING ICA MODELS ACROSS ITS BASIC TRAINING.
IT'S IN SERVICE TRAINING AS WELL AS ITS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS. UPCOMING ACTIVITIES, UH, BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WILL REALLY RAMP UP DURING AUGUST, AND I SUSPECT WE WILL BE ENGAGED IN SOME WAY IN THOSE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL UPDATES.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WHO DID NOT COMPLETE THE FY 25 26 TEXAS CYBERSECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING FROM NO BEFORE YOU GO BY MAY 31ST, RUN THE RISK OF LOSING ACCESS TO THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEMS. UH, IT IS STATE MANDATED TRAINING AND IT'S REQUIRED BY, FROM ALL EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS ALL APPOINTEES.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED THAT TRAINING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, YOU RUN THE RISK, UH, OF VERY SHORTLY LOSING YOUR ACCESS TO ALL CITY OF AUSTIN COMPUTER SYSTEMS. UH, ANOTHER REMINDER, THE CITY OF AUSTIN BOARDS AND COMMISSION, AS WELL AS ALL EMPLOYEES WERE ADDED TO THE FISCAL YEAR 25 26, WORKING SAFELY WITH AI TRAINING.
IT'S A NEW STATE MANDATED TRAINING PROGRAM THAT THE STATE REQUIRES FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS CITY APPOINTEES.
THEY ARE ASKING THAT CO EIGHT MEMBERS COMPLETE THE TRAINING BY JULY 26.
IT SHOULD BE IN THE KNOW BEFORE YOU GO.
AND IF YOU HAVE ISSUES ACCESSING THE, YOUR KNOW, BEFORE YOU GO ACCOUNT, JUST CONTACT RYAN AND HE'LL PROVIDE YOU SOME ASSISTANCE.
WHAT'S THE, I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE DEADLINE OF THAT AGAIN? FOR AI SAFETY TRAINING FOR COMPLETING IT.
WHAT'S THE DEADLINE? JULY 26TH.
[00:10:01]
UH, MANDATED TRAINING.IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR KNOW, BEFORE YOU GO, UH, YOUR KNOW, BEFORE, UH, ACCOUNT.
IT'S TITLED AGAIN, WORKING SAFELY WITH AI.
SO, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE, WE'LL, WE'LL JUST SEND IT.
I BELIEVE I'VE ALREADY EMAIL ALREADY COMPLETED THAT, SO SHOULD BE GOOD.
UH, LI LILLIAN MALDEN HAS BEEN HIRED TO FILL A POLICY ANALYST VACANCY IN THE PLANNING AND AND RESEARCH DIVISION.
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS IS FULLY STAFFED.
SO THE ONLY VACANCY WE HAVE IN OUR OFFICE RIGHT NOW IS A VACANCY FOR, UH, A COMPLAINT INVESTIGATOR IN THE COMPLAINT DIVISION.
UH, THE RECRUITMENT HAS STARTED, I BELIEVE THE APPLICATION PROCESS CLOSED THIS WEEK, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE TO FILL THE VACANCY BY THE END OF AUGUST.
UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY, OR YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING REQUESTS FOR CASE DOWNLOADS TO IAD.
UH, ALL YOUR CASES THAT ARE FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE IN THE SHARED FOLDER FOR YOU TO REVIEW COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CPR, UH, RECRUITMENT, WE, THAT'S ALL CON COMPLETED AND WE COMPLETED THAT PROCESS TODAY.
UH, EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TEAM HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN IS THE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING DASHBOARD WAS RELEASED TO THE COMMUNITY ON MAY 19TH, 2026.
WE GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD MEDIA COVERAGE FROM THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE, AUSTIN CURRENT, THE DECIBEL, THE STATESMAN, K-U-T-K-X-A-N, AS WELL AS KUV.
THE PROJECT TEAM WILL PRESENT A DEMONSTRATE, WILL DEMONSTRATE, I SHOULD SAY, THE DASHBOARD TO YOU LATER.
DURING THIS MEETING AND FOLLOWING YOUR REVIEW.
UH, SOME OTHER UPCOMING PRESENTATIONS INCLUDE THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION, COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS JOINT INCLUSION COMMITTEE, THE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND QUEER QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION, THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, AS WELL AS OTHERS.
SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT, UH, WE ATTENDED THROUGH THE MONTH OF JUNE, OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, COMMITTEE MEETING, POLICE OVERSIGHT IMPLEMENTATION WORK GROUP MEETING ON JUNE 6TH, POPUP RESOURCE CLINIC AT ST.
JOHN'S COMMUNITY CENTER ON THE 17TH.
ALSO ON THE 17TH EQUITY ACTION TEAM MEETING ON THE 20TH, WE PARTICIPATED IN THE JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION AT THE CARVER MUSEUM AND LIBRARY, AS WELL AS ON THE 29TH, WE WILL BE MEETING WITH OTHER ONES FOUNDATION.
SOME OF THE UPCOMING PROJECTS WE HAVE IS THE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, UH, PROJECTS IS SLATED TO LAUNCH LATER THIS SUMMER.
UH, A PO EXPO, UH, IS THE NEXT OPEN HOUSE EVENT.
THAT WILL BE SEPTEMBER 26TH FROM 10 TO TWO AT CITY HALL.
MORE DETAILS WILL BE FORTHCOMING.
I-A-P-I-A-P TWO TRAINING, UH, WHICH IS COORDINATING THE, THE C AND CE TEAM IS COORDINATING TRAINING WITH THE, WITH THE TRAINERS.
WE'LL COORDINATE THE PROPOSED DATES WITH COMMISSIONERS AS SOON AS WE CAN.
THE POLICY AND RESEARCH UNIT HIGHLIGHTS, UH, P AND R DIVISION PRESENTED AND COLLECTED COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON A PO OFFICERS INVOLVED SHOOTING DASHBOARD DURING JUNE 6TH, UH, O UH, PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING, COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING, OUR QUARTERLY MEETING.
AND THE P AND R DIVISION INITIATED AND FORWARDED TWO POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS IN JUNE TO A PD REGARDING THE FOLLOWING.
GENERAL ORDERS 8 0 1 EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORM REGULATIONS.
UH, IT'S A POLICY THAT DEALS WITH DEPARTMENT ISSUED ACCESSORIES, UH, AND POLICY NINE 12 PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS.
A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE TO REQUIRING THAT OFFICER'S PRIOR EVALUATION RECORDS BE TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICER'S NEW SUPERVISOR WHENEVER THE OFFICER IS TRANSFERRED, PROMOTED, OR SIGNED TO THAT UNIT COMPLAINT DIVISION.
UH, THE COMPLAINT DIVISION IS, UH, LIKE I SAY, IS CURRENTLY RECRUITING FOR THE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATOR.
WE HOPE TO HAVE THAT FILLED IN AUGUST IN MAY, SEPTEMBER.
DURAN AND I MET WITH THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE CHALMERS COURT HOUSING AUTHORITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DISCUSS A PO PROGRAMS AND GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT PROCESS BETWEEN MAY 15TH, YOUR LAST MEETING AND LAST WEEK, 6 17 10.
FORMAL COMPLAINTS WERE FORWARDED TO IED FOR INVESTIGATIONS.
UH, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR LIST FOR UPCOMING ITEMS OF DISCUSSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER GREAVES CPR YEAR SUMMARY, ACCOMPLISHMENT, CHALLENGES, UH, REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES.
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ACCESS CASE FILES UNDER CODE BYLAWS, DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENTS.
UH, CONSIDERATION OF HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL VERSUS PUBLIC INFORMATION, ENSURING COMMISSIONERS MAINTAIN PROPER SAFEGUARDS WHEN INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC.
UH, COMMISSIONER EUGENE EUGENE SPONSORED, UH, DISCUSSIONS REVIEW OF PROCEDURES ON CASE REVIEW
[00:15:01]
CONFIDENTIAL IN INFORMATION RULES AND REGULATIONS.UH, A-P-O-A-P-D FLOW CHART OF CASE REVIEWS, PROCESS AND REPORTING MECHANISMS. COMMISSIONER, FLOOD SPONSOR TOPICS, UH, CODIFY A PROCESS TO INTERACT WITH A PD AND COMMUNITY INTERESTS A PD INTERACTIONS WITH ICE ON PUBLIC DASHBOARD PROPOSAL OR ACTION ITEM, AS WELL AS BRIEFINGS ON TWO CASES THAT WE'VE YET TO BRIEF ON BECAUSE THERE'S STILL ACTIVE CASES.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS, DISCUSSION OF BURDEN OF PROOF FROM PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
UH, ALSO DISCUSSION WITH LEGAL TO ALLOW BWC RELEASED BY CPRC AND COMMISSIONER PENA'S UPCOMING COM, UH, SPONSORSHIPS, DRAFT RESOLUTION TO COUNSEL FOR OPEN FEEDBACK, WHITEBOARD PROPOSAL AS ACTION ITEM AND DISCUSS 3 1 1 AND I REPORT.COM AND HOW TO MAKE IT WEBSITE EASIER.
HOW TO MAKE THE WEBSITE EASIER, I SHOULD SAY.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
I'M SORRY, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS WAS STAFF BRIEFING ITEM NUMBER TWO, OR WAS THIS ALSO STAFF BRIEFING ITEM NUMBER THREE? THAT WAS NUMBER THREE.
WE HAD NO UPDATES AS IT RELATED TO P POLICE TECHNOLOGY.
UH, OPEN THE FLOOR IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE UPDATES.
I DO WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THE TRAINING SCHEDULED, I BELIEVE FOR NOVEMBER, SEPTEMBER LATER ON THE SUM COMMISSIONERS ASKED, UH, SIGNED UP FOR, IS THERE ANY GENERAL UPDATE ABOUT THE PROGRESS TALKING ABOUT REGARDING THAT TRAINING, NICOLE? YEAH, SO I GOT ABOUT FIVE COMMISSIONERS WHO, UH, SAID THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, REGISTER THEM FOR IT AND THEN I'M GONNA BE REACHING OUT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA BE GOING TO THE NEXT STEP.
SO FIRST IS JUST GETTING PRE-AUTHORIZATION, HAVING THE CITY MANAGER SIGN OFF ON IT, AND THEN IT'S GONNA BE GOING THROUGH THE REGISTRATION WITH NA COLE FLIGHTS HOTEL.
BUT I'LL COMMUNICATE WITH THAT WITH YOU, PROBABLY LIKE IN AUGUST.
CHAIRMAN FRANCO, CAN YOU RECOGNIZE THE COMMISSIONER THAT ARRIVED SO SHE CAN BE PRESENT? YES.
I BELIEVE AROUND 3:13 PM COMMISSIONER MARISSA JOHNSON ARRIVE AND IS PRESENT.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER DEREK, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS ON THE STAFF BRIEFING, I WILL BE MOVING FORWARD TO
[4. Discussion of Working Groups A, B, and C’s experiences reviewing case files and recommendations for expediting the case review process. ]
DISCUSSION.ITEM NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSSION OF WORKING GROUPS, AB AND C'S EXPERIENCES REVIEWING CASE FILES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPEDITED, EXPEDITING THE CASE REVIEW PROCESS.
JUST A REMINDER FOR WORKING GROUPS A, B, AND C.
WE WILL BE HAVING A SUMMARY DELIBERATION IN ACTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, AND THEN REPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER 11.
I WILL TRY TO GO IN ORDER, BUT JUST KEEPING THIS ITEM AS, UM, ABOUT OUR EXPERIENCES REVIEWING THOSE CASE FILES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPEDITING THE CASE W PROCESS.
UM, SO ME AND WORKING GROUP A WERE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER.
WE FOUND IT REALLY EASY THIS TIME TO DO SOMETHING OVER ZOOM.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE TEAM BECAUSE DURING THE TIME OF US, UH, LOOKING OVER THINGS, WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD MORE QUESTIONS AND NEEDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH, UM, MR. MATHERS AND, UM, ALVAREZ WERE ABLE TO SEND OVER TO US.
AND I THINK JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS.
SO THEIR ACTION WAS REALLY QUICK, AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT.
UM, BUT YEAH, IT WAS JUST, UH, PRETTY SIMPLE TO TALK ON, UM, ZOOM, SO THAT'S IT.
WORKING GROUP B MYSELF, UH, COMMISSIONER HARRIS AND COMMISSIONER RUSSELL.
WE'VE MET, UM, VIA ZOOM, UH, IN PERSON.
AND, UM, THANK YOU, UH, RYAN FOR GIVING US THE ACCESS TO THE DATA AND INFORMATION.
UH, STILL A FEW GLITCHES, BUT I CAN SEE WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS IN A, IN A TIMELY FASHION THAT WE CAN REPORT ON THEM GOING FORWARD.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA SAY GENERALLY I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF, UH, GETTING GROUPS TOGETHER AND GETTING US REVIEWING STUFF AND IRONING OUT HOW THIS WORKS WAS A GOOD IDEA.
IT WAS GONNA TAKE SOME, IT WAS GONNA TAKE SOME EFFORT.
AND I THINK PART OF IT WAS JUST BEING A LITTLE PATIENT IN THE PROCESS AND LETTING IT ALL KIND OF WORK ITSELF OUT.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GONNA, UH, GET PERFECTION, BUT WE CAN TRY.
UH, I THINK THE MAIN THING WAS JUST GETTING A PROCESS GOING AND, UH, WORKING OUT THE ISSUES.
AND FOR ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS
[00:20:01]
ONLINE, FEEL FREE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF OR RAISE YOUR HAND.UH, SPEAK UP IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, WE'RE GETTING INTO A WORKFLOW PAINFULLY SLOWLY, BUT WE'RE GETTING THERE.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THOSE RESOURCES, WE'RE GETTING THOSE RESOURCES, CASE FILES, WE'RE MOVING ALONG, SO I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT FROM OUR WORKING GROUPS.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UM, WORKING GROUP C WAS, WAS, UH, SORRY, WORKING GROUP C WAS ABLE TO MEET AND WE DID DISCUSS A ONE CASE.
[5. Discussion of the Austin Police Oversight Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) Dashboard, presented by Public Information and Marketing Program Manager Sara Peralta and Policy Compliance Consultant Crystal Kimbrough.]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION OF THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING OIS DASHBOARD, PRESENTED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION AND MARKETING PROGRAMMER PROGRAM MANAGER SARAH PERALTA AND POLICY COMPLIANCE CONSULTANT CRYSTAL KIMBRA.THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DO NOT KNOW ME, I'M CRYSTAL KIMBRO, THE POLICY AND RESEARCH MANAGER FOR A PO, AND I'M HERE WITH SARAH PERALTA TO TELL YOU ABOUT OUR NEW OFFICER INVOLVED DASHBOARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
CRYSTAL AND I ARE SO EXCITED TO SHARE THE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING DASHBOARD WITH Y'ALL.
UH, WE'LL PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEATURES AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE DASHBOARD, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER.
SO WE KNOW THE COMMISSION IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH OUR WORK, BUT FOR THE FOLKS LISTENING FROM HOME, I JUST WANNA GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ABOUT OUR OFFICE.
AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT IS SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
OUR, UM, MISSION IS TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF APDS POLICIES AND PRACTICES.
OUR WORK INCLUDES, UH, ACCEPTING FEEDBACK ON INTERACTIONS WITH AWESOME POLICE OFFICERS, MAKING DISCIPLINARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, REVIEWING ACADEMY CURRICULUM AND TRAINING, AND OF COURSE ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
SO, AGAIN, FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME, I WANNA BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT.
UH, IN THIS CONTEXT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AN OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING, OR OIS, UH, WHICH I'LL USE THAT ACRONYM GOING FORWARD, UH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN, UH, WHEN AN A PD OFFICER DISCHARGES THEIR WEAPON, THEIR FIREARM SPECIFICALLY.
UM, SO A P'S LAST OIS REPORT WAS RELEASED IN JUNE, 2020.
THAT'S A TYPO THAT I ACCIDENTALLY DID.
UH, BUT LAST YEAR WE DID PIVOT OUR FOCUS FROM ANOTHER PAPER REPORT TO FOCUS MORE ON CREATING A DASHBOARD TO COMPILE AND ANALYZE DATA MORE HOLISTICALLY.
THE NEW DASHBOARD IS A CENTRALIZED, INTERACTIVE PLATFORM.
INSTEAD OF REVIEWING, UM, DATA FROM MULTIPLE REPORTS, EVERYTHING IS INTEGRATED INTO ONE PLACE.
USERS CAN QUICKLY EXPLORE INCIDENTS AND IDENTIFY PATTERNS AND GENERATE INSIGHTS.
THIS IS A PART OF OUR OVERALL COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVED OVERSIGHT.
NOW I'LL HAND IT OFF TO CRYSTAL TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE PLATFORM.
THE DASHBOARD COMBINES MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES TO SERVE AS A CENTRALIZED PLATFORM FOR TRACKING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.
IT VISUALIZES TRENDS OVER TIME, ALLOWING LEADERSHIP ANALYSTS AND THE PUBLIC TO EXPLORE PATTERNS AND UNDERSTAND CONTEXT.
WE ARE CURRENTLY UPDATING THE DASHBOARD TO INCLUDE THE MARCH, 2026 OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING AS WELL, AND WE'LL BE MAKING UPDATES AS INCIDENTS HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE CREATED A VALIDATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THE INFORMATION IS RELIABLE AND CONSISTENT.
THE DASHBOARD COMBINES DATA FROM CRITICAL INCIDENT BRIEFINGS, SIU, ANNUAL SPREADSHEETS AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE FILES.
THE DASHBOARD INCLUDES DEMOGRAPHICS, USE OF FORCE DETAILS, GEOGRAPHIC MAPPING AND TRENDS ANALYSIS.
THE OVERVIEW PAGE PROVIDES A HIGH LEVEL SNAPSHOT OF OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS ACROSS THE CITY.
USERS CAN QUICKLY SEE ANNUAL TOTALS, TRENDS OVER TIME, AND KEY METRICS.
THIS IS OFTEN THE FIRST STOP FOR ANYONE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BROADER PICTURE.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE KEY METRICS PROVIDED ARE INCIDENTS BY CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT A PD SECTOR OR ZIP CODE.
THE OFFICER INSIGHTS SECTION FOCUSES ON OFFICER RELATED DATA, SUCH AS YEARS OF SERVICE, WEAPON TYPE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.
THIS HELPS US IDENTIFY PATTERNS THAT MAY INFORM TRAINING, STAFFING, OR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.
[00:25:01]
INSIGHTS.SUBJECT INSIGHTS PROVIDE DEMOGRAPHIC AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THESE INCIDENTS.
THIS INCLUDES AGE, RACE, INJURY TYPE, AND WEAPON TYPE, UNDERSTANDING WHO IS IMPACTED AND HOW HELPS US BETTER ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND EQUITY ISSUES.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE INCIDENT DETAILS PAGE.
THIS ALLOWS USERS TO DRILL DOWN INTO INDIVIDUAL CASES.
IT INCLUDES TIMELINES, LOCATIONS, REASON FOR CONTACT AND INCIDENT NARRATIVES.
THIS LEVEL OF DETAILS SUPPORTS TRANSPARENCY AND HELPS THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF EACH INCIDENT.
THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE SPANISH VERSION OF OUR OIS DASHBOARD.
TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY, WE LAUNCH THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH DASHBOARD SIMULTANEOUSLY.
THIS REFLECTS OUR COMMITMENT TO SERVING AUSTIN'S DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND REMOVING LANGUAGE BARRIERS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION WHILE PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY.
SO THIS PROJECT WAS BUILT WITH ACCESSIBILITY IN MIND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
AS CRYSTAL EXPLAINED, THE, THE DASHBOARD IS AVAILABLE FULLY IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH JUST TO ENSURE THAT ACCESSIBILITY ACROSS THE, UH, COMMUNITY.
WE DID EXTENSIVE USER TESTING WITH, UH, VOLUNTEERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WITH OUR OWN STAFF, JUST SO THAT WE COULD, UH, ENSURE USABILITY ACROSS DIVERSE AUDIENCES.
AND IN TERMS OF VISUAL DESIGN, UH, THE DASHBOARD SUPPORTS CLEAR TAB ORDER AND HIGH CONTRAST ALTERNATIVE THEMES TO ENSURE USABILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VISUAL NEEDS.
AND THAT'S IN LINE WITH NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES FOR, UM, UH, PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VISUAL NEEDS.
SO FOR NEXT STEPS, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT? UM, OUR DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE ENHANCE AND EXPAND THE DASHBOARD, BUT TO REFLECT THE EVOLVING COMMUNITY NEEDS AND STRENGTH AND TRANSPARENCY, UH, WE WILL, AS, AS KEVIN OUTLINED, WE WILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS AT OTHER COMMISSION MEETINGS THROUGH THROUGHOUT THE COMMITTEE IN THESE COMING WEEKS TO FURTHER RAISE AWARENESS AND ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
AND, UH, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO MAKE VIDEOS, TUTORIAL MATERIALS TO, UM, HELP COMMUNITY MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE DATA AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THE DASHBOARD.
WE ARE NOW READY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY HAVE.
ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INFORMATION ON IT OR JUST SPECIFICALLY THE DASHBOARD ITSELF? I THINK, UM, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION AND WE CAN TRY TO ANSWER IT.
ON SLIDE EIGHT, UNDER SUBJECT WEAPON TYPE, IT SHOWS 78.3% WERE WITH A FIREARM.
AND THAT IS, I ASSUME, THE SUBJECT HAVING A FIREARM.
AND THERE WAS AN OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING AND THEN 13.96% WITH AN EDGED WEAPON.
BUT I DO SEE 6.7% AS NO WEAPON.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT MIGHT BE? WHAT THAT SEARCH SITUATION WAS AND HOW IT CAN BE PREVENTED? I THINK, UM, SOME OF THOSE YOU WOULD NEED TO GO INTO THE NARRATIVES TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
UM, THERE ARE INCIDENTS WHERE AN OFFICER MIGHT HAVE FIRED A WEAPON AND IT WAS AT A MOVING VEHICLE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, SO THERE WAS NO WEAPON IN THAT INCIDENT.
UM, I THINK IT'S BEST TO GO IN THROUGH THE NARRATIVES TO EACH SPECIFIC INCIDENT.
'CAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT AT THIS TIME.
AND THEN, UM, AND AGAIN, THESE STATISTICS RIGHT HERE, THAT'S JUST FROM UM, FIVE YEARS? CORRECT? SINCE 2018? 2018.
I GUESS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A GENERAL COMMENT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY AWESOME YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THE DATA AVAILABLE.
UH, PEOPLE CAN CONCLUDE, UH, THEY'RE WELCOME TO CONCLUDE WHATEVER THEY WISH TO CONCLUDE.
I JUST, I'M JUST GLAD THAT THE DATA'S THERE, YOU KNOW, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOW THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS OPERATING.
IS THERE ANY PLAN ON DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR LESS THAN LETHAL, YOU KNOW, FOR TASERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? DEPLOYMENTS? OR IS THIS JUST GOING TO BE JUST FIREARM ITSELF? CURRENTLY THERE'S NO PLAN FOR LESS LETHAL.
WE'RE JUST FOCUSING ON OIS INCIDENTS.
AND I HAD ONE QUESTION YOU, IN YOUR LAST SLIDE, IT MENTIONED THAT YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FOR UPDATING AND MAINTAINING THE DASHBOARD.
COULD YOU MAYBE TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT? IS THERE AN ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME? BECAUSE CLEARLY THIS IS, THESE CASES ARE FROM 2025, RIGHT? WE'RE HALFWAY, ALMOST
[00:30:01]
HALFWAY THROUGH 2026 IN THE FUTURE.WHY WOULD THOSE CASE UPLOAD TIMELINES? 'CAUSE OFTENTIMES WE SEE THEM WHETHER FOR GOOD OR FOR OR FOR WORSE.
WE SEE 'EM THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, WE SEE 'EM THROUGH THE PRESS BEFORE WE GET THE ACTUAL DATA AND INSIGHTS.
SO HOW DO, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT? SURE.
SO INITIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE TOOK DATA FROM 2018 THROUGH 2025.
SO THAT WAS QUITE AN UNDERTAKING.
IT TOOK US ABOUT A YEAR TO DO THAT.
UM, SO WE ARE CURRENT THROUGH 2025.
AND LIKE I MENTIONED, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING 2026.
THERE'S ONLY ONE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE INCIDENT.
SOMETIMES WE'RE WAITING TO GET ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE THE DATA, AND THAT TAKES TIME.
UM, AND IT'S BETWEEN INFORMATION THAT A PD IS WAITING ON AS WELL TO UPDATE.
AND THEN WE GET IT AND WE UPDATE IT ON OUR SLIDE.
SO WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO UPDATE AS SOON AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, BUT IT IS WAITING ON, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES THE INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETE AND ALL THE DATA TO BE PROVIDED THAT WE NEED.
BUT GOING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA UPDATE AS SOON AS WE POSSIBLY CAN ON EACH INCIDENT, WHICH, AND THIS IS CARLOS BRIGGS, I'M SORRY, I WAS GONNA SAY, WHICH WE EXPECT WILL PROBABLY BE SEVERAL MONTHS.
SO IF THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU GUYS BE ABLE TO UPDATE 'EM IN 24 HOURS OR WITHIN A WEEK OF THE INCIDENT, THAT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN.
I GUESS THAT'S ALONG THE LINES.
I WAS GONNA SUGGEST, I GUESS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DATA WE CAN, ONE, ONE CAN RECEIVE IN IMMEDIATE AND WHAT HAS TO COME UP HERE, WHICH HAS TO BE SOMEWHAT VERIFIED IN SOFTWARE.
IT, IT JUST MEANS THAT BY NATURE, THIS IS ALWAYS GONNA BE LAGGING.
BUT AGAIN, I SPOKE TO DATA INTEGRITY.
UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE PUTTING ON THIS DASHBOARD IS CORRECT AND COMPLETE.
NOW THAT THERE IS, THAT, THERE IS THIS DASHBOARD, AND I APPRECIATE, I LOVE DATA, SO I CAN APPRECIATE THE, THE GRAND, THE PROJECT THAT THIS, THIS TOOK.
HOW DO YOU FORESEE THIS BEING USED IN THE FUTURE? AND WILL THERE BE ANY PLANS FOR EXPANDING TO OTHER TYPES OF CASES? AND MAYBE LIKE A, A DUAL PART QUESTION.
AND HOW DO YOU FORESEE OR EXPECT THE CPRC TO MAKE USE OF THIS DATA? I THINK RIGHT NOW WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'VE PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY, WE'VE TAKEN FEEDBACK, UH, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT AS USEFUL AS POSSIBLE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
WE ARE FOCUSING ON OIS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE IF THE COMMUNITY, DEPENDING ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, IF WE GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON A PARTICULAR, UM, DATA SET THAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO FOCUS ON, WE CAN LOOK AT DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE.
UM, AND AS FAR AS CP C'S USE, UH, I GUESS A LOT OF THE DATA THAT'S IN HERE, I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AGGREGATE DATA CAN TELL YOU, UH, YOU CAN SEE TRENDS MAYBE WHEN YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT CASES THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
UM, AS FAR AS THE DATA GOES, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT THROUGH YOUR FILES ALREADY.
BUT I THINK, UM, JUST LOOKING AT TRENDS AND, UM, OVER YEARS, OVER TIME, THAT CAN BE HELPFUL.
AND I JUST WANNA THANK YOU GUYS AGAIN FOR THE TIME THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS.
I THINK THAT IS REALLY GOOD FOR TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, THAT WAY THEY CAN STAY UP TO DATE ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.
I HAD, UM, MAYBE ONE SUGGESTION THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT BE OPEN TO THAT MIGHT BE, UM, GOOD FOR TRANSPARENCY IS POSSIBLY HAVING A SECTION ON THERE THAT SAYS, OUT OF THE SHOOTINGS HOW MANY WERE JUSTIFIED, UM, AND HOW MANY HAVE BEEN LOOKED INTO BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE OUTCOMES OF THAT.
UM, AND I JUST THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION TO ADD ON THERE FOR THE PUBLIC.
NO, I JUST WANNA SAY AGAIN, UH, I IMAGINE THIS WAS, THIS TOOK SOME TIME AND I, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT OF PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY IN A VERY, UM, I WOULD SAY VISUAL FORMAT.
YOU KNOW, I IMAGINE PEOPLE CAN REQUEST THE DATA THEMSELVES IN ITS RAW FORM, BUT IT'S LIKE, HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU PROCESS THAT? YOU KNOW, AND IT'S REALLY, I, I REALLY LIKE I SAY THE WORD AWESOME BECAUSE IT'S JUST AWESOME TO ME THAT IT'S ALL HERE IN VISUAL FORMAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT FEEDBACK MEANS A LOT TO THE PROJECT TEAM.
THEY WAS TRULY A LABOR OF LOVE FOR MANY, MANY, UM, MONTHS.
UM, I'LL, I'LL BRAG FOR CRYSTAL'S ON CRYSTAL'S BEHALF.
SHE AND THE PROJECT, UM, LEAD WORKED ON THIS LITERALLY WATCHING VIDEOS, THE VERIFY DATA ONE BY ONE GOING THROUGH SCORES AND SCORES OF SPREADSHEET WITH APDS HELP, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH SIU, WORKING WITH
[00:35:01]
IA TO GO THROUGH SCORES AND SCORES OF DATA.THAT'S WHY IT TOOK US SO LONG TO GET IT TOGETHER.
UM, SO I, I, I APPROVED THAT PRE FEEDBACK AND RECOGNITION IS VERY, VERY, UM, APPRECIATED.
AND I HOPE THAT IT, I HOPE THAT IT DOES PROVE USEFUL TO YOUR COMMISSION.
YOU GUYS CAN GET SOME USE OF IT AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING DISCUSSION? ITEM NUMBER FIVE? ONE LAST COMMENT.
UH, WHEN YOU SAY COMMUNITY, THIS ALSO INVOLVES THE OFFICERS THEMSELVES.
ANY FEEDBACK? HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM A PD REGARDING ON, ON THE, THE, UH, THE, THE DATA AND THE FAIRNESS AND SO FORTH? YES.
ACTUALLY, AS PART OF OUR ROLLOUT PLAN, WE WORK WITH, UM, OUR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KEVIN MASTERS AND OUR DIRECTOR GAIL, UM, MCCANN TO ROLL THIS OUT AND DO A PREVIEW WITH BOTH, UM, A PD AND WITH, UM, THE A PA, WHICH IS THE OFFICER, THE POLICE OFFICERS UNION.
THEY GOT TO SEE THE DASHBOARD KINDA AND GIVE US SOME, SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS.
AND, UH, I WAS VERY PLEASED AND VERY HAPPY WITH THEIR FEEDBACK.
I THINK THEY WERE TAKEN ABACK BY SEEING KIND OF ALL OF IT TOGETHER ALL AT ONCE.
UM, JUST LIKE US, THERE'S SOME PARTS OF THE DATA WHERE IT'S LIKE, OH, WOW, I NEVER REALLY LOOKED AT IT ALL TOGETHER LIKE THAT.
THEY HAD OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND INCLUDING THE POLICE UNION PRESIDENT, HE HAD POSITIVE FEEDBACK AS WELL.
SO, UM, I THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR COMMITMENT IS TO TRANSPARENCY.
IF DATA'S NOT USABLE, IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT AND YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, THEN, UM, HOW TRANSPARENT ARE WE BEING? AND SO WE CAN ONLY IMPROVE IF WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING GREAT AND WHAT'S NOT GOING SO GREAT.
SO I THINK EVERYONE BEING COMMITTED TO UNDERSTANDING THE DATA AND UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE DO BETTER IS A, IS A GOOD THING FOR US, WILL BE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THANKS.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, THEN WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD
[6. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2025-01049. ]
ALONG WITH DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, MOVING FORWARD WE'LL BE PAIRING THE, THE SUMMARY DELIBERATION WITH THEIR MATCHING WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.SO WE'LL BE GO 6 11, 7 12, 8, 13.
SO FOR WORKING GROUPS, YOU CAN KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'LL BE, UH, SPEAKING.
SO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM NUMBER SIX, SUMMARY, DELIBERATION AND ACTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP A FOR CASE 20 25 0 1 0 4 9.
SO, UM, WORKING GROUP A CONSISTS OF ME, HIM, AND THEN, UM, ALSO MR. PETERMAN, UH, LOCATED ON THE SCREEN.
UH, THIS WAS AN INTERESTING CASE BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME WHERE WE READ OVER THE CASE AND WE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT WE DID NOT ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE DECISION AT FIRST THAT WAS MADE.
UM, SO BASICALLY THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED WAS AN OFF-DUTY OFFICER WAS IN A RESIDENCE THAT HE WAS, HAD PAID RENT FOR, BUT WASN'T NECESSARILY HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
AND SO THERE WAS A, UM, I GUESS A QUESTION OF WHO WAS ABLE TO BE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OR NOT.
AND SO THE ROUND ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT ENDED UP GETTING INVOLVED AND THIS OFFICER ENDED UP GETTING ARRESTED, UM, AND WAS VERY DISORDERLY DURING HIS ARREST.
UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE CASE AS IT SITS ITSELF, WE WERE KIND OF LIKE, WOW, IT'S PRETTY HARSH TO DO AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION ON THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE AGREED THAT POLICE OFFICERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT BE HAVING A ROUGH DAY.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT WAS QUESTIONABLE TO US.
HOWEVER, UM, UPON FURTHER REVIEW INTO THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED, THIS, UH, SPECIFIC OFFICER DID HAVE OTHER CASES THAT WERE BEING REVIEWED BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
UM, AND THEY WERE PRETTY RECENT.
AND SO AFTER, UM, REQUESTING THAT INFORMATION FROM MR. UH, MASTERS AND MR. ALVAREZ, UH, WE RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION BACK IN ABOUT TWO DAYS, UH, MAYBE THREE DAYS REALLY QUICK.
AND I HAD JUST, UH, REQUESTED THAT WE GET KIND OF THE, THE SCOPE OF WHAT THOSE TWO OTHER CASES WERE.
AND, UH, AFTER GOING OVER THOSE TWO OTHER CASES, UH, WE ALL AGREED THAT DEFINITELY THERE WAS ACTION THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THIS OFFICER.
UM, AND SO THAT THAT CHANGED OUR, UH, PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE ORIGINALLY DISAGREED WITH AFTER REVIEWING THE PRIOR, UH, RECORD OF THE OFFICER.
SO WE DO AGREE WITH, UM, THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY OOPO AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MY TEAMMATES WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON SOMETHING.
YEAH, I THINK WE JUST HAD QUESTIONS IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE LOOK AND HOW, HOW FAR BACK DO WE LOOK FOR OTHER ISSUES? YOU KNOW, AND THIS PERSON HAD TWO PREVIOUS, UH, ISSUES, YOU KNOW, ONE OF, AND I THINK, I THINK ONE OF 'EM WAS, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION BACK THEN FOR THE
[00:40:01]
FIRST ONE.AND, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T KNOW AS A GROUP, ARE WE, ARE WE RELEGATED TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY JUST LOOKING AT, AT THE SINGLE CASE OR DO WE LOOK AT HISTORY? AND I KNOW THROUGH SOME OF THE TRAINING THAT WE DID, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, I GUESS O-P-A-P-O AND AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS SAID, YEAH, THEY LOOK FOR TRENDS AND, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR EVALUATION OR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DISPOSITION, UH, TO LOOK BACK AT, YOU KNOW, OTHER, OTHER CASES.
AND I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE THAT ANSWER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF CARLOS OR ANYONE WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, CONFIRM THAT THAT IS PART OF OUR JOB AS WELL.
UH, ONE COMMENT I HAVE IS I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE CASES IN WHICH THE, OFF THE PAST HISTORY THE OFFICERS INVOLVED.
I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS WHY THAT WAS NOT IN YOUR FOLDER, BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNUSUAL THAT SOMETIMES THE BOTH THE COMMENDATIONS AND HISTORY IS SOMETIMES INVOLVED, UH, IN THAT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO, TO MAKE SURE WE, UH, GOING FORWARD, WE INSIST ON HAVING THAT.
AND CARLOS, I, I JUST WANNA SAY, SO, UM, IN OUR, IN THE FOLDER, IT DOES SHOW THAT THERE ARE PAST INCIDENCES.
UM, BUT THE WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, IT ONLY SHOWS THE TYPE OF POLICY THAT THEY'RE ALLEGED OF VIOLATING.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE CASE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE REQUESTED, UM, FROM THE TEAM TO SEND THAT INFORMATION OVER SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT INCIDENCES THAT THE OFFICER IS ALLEGED OF DOING, JUST NOT THE SPECIFICS OF IT.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS, UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, I BELIEVE WE WILL
[11. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group A regarding Case 2025 01049.]
GO INTO VOTING FOR THE RECOMMENDATION LATER.WE'LL MOVE ON TO 11, NINE TO 11 REPORTS OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S, IT'S A NEW, A NEW GUIDELINES THAT WERE JUST PASSED DOWN.
WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THESE WEIRD DISCUSSION IN WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, ITEMS THAT MIGHT CHANGE LATER ON.
UM, SO IF, COULD SOMEONE PLEASE FROM WORKING GROUP A READ OUT THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN SO WE CAN VOTE ON IT? OR IF THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION? UH, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST THAT WE AGREED WITH WHAT, UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND OPO HAD DECIDED.
SO WE'RE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS FIT IN THE CASE.
I MEAN, YEAH, I DON'T, I THINK IT MORE THAN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION, IT'S TERMINATION FOR SURE.
IT'S SAME THING, I GUESS
UH, BEING AN OFFICER OUT IN THE FIELD AND TAKING THAT HOME WITH HIM.
UM, I, I, AT FIRST I WAS LIKE, THE IN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IS TOO HARSH THAT HE SHOULD HAVE HAD SOME MAYBE, UM, SOME PSYCHIATRIC HELP OR, OR EVALUATION.
'CAUSE HE WAS DOING, THERE WERE ALL RECENT, UH, INCIDENTS THAT WERE NONSTOP.
YOU KNOW, HE, HE WAS STARTING TO MAKE A TRAIL OF BAD DECISIONS AND MAYBE IT WAS LEADING FROM PTSD, UH, BEING ON THE JOB FOR 10 YEARS, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY GO THROUGH A LOT BEING OUT THERE, THEY SEE THE WORST OF THE WORST.
YES, THE QUESTION I HAD IS, I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, COMMISSIONER PENA AND THE, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF GOING AND ASKING FOR DETAILS ON THE OTHER CASES WAS THAT YOU GOT A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT THE, I GUESS THE PUNISHMENTS FOR THOSE, OR THE, THE, THE ACTIONS TAKEN THERE.
SO IT, COMMISSIONER CARLOS, YOU ARE MUTED, I BELIEVE.
SORRY, I WAS, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM COMMISSIONER, UH, PENA, THE, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE, THE ACTUAL DETAILS WAS TO FIND OUT MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PRIOR CASES AND MAYBE WHAT WAS, UH, WHAT THEY WERE ACCUSED OF DOING.
AND THEN YOU HAD, SO THAT MEANS THAT YOU HAD A PATTERN SEEN HOW, WHAT THINGS THE POLICE HAD DONE TO TRY TO REMEDIATE AND HELP THIS OFFICER BEFORE.
AND SO I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION MAYBE ERRONEOUSLY THAT, THAT WHEN YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IS CORRECT, AFTER ALSO SEEING THAT HE HAD CHANCE TO TAKE CLASSES AND ALSO TO THE OTHER PRIOR, UM, UH, VIOLATIONS.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND, AND I THINK, UH, WHERE, WHERE HE IS COMING FROM IS THE FACT THAT THIS OFFICER WAS, UM, IN THE MILITARY AND HE DID SERVE FOR THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR 10 YEARS.
AND SO WE, WE DID FEEL SYMPATHY TOWARDS THAT BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE STRESS OF THE JOB.
UM, BUT ONE OF THE PREVIOUS CASES THAT THIS OFFICER WAS ALLEGED OF
[00:45:01]
HAD TO DO WITH THE DDUI.AND SO WITH THAT, ON TOP OF THIS, WE DEFINITELY, UM, WELL, I GUESS ME AND MR. PETERMAN AGREE THAT'S WHAT WAS SAYING.
SO, YEAH, SO IT'S A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT THAT TERMINATION AFTER, AFTER THE FACT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE AGREE WITH.
YEAH, HE, HE WAS OFFERED SOME, SOME COUNSELING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T, IT DOESN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE COMPLETED THEM.
UH, HE WAS PUT ON RESTRICTED DUTY AFTER THAT, WHICH MEANT HE HAD TO STAY IN HIS HOME OR NOTIFY HIS SUPERVISOR IF HE WAS GONNA GO.
UH, THE SECOND VIOLATION WAS HE TRAVELED TO BOGOTA, COLUMBIA AND DIDN'T LET ANYONE KNOW, DIDN'T RESPOND BACK.
SO IT WASN'T AS THOUGH WE FELT THAT HE WAS REALLY TRYING TO, TO WORK THROUGH THESE KIND OF ISSUES.
AND THEN, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THIS LAST ONE, HE, HE WAS QUITE BELLIGERENT AND, AND HAD TO BE, YOU KNOW, HOG TIED AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT TO GET HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE ON THE, THE, THE ONE THAT WE REVIEWED.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST SAW A TREND AND, AND HE WASN'T REALLY, DIDN'T SEEM TO BE WILLING TO, TO ASK FOR OR, OR RECEIVE THE HELP THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD BE OFFERED TO HIM, SO THAT, THAT WEIGHED IN INTO OUR FINAL DECISION.
SO, LIKE, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CAR, UH, CARLOS WAS SAYING, UH, THE INFORMATION WAS LIMITED AND BEING LIMITED WITH THAT INFORMATION, UH, WE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
AND, UM, THANKS TO, UH, MS. PENA HERE, UM, THEY GOT US THAT INFORMATION, WHICH MADE THE, THE LAST DECISION MORE CLEAR AND, UM, SAFER FOR THE COMMUNITY.
SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
UM, SO RYAN, DO YOU WANT US TO VOTE ON THE ACTION, ON THE RECOMMENDATION? OKAY.
AND IT'S A, IT'S A NEW PROCESS, SO IT'S A LITTLE REPETITIVE FOR A REASON.
SO WE'RE GOING TO, IF SOMEONE FROM GROUP WORKING GROUP A COULD LIST OUT THE ACTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION AT THE END, I'LL MOVE ON TO, OR AFTER, WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION ITEM 11, WHERE YOU REPORT THE RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S A NEW PROCESS, SO WE'RE LEARNING IT TOGETHER.
UH, SO ANYONE FROM WORKING GROUP A, IF YOU COULD PLEASE LIST OUT THE ACTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION FIRST? YEAH, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE SUPPORT THE CALL FOR INDEFINITE SUSPENSION.
SOUNDS LIKE THE PROPER THING WILL BE SUSTAINED AND WITH INDEFINITE SUSPENSION, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDED.
IF I COULD GET SOMEONE TO MOTION TO SECOND THE MOTION.
AND THEN I WILL BE CALLING OUT YOUR NAME IF YOU, UH, SAY YES, NO, OR ABSTAIN.
COMMISSIONER CARLOS AGREE? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER? YES.
COMMISSIONER LAURA? YES, AS WELL.
NOW MOVE ON TO WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.
ITEM NUMBER 11, REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP A REGARDING CASE 20 25 0 1 0 4 9.
AGAIN, I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT MY DOING.
SO IT'S BASICALLY WE'RE JUST GONNA REITERATE THE ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION AS A, AS LIKE A SUMMARY REPORT.
IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 1 0 4 9, WORKING GROUP A HAS DETERMINED THAT WE WANT TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF OPO AND, UH, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND WE RECOMMEND TERMINATION.
MOVING FORWARD, THIS IS THE PROCESS AS OF TODAY THAT WE WILL BE DOING, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW, RYAN, IF THERE'S ANY FORESEEABLE CHANGES.
YEAH, SO IT'S JUST WITH THE WORKING GROUPS, WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
SO WHEN A WORKING GROUP IS, UH, CREATED, THE WORKING GROUP HAS A PROCESS, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE, YOU'RE GONNA DO THE PROCESS ONCE IT COMES WITH A RECOMMENDATION, YOU SPEAK ON THE RECOMMENDATION, YOU VOTE ON IT, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, AND THEN ON THE WORKING GROUPS, THEN THE WORKING GROUP GETS DISSOLVED, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT ON THE WORKING RECOMMENDATION.
SO BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST STATING WHAT THE CASE IS AND THEN WHAT THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION WAS AND THAT IT PASSED.
JUST FOR THE RECORD AND A CLARIFYING QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU MEAN OUR WORKING GROUP IS DISSOLVED? ARE WE GETTING NEW ONES OR IS DISSOLVED FOR THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CASE? YEAH.
WELL, SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW
[00:50:01]
WITH, UH, THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT.UM, WORKING GROUPS ARE USUALLY CREATED, THERE'S A PURPOSE, AND THEN ONCE THAT PURPOSE IS COMPLETED, THE WORKING GROUPS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISSOLVED.
UM, BUT CPRC IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE CREATING WORKING GROUPS WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL CASES OR IF WE COULD JUST KEEP IT ONGOING.
YEAH, SO FEEDBACK IS DEFINITELY GONNA BE COMING WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK.
SO, SO FOR 11, NO ACTIONS REQUIRED.
IT'S JUST BASICALLY JUST STATING FOR THE RECORD AND JUST FOR, UH, KNOWLEDGE, I WILL BE INCLUDING THAT IN THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS SO WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT IS THE GONNA LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE.
SO JUST FOR NOW, WE'LL GET THROUGH THESE ACTION ITEMS AND VOTE THROUGH THEM AS SUCH.
GOING TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM
[7. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2025-1839.]
NUMBER SEVEN, SUMMARY DELIBERATION AND ACTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP B FOR CASE 20 25, 1 8 3, 9.IF SOMEONE FOR WORKING GROUP B COULD LET US KNOW A SUMMARY AND REPORT.
YES, SO WE WERE LOOKING AT CASE NUMBER, UH, 2025 DASH 1838.
UH, SO THIS IS A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER HARRIS, JUST A CORRECTION.
THE CASE NUMBER IS 2 0 2 5 DASH 1 8 3 9 3 9.
UM, AN OFFICER WAS, UH, WAS RESPONDING TO A CALL OF, UH, LIKE A, A BREAK-IN, UH, WITH REPORTS OF A KNIFE, UM, OF AN INDIVIDUAL TRYING TO BREAK INTO AN APARTMENT.
UH, THE OFFICER, UH, PULLED UP TO THE SCENE.
UH, WHEN HE PULLED UP THE SCENE, THERE WAS AUDIBLE, UM, YOU COULD HEAR SOMEONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR KICKING IN A DOOR, AND THE OFFICER, UH, APPROACHED, UH, THE SUBJECT ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO RESPOND.
UH, AS HE WAS, UH, APPROACHING, HE ASKED A, WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE SOME SORT OF NEIGHBOR IN A NEIGHBORING APARTMENT UNIT? HEY, DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS PERSON IS? AND THEY SAID, NO.
UM, NOW WHETHER THAT INFORMATION IS TRUE OR NOT, UM, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE, THERE WAS SOME CONNECTION WITH THE PERSON, UH, KICKING IN THE DOOR AND THE PERSON IN THE APARTMENT.
UM, BUT, UH, THE OFFICER AT THE TIME, UH, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY SORT OF CONNECTION THERE.
SO HE WAS, IN MY OPINION, RESPONDING VERY, VERY QUICKLY TO A REPORT OF A PERSON KICKING IN A DOOR, TRYING TO BREAK INTO AN APARTMENT WITH A REPORT THAT THE SUBJECT HAD A KNIFE.
UM, LET'S SEE, THE OFFICER WENT UP THE STAIRS.
UH, HE ANNOUNCED POLICE SHOW HIM HIS HANDS.
HE PULLED HIS TASER AND THE SUBJECT WENT FROM THE DOOR TO WHERE, WHERE THE STAIRWELL WAS.
AND, UM, THE SUBJECT SHOWED, WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT SHOWED, UH, SIGNS OF SOME SORT OF INTOXICATION, WHETHER LIKE DRINKING OR SOMETHING.
AND, UH, WHEN THE OFFICER, UM, SAW THE SUBJECT COMING TOWARDS HIM, UM, HE FIRED HIS TASER.
UH, SINCE THE SUBJECT WAS AT THE STAIRS AT THAT TIME, HE FELL DOWN THE STAIRS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SUBJECT, UH, HIT HIS HEAD PRETTY BADLY ON THE STAIRS.
AND, UH, IT WAS LATER FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS NO KNIFE ON THE INDIVIDUAL.
UM, SO THIS IS, IT IS A REALLY DIFFICULT CASE BECAUSE, UM, THE OFFICER IS GETTING REPORTS THAT THE PERSON HAS A KNIFE, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE PULLS UP, HE HEARS THE PERSON BREAKING.
AND, UM, THERE'S SOME DEBATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS A KNIFE, IT'S JUST CONCEALED, OR IT'S IN A PLACE NEARBY, OR HE HAS A REPUTATION OF HAVING A KNIFE.
UM, LONG STORY SHORT, UM, OUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, OR I SHOULD I SAY, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE OFFICER ACTED WITH ANY ILL INTENT.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BODY CAM VIDEO, IT LOOKS REALLY BAD BECAUSE THE OFFICERS RESPONDING, UH, TO A BREAK-IN, AND THEN WHEN HE TAS HIM, HE GOES DOWN THE STAIRS,
[00:55:02]
HE HITS HIS HEAD.I MEAN, THIS IS, THESE STAIRS ARE CONCRETE AND IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
AND, UM, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE BECAUSE IT COULD, IT, I COULD SEE IT FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES, YOU KNOW, THE PERSON DIDN'T HAVE A KNIFE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE OFFICER, THE INFORMATION HE HAS AT THE TIME IS HE HAS A KNIFE WHEN HE PULLS UP.
I MEAN, ALL, HE'S CHECKING ALL THE BOXES HERE.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS, UH, EDUCATION BASED DISCIPLINE OR, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE A SPANISH REFRESHER COURSE OR REFRESHER COURSE ON DEESCALATION, BUT NO ACTUAL, UM, LIKE SUSPENSION.
UH, IF I, IF I'M, UH, A PO CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THREE TO FIVE DAYS OF SUSPENSION.
UM, A PD INTERNAL AFFAIRS WAS, UH, SOME TYPE OF COUNSEL.
LIKE I SAID, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SOME TYPE OF, UH, COUNSELING DISCIPLINE.
UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THAT.
IT, IT LOOKS BAD WHEN YOU SEE IT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S THE OFFICER APPEARS TO BE OPERATING OFF THE INFORMATION HE HAS AT THE TIME.
AND, UH, IT, IT, IT REALLY BRINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE 2020 HINDSIGHT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE OFFICER IS DOING WHAT ANY OTHER OFFICER WOULD'VE DONE IN THAT SITUATION, I HAVE A, I HAVE A HARD TIME, UM, SAYING LIKE, HEY, THIS OFFICER ACTED WITH ILL INTENT.
IT'S JUST THAT THE INFORMATION HE GOT WAS BAD, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND, UM, HE USED THE TASER AND HE JUST SO HAPPENED TO BE NEXT TO A STAIRWELL, AND, UH, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SUBJECT HIT HIS HEAD PRETTY BADLY DOWN THE STAIRS.
SO THERE'S SOME SORT OF HEAD INJURY TO THE EXACT EXTENT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, YEAH, SO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR FROM THE CPRC AND WORKING GROUP B IS FOR SOME TYPE OF SPANISH COURSE OR, OR REFRESHER ON DEESCALATION, BUT NOTHING PUNITIVE BECAUSE WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE ACTED WITH ANY, UH, ILL INTENT.
IT'S A VERY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION.
UM, I, THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, A PO THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS ALL BAD OR ANYTHING.
LIKE I COULD SEE HOW YOU GUYS GOT THERE.
IT'S JUST THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
SO, UM, DEREK, YOU CAN COMMENT.
THIS IS CARLOS, UH, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
OH, I GUESS WHAT I WANTED TO JUST MAYBE CLAR, LET'S CLARIFY PROCESS.
WE'RE WORKING ON THIS ON THE FLY, IS, UH, THE DID YOUR FIRST, I JUST RESPONSIBILITY, THE WAY I SEE IS THE, IS THE DECIDE SUSTAIN OR NOT SUSTAIN ON THE CHARGES, AND THEN YOU, IF DEPENDING ON WHAT SUSTAIN AND SUSTAIN WHETHER YOU WILL, UH, WHAT PUNITIVE, YOU KNOW, UH, SHOULD, WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, UH, NEXT.
SO IT'S, WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU IS THAT, UM, A PO MUST HAVE SAID SUSTAIN, AND THEN THEY HAD SOME, YOU KNOW, UH, PUNITIVE, UH, CON, CON, UM, PROCESS THERE.
BUT IT'S, I, WELL, IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM YOU, FROM THE WORKING GROUP, IF, IF YOU, IF YOU WERE DECIDE, IF YOU DECIDED THE OFFICER IS, IS, IS, UH, IS FINE, THEN YOU SHOULD SAY NOT SUSTAINED AND IT DIES THERE.
OR IF YOU THINK, NO, IT'S, WE AGREE IT'S SUSTAINED, BUT WE THINK THAT THE, THE A PO WAS TOO SEVERE AND ALL IT NEEDS IS IS TRAINING.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD THOUGHT LIKE MAYBE CLARIFYING IF, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT UNDER CHARGES MADE, WE SHOULD SAY SUSTAINED OR NOT SUSTAINED FIRST, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THAT, IF YOU SAY SUSTAINED, THEN SAY, WELL, WE DEFER AND WE THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE ONLY TRAINING.
IN WHICH CASE THEN IN ITEM 12, THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN APOS, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, THAT MAKES SENSE.
NO, I, I THINK, THANKS WITH THAT IN MIND, IT WOULD BE SUSTAINED.
BUT OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE REFERRING TO THE OFFICER AS FAR AS, UM, NOT ACTING WITH ANY ILL INTENT, UH, JUST A REFRESHER COURSE ON, UH, UM, SPAN YOU, YOU KNOW, SOME TYPE OF HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEONE IN SPANISH AND, UH, DEESCALATION.
THAT BEING SAID, UH, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO JUST LIKE, HEY, SUSTAINED, NOT SUSTAINED AND WHAT, BUT I JUST WANT ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IS FOR ME IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK THAT, AGAIN, HE ACTED WITH ANY ILL INTENT.
AND YOU KNOW, IT, I THINK THAT THE SITUATION THE OFFICER HAD, I THINK ANY OTHER OFFICER WOULD'VE LIKELY DONE.
SO IT'S, IT'S, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?
[01:00:01]
WELL, YOU ADEQUATELY COVERED THE CASE.I JUST DO HAVE A QUESTION TO CLARIFY IN THE PROCESS TO THE STAFF.
SO WHAT ARE WE SUSTAINING? ARE WE SUSTAINING YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR FINDING OR THE, THE, WHEN YOU SAYS CHARGES, WHEN, WHEN COMMISSIONER GREEN SAYS CHARGES, WHAT I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO.
WE THE, OKAY, ONE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS AS SPECIFICALLY THEY'RE SAYING VIOLATIONS OF GENERAL ORDER, AND IN EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES, THEY'RE GIVEN A SPECIFIC NUMBER 40, WHATEVER, 400.3 WE HAVE.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE IF WE, IF WE DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WE SU THAT, THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND HE DID VIOLATE IT, SO SUSTAINED OR NOT RIGHT? THEN AFTER THAT, THEN WE DECIDE, ASSUME IT SU ASSUME THAT WE DID BELIEVE IT.
SUSTAINED, THEN YOU COULD DEFER AND DECIDE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE, I SAY PUNISHMENT IS THE WORD I'M USING, BUT THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY IS THAT THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, BUT SUSTAIN IS WHETHER IS THERE A VIOLATION OF GENERAL ORDER.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO, YOU KNOW, AS AN EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE SITUATION, DID HE VIOLATE HIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT? SO IN THAT CASE, I'M THINKING WE DID REVIEW THE GENERAL ORDER, WHICH IS THE TASER DEVICE GUIDELINES, AND WE DO NOT FEEL THAT HE, HE VIOLATED THE GENERAL ORDERS OF THE TASER DEVICE GUIDELINES.
SO IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD SAY WE, WE DO NOT SUSTAIN THAT HE VIOLATED.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S AN OPTION.
WE CAN SAY THAT WE DON'T THINK HE VIOLATED THAT GENERAL ORDER, BUT WE'D HAVE PROBABLY HAVE TO, IF WE WERE GOING TO GIVE HIM SOME SORT OF EDUCATION BASED DISCIPLINE, WE NEED TO POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE GENERAL ORDERS AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED.
AND COMMISSIONER HARRIS, WHEN YOU WERE, UH, READING OVER ABOUT THE CASE, UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
SO INITIALLY THE SUB, THE SUBJECT WAS IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A CRIME BEFORE THIS HAPPENED? IT, IT WOULD APPEAR SO, YES.
NOT THAT THAT WAS ADJUDICATED OR ANYTHING, IT JUST, ON FIRST APPEARANCE, LOOKING AT IT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HE WAS BREAKING AND ENTERING OF SOME SORT.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS, FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU IDENTIFY ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE WORK GROUP? YEAH.
UH, SO WORKING GROUP B WOULD BE, UM, UH, MYSELF, COMMISSIONER HARRIS, UH, COMMISSIONER KATHY RUSSELL, KATHY RUSSELL, AND MYSELF.
SO, UM, SORRY IF I JUST CONFUSED THIS ALL WITH ALL THIS, SO IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
SO DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO APOLOGIZE.
SO I GUESS WHAT, WHAT I WOULD ASK NOW IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING AS A, AS A COMMISSIONER WHO WANTS TO VOTER AGREE, WHICH YOUR CONCLUSIONS IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WORKING GROUP B IS RECOMMENDING THE NOT SUSTAIN, THE BIGGER RECOMMENDING NOT SUSTAIN.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I, I HEAR, RIGHT? IS THAT'S, AND AND, AND THEN LATER YOU CAN TELL ME, YEAH, WE THINK THIS GUY COULD USE A CLASS IS A CRAN OR WHATEVER.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION FOR NOW, FOR FOR SEVEN HERE, ITEM SEVEN IS WHAT DOES GROUP WORKING GROUP B RECOMMEND REGARDING VIOLATIONS OR NOT OF GENERAL ORDER YEAH.
YEAH, SO THE GENERAL ORDER, IT WOULD, HE WAS ALLEGED A VIOLATING WOULD BE, I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS, UH, 2 0 8, YEAH, 2 0 8 0.41.
UM, AND WITH THE LENS OF THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT, YEAH, I THINK IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT SUSTAIN THAT VIOLATION FOR THAT GENERAL ORDER.
AND, UH, WE MIGHT HAVE TO JUST COME BACK LATER AND SAY, UH, HOWEVER IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF HE GOT SOME TYPE OF, UM, EDUCATION BASED, UH, DISCIPLINE, BUT WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT A GENERAL ORDER THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE TO YOU GUYS? I, IF I COULD, I BELIEVE IN ORDER TO, AND MAYBE THE COMMANDER CAN HELP ME HERE, I THINK IN ORDER TO ASSIST EBD EDUCATIONAL BASED DISCIPLINE, IT HAS TO BE A SUSTAINED COMPLAINT.
SO, I MEAN, THEY CAN, YOU CAN RECOMMEND TRAINING, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY EBD BECAUSE EBD IS A DEFINED TERM IN THEIR POLICIES AND ALSO IN THEIR CONTRACTS.
SO, UH, YOU CAN DEFINITELY SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA EXONERATE UNFI, UH, FOUND, FIND THIS UNFOUNDED.
BUT WE WOULD RECOMMEND SOME LEVEL OF TRAINING.
[01:05:01]
BUT YEAH, INSTEAD OF SAYING, I WOULD JUST SAY TRAINING RIGHT.AND, AND NOT EBD, BECAUSE WHAT IS EBD? IT'S EDUCATIONAL BASED DISCIPLINE.
SO IT IS A FORM OF DISCIPLINE.
SO, UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT.
AND ANOTHER THING I WOULD RECOMMEND IS YOU REALLY GET ACQUAINTED WITH THE POLICY IN TERMS OF THE DISPOSITION.
SUSTAINED, MEANING THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE HAPPENED, THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT IT HAPPENED, ET CETERA.
UNFOUNDED MEANS AN ALLEGATION WAS MADE.
THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED.
UH, THEREFORE WE'RE GONNA UNFOUNDED, EXONERATED MEANS AN ALLEGATION WAS MADE, THE INCIDENT DID OCCUR.
HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE IT HAPPENED WITHIN POLICY, WHICH IS SEEMS TO BE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LEANING TOWARD HERE.
SO WHAT IT WOULD BE WOULD BE AT A FOUNDING OF EXONERATION.
I MEAN, THE ALLEGATION WAS HE USED HIS TASER, YOU SEE THAT HE USED HIS TASER, BUT YOU BELIEVE THE TASER USE WAS IN POLICY.
SO IT WOULD BE EXONERATE RECOMMENDATION OF EXONERATION WITH TRAINING.
I KNOW THAT, UH, I WAS WORKING OUT THIS PROCESS IS, HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT.
WE DON'T HAVE OUR THIRD COMMISSION THAT'S ON THIS, ON THE SCRIPT.
BUT FOR, FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE, I, I GUESS ARE, WELL, LEMME JUST GO FORWARD AND SAY THAT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DEREK, THAT IT WOULD BE NO POLICY VIOLATION FOR THE POLICY VIOLATION STATED.
SO WHAT WOULD THE THREE CATEGORIES AGAINST SUSTAINED THIS ONE WOULD BE? EXONERATION.
WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL SEND YOU GUYS THE POLICY WHERE IT DEFINES, THERE'S EXONERATION, WHICH MEANS THE INCIDENT DID OCCUR, BUT IT'S, IT'S IN POLICY.
THAT'S WHAT WE, AND UNFOUNDED MEANS.
UNFOUND, THE ALLEGATION WAS FOUND NOT TO HAVE OCCURRED OR DIDN'T OCCUR THE WAY IT WAS DESCRIBED TO OCCUR TO HAVE OCCURRED.
AND THEN OF COURSE, SUSTAINED.
THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHERS, BUT THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY ONES THAT WE USE.
A LOT OF YOUR CRITICAL INCIDENTS WILL BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED BECAUSE THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A COMPLAINT ALLEGATION, IT'S JUST AN INVESTIGATION INQUIRY.
SO WHEN YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, IT WON'T BE, IT WAS UNFOUNDED, IT WOULD JUST BE WE RECOMMENDED BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF SAYING NO POLICY VIOLATION OCCURRED.
I JUST WANT TO GET YOU GUYS IN THE, IN THE HABIT OF USING THE FORMAL LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE POLICY AS WELL AS IN CONTRACT.
SOUNDS LIKE EXONERATED EXONE WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR TRAINING.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY SOMETHING, UM, SO, WELL, THIS KIND OF HAPPENED IN WORKING GROUP A WHEN WE INITIALLY WERE READING OVER THE CASE AND WE HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE DID NOT AGREE, UM, WITH THE, THE POLICY, THE, WITH THE POLICY VIOLATIONS THAT WERE FOUND.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, SINCE, I MEAN, HOW MANY CASES HAVE WE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, RULED ON? IT'S BEEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIX AT THIS POINT.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT IT'S ACTUALLY COMING OUT THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH, UM, WHAT HAPPENED.
AND SO I, I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH A PO AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN THE CASE WHEN WE, I'M TRYING TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE IN THE CASE WHERE WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT, WITH THE OUTCOME OF WHAT BOTH A PO AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS HAS SAID, I THINK THAT IT WILL BE WISE FOR THAT CASE, THAT PARTICULAR CASE, TO THEN BE UPLOADED TO EVERY COMMISSIONER'S, UM, DASHBOARD TO LOOK OVER.
BECAUSE I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING ON AN ITEM WHERE IT'S GOING AGAINST SOMETHING THAT TWO SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ALREADY AGREED IN A, IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT SUGGESTION THAT IN THE CASE, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THAT THAT POSSIBLY BE REFERRED TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS TO LOOK AT FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT MONTH, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON IT IN THE NEXT MEETING.
I'M GONNA REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS.
SO PLEASE STAY ON THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I AGREE SHOULD BE PUT FORTH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
BUT FOR NOW, LET US GET THROUGH THE SUMMARY DELIBERATION, THE ACTION.
I THINK IT JUST COMES TO SHOW THAT AS NEW CASES COME UP, OKAY, WE HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, UH, BUT WE HAVE THIS WORKING GROUP PRESENTING.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AN ACTUAL REGARDING, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION.
SO I, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DEREK.
I THINK OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, UM, EXONERATED WITH TRAINING.
SO THAT MEANS THE INCIDENT DID HAPPEN.
WE FEEL HE DID NOT VIOLATE GENERAL ORDERS, SO EXONERATED WITH TRAINING.
SO WE WOULD, UH, SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO MOTION FOR THAT ONCE WE GET TO THAT ACTION ITEM.
SO IF WE'RE MAKING THE MOTION ON IT, I I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO WAIT TO DO THAT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? YES.
SO PART OF THAT SUMMARY AND DELIBERATION OF A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM IS THAT THIS IS THE TIME TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
UM, OF COURSE, IF COMMISSIONERS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION ON, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE WORKING GROUP.
[01:10:01]
OPEN AND WELCOME TO REVIEW IN DIFFERENT CASES ON OUR OWN.YOU CAN ALSO ABSTAIN WHEN THE VOTE COMES.
IF, IF I COULD COMMENT, UH, RIGHT NOW, THE, THE, THE, THE PROCESS THAT THAT'S HAPPENED IS CLEARLY THE WORKING GROUP HAD AGREED, THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT WORD SHOULD BE AND EXACT.
SO, AND I THINK THAT WE, THIS WAS RATHER SUCCESSFUL.
WE FOUND A WAY FOR THEM TO TELL US BEFORE THEY, BEFORE THIS, THIS, UH, ITEM IS OVER WORKING.
GROUP B HAS A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON WEIGHT.
AND OUR JOB, THE REST OF US WOULD BE TO SAY EVENTUALLY, YEAH.
DO WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT AFTER HAVING THIS EXTRA DISCUSSION? I FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE TOO.
BUT ONE THING I WANT TO REMIND ALL OF US TO, WE DISCUSS THIS BEFORE, AS YOU SEE THE CASES THAT, THAT THE, THE GENERAL ORDER VIOLATIONS THAT A PO OR A PD BRING UP, WE HAVE ALSO, YOU CAN ALSO GO TO THE GENERAL ORDER.
AND MAYBE YOU MAY THINK THAT MAYBE THAT GENERAL ORDER 4.3 0.2 IS NOT, BUT THERE'S, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION OF GENERAL ORDER 900, WHATEVER THAT IT IS IN OUR, IT'S IN THE REALM OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ALSO BRING THAT UP LATER.
YOU CAN ALSO THEN ADD, WE THINK THAT, THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THIS ONE.
THE VIOLATION WAS ACTUALLY ANOTHER ONE.
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I WANNA SUGGEST WE DO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE CASES IS ASK YOURSELF, DO THESE LOOK LIKE THE PROPER GENERAL ORDER VIOLATIONS? AND I KNOW A PD AND AP ARE EXPERTS IN IT, BUT IT'S STILL OBLIGATION, THE ACCOUNT JUST DOUBLE CHECK.
AND IF WE THINK THERE IS SOME OTHER VIOLATION, IT'S MORE, MORE, UH, APPROPRIATE.
SO, SO AT THIS POINT, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ACTION REGARDING, UH, IN A VOTE ON IT, I WILL NEED SOMEONE FROM WORKING GROUP B TO STATES THEIR RECOMMENDATION IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT POLICY.
SO THEN WE CAN MOTION TO APPROVE AND THEN VOTE IF NEED BE.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS EXONERATED, UH, EDUCATIONAL DISCIPLINE.
NO, NOT EDUCATIONAL DISCIPLINE.
YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S OUR, THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO YOU MOVING? I CAN, YEAH, I COULD, CAN I MOVE? UH, OH, MOTION.
CAN I ASK WHY YOU THINK HE SHOULD BE EX EXONERATED YOU WITH TRAINING? MAYBE IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED WITH TRAINING.
UM, LET'S HAVE WE, WELL FIRST LET'S, LET'S GET THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
SO I'LL, UH, YOU MADE THE MOTION.
NOW WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION, WHICH IS WHY WE, I, OKAY.
I MOTIONED, UH, UH, EXONERATED OF TRAINING.
NOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS.
SO MAYBE YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR QUESTION.
OH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, EXONERATED MEANS THAT THE OFFICER WAS INNOCENT.
HE DIDN'T DO WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF FOR THE GENERAL ORDERS THAT HE, HE IS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THIS.
I, I WOULD ASK, UM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, YOU CAN CALL ME KEVIN.
KEVIN TO RESTATE WHAT EXONERATED MEANS.
EXONERATED MEANS THE INCIDENT DID OCCUR, BUT THE ACTIONS WERE WITHIN POLICY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE ALLEGATION IS HE SHOT THIS GUY WITH HIS TASER.
IT MAY OR MAY NOT BEEN IN, IN POLICY.
YOUR FINDINGS IS HE SHOT THE GUY WITH HIS TASER, BUT IT IS WITHIN POLICY.
I GUESS, SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THEN IN, IN THE REPORT, UH, ETERNAL AFFAIRS AND OPO, THEY FOUND THAT HE WAS IN POLICY VIOLATION.
THEY RECOMMENDED, UH, THREE TO FIVE DAY SUSPENSION.
PPO DO YOU, DO YOU AGREE? YEAH.
MASTERS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? THE, I JUST DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR YOU GUYS.
THE, THE Y'ALL AT THE APOS RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS CASE WAS THREE TO FIVE.
WE STAND BY OUR RECOMMENDATION.
WE RECOMMENDED SUSTAINED WITH THREE TO FIVE SUSPENSION DAYS.
A PD UH, ASSESSED A SUSTAINMENT WITH AN ORAL REPRIMAND AND TRAINING ORAL REPRIMAND.
AND SO YOU SUSTAINED THE POLICY VIOLATION, CORRECT? WE DID.
SO BASICALLY IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DIS WELL DISAGREEING WITH, UH, A PO.
IT WOULD BE EXONERATED WITH TRAINING.
WHAT WOULD THE TRAINING BE? I MEAN, UH, YOU CAN'T CONTROL IF YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU, YOU, UH, USE YOUR TASER AND THE PERSON FALLS IN THE WRONG WAY.
'CAUSE IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK TO A LOT OF OTHER CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SHOCKED AND, UM, OR GOTTEN HURT.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF NOT GETTING LEGALLY KILLED, UM, BY USING THE TASER.
[01:15:02]
ALL CORNERS OF THAT, OF HOW THEY FALL, IF THEY GET HURT OR NOT.LIKE, YOU KNOW, I I, IS IT THE TRAINING GONNA BE ON HOW TO PROPERLY FIND A GOOD LOCATION TO SHOCK HIM AND SO HE CAN FALL? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT IS A SPLIT DECISION AND A LOT OF THESE OFFICERS JUST BARELY HAVE THAT.
MR. DE LOPEZ, YOU ARE HIGHLIGHTING THE CORE ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED AT AD NAUSEUM.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS IT THE OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE HE IS STANDING IN A SAFE PLACE OR THE SUBJECT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT BE IN THE SITUATION? AND THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS INVOLVED.
HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE OFFICER HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, PROCESS WHAT'S GOING ON? AND, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, HE HAD SOME TIME, BUT NOT A LOT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE DO THINK ONE FACTOR IS, UH, LANGUAGE.
AND, UM, IN THIS SITUATION, THE SUBJECT WE, WE BELIEVE WAS HISPANIC.
AND SO MAYBE THE OFFICER SHOULD HAVE USED, UH, SOME SPANISH LANGUAGE COMMANDS OR DIRECTIVES, WHICH HE DID NOT IN THIS CASE, WAS HE HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO.
HOW LONG DID IT PART OF OUR TRAINING WOULD DATE? OH, IT WAS, IT WAS, WAS AWARE, YEAH, IT WAS IMMEDIATE.
SO IN, IN A NUTSHELL, UM, IN EVERYDAY SPEAK, IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT IT IT'S EXONERATED WITH TRAINING.
AND THE TRAINING IS FOR, UM, A SPANISH COURSE AND A REFRESHER ON DEESCALATION.
IT'S IF YOU GET YOURSELF IN ANOTHER SITUATION LIKE THIS, MAYBE YOU'LL KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE SPANISH.
AND SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT OFFICER ACTED WITH ILL INTENT.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TRAINING IN AN AREA THAT THIS INCIDENT, IT WOULD APPEAR, UH, HAD AN ISSUE WITH.
UM, IF, IF THIS BOARD CHOOSES TO, UM, VOTE ON EXONERATING THIS INDIVIDUAL, THIS POLICE OFFICER, HAVE YOU GUYS ALREADY ISSUED THE SUSPENSION AND THE PUNISHMENT? AND IF SO, THEN WHAT? WOULDN'T THAT LEAVE THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPEN TO A LAWSUIT BY THE OFFICER FOR GETTING A, GETTING PUNISHED ON SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD DISAGREED WITH? HOW DOES THAT PROCESS WORK? YEAH.
ALL, ALL THE CASES YOU DISCUSSED TODAY ARE ADJUDICATED CASES, SO THEY'RE ALREADY DONE.
SO IF HE'S ALREADY RECEIVED THAT PUNISHMENT, THEN HE'S BEEN ISSUED WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
SO WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THIS BOARD GOING AGAINST WHAT BOTH OF YOUR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DECIDED ON AFTER THE FACT, AND THEN COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT ANSWER WHEN THE PUNISHMENT'S ALREADY BEEN HANDED DOWN.
WE CAN'T RE ADJUDICATE AN ADJUDICATED ISSUE.
IT'S A DISCUSSION SIMILAR TO SOME OF YOUR OTHER CASES WHERE YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE YOUR WORKFLOW IS WHICH YOU NEED IT TO BE.
AND YEAH, THAT SORT OF THING IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS CASE, THIS CASE IS DONE, THE OFFICER HAS RECEIVED HIS, AND, AND AT LEAST THERE'S A RECORD OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT DID THE CPRC THINK? WHAT DID A PO THINK? WHAT DID INTERNAL AFFAIRS THINK? AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA START CATCHING UP TO THESE CASES, CORRECT.
BEFORE THEY ARE ADJUDICATED MM-HMM
RIGHT? SO THIS ONE ESPECIALLY, THINGS ARE CHANGING.
WE'RE JUST GONNA BE GOING THROUGH THE CASES AND IDEALLY GETTING THEM ON TIME, BUT IT JUST COMES TO SHOW THAT ANY CASE CAN BE EXTREMELY COMPLICATED AS THINGS CHANGE DAYS BEFORE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING SITUATED, UM, AND LEARNING THE PROPER VOCABULARY AND HOW TO, UH, DISTINGUISH THIS, THESE CASES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, THIS IS, WE'RE IN THE MOTION TO VOTE.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, I, I DO WANNA PICK UP ON, UH, COMMISSIONER PENA'S QUESTION THAT IF, IF A THERE'S A RECORD OF A DIFFERENT DECISION, WOULD THAT CREATE A LIABILITY OR JEOPARDY ON THE PART OF THE CITY THAT THE OFFICER COULD POSSIBLY, I DON'T THINK WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT WE DON'T.
WELL, SO HERE'S THE, I GUESS WHAT WOULD MATTER IS, WHEN THAT OFFICER WAS SUSPENDED FOR THOSE THREE DAYS, WHAT DID HE LOSE OUT ON PAY? BECAUSE IF HE LOST OUT ON PAY, THEN I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES.
THE OFFICER WAS NOT SUSPENDED.
THE DISPOSITION WAS A PD ASSESSED.
SO THEY FOUND A SUSTAINED AND THEY PROVIDED TRAINING.
AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS SUSTAIN THREE TO FIVE SUSPENSION.
AND ALSO, I MEAN, NEVER MIND ALL OF US AT, AT THE END, THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE BOX STOPS THERE.
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SOMETHING SHE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
IF YOUR HEART SAYS, YOU KNOW, UNFOUNDED OR EXONERATED, EXONERATED OR WHATEVER,
[01:20:01]
YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THAT.YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING AND TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL IMPLICATION.
THAT'S MAYBE, TO BE HONEST, FOLLOW YOUR HONEST OPINION ON THE CASE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THE CITIZENS OFFICE MAY EXPECT FROM US.
YOU KNOW, WE BRING OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE BRING OUR PERSPECTIVE AS AS COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO THE CASE.
I WOULD RECOMMEND JUST, YOU KNOW, VOTE WITH YOUR, YOUR HEART AND MIND.
I THINK, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE POLICE CHIEF IS OBVIOUSLY GONNA DO IT, THE POLICE CHIEF DOES, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A RECORD OF WHAT A PO THOUGHT AND WHAT THE CPRC THOUGHT.
SO I THINK THE MOTION'S STILL STILL THERE.
ANYMORE QUESTIONS?
SO THIS IS THE TIME TO, AND, AND I WAS CHECKING THIS WHILE WORKING GROUP A WAS PRESENTING YOU.
WE CAN REVIEW THE OTHER, IT'S, IT'S ON THE SAME SYSTEM.
YOU CAN REVIEW OUR CASES, WE CAN REVIEW YOUR CASES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL? I'LL MAKE A COMMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT SINCE I HAVE RAISED SO MANY QUESTIONS AFTER, AFTER HEARING EVERYTHING, I THINK THAT I, I AGREE WITH YOU GUYS.
SO I DID THAT AS MY OPINION TO THE REST OF THE BOARD THAT I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH THEM.
THAT'S, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT, UH, I THINK THE PROCESS IS GONNA START LOOKING A LITTLE MORE STREAMLINED AS WE GET MORE, UH, FAMILIAR WITH HOW THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG.
SO AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER, THERE WE ARE IN A MOTION TO, UH, VOTE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
UH, IT'S BEEN RESTATED SEVERAL TIMES.
I ALSO FORGOT THE WORDING, SO I'M GONNA GO STRAIGHT TO COLLEEN.
YOUR NAME PLEASE SAY YES, NO, OR ABSTAIN.
COMMISSIONER CARLOS, I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF GROUP B.
UH, COULD YOU UNMUTE YOUR MIC REAL QUICK JUST FOR RECORD? YES, I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION.
UH, COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER? YES.
COMMISSIONER MARISSA? I AGREE.
COMMISSIONER LARA? I AGREE AS WELL.
[12. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group B regarding Case 2025-1839. ]
12, REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER V, WORKING GROUP B REGARDING CASE 2025.SO JUST IF SOMEONE FROM WORKING GROUP B WILL REPORT OUT THE, THE ACTION AND THE RECOMMENDATION.
NO WORKING GROUP B, OUR WORKING REPORT REPORTING OUT THAT WE RECOMMENDED EXONERATION WITH TRAINING OF CASE 2025, UH, 20 25, 18 39 VOLUME.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE, UH, WE WERE REPORTING THAT WE RECOMMENDED EXONERATION WITH TRAINING ON CASE 2025 DASH 1 8 39.
RYAN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THIS, IS THIS, WAS THAT OKAY? YES, THAT WAS CORRECT.
WE, WE GOT IT DOWN THE SECOND ROUND.
SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR LAST WORKING GROUP.
MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION
[8. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2025-2338. ]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SUMMARY, DELIBERATION AND ACTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP C FOR CASE 20 25, 2, 3, 3 8.JUST REALLY QUICKLY AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING, I'VE BEEN CREATING A SORT OF CHEAT SHEET FOR US TO FOLLOW.
PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR WORKING GROUP NUMBER, YOUR WORKING GROUP MEMBERS CASE NUMBER, AND THEN THE SUMMARY, DELIBERATION, AND ACTION.
AND ACTION IS SUSTAINED, UNFOUNDED OR EXONERATED? SUSTAINED, NOT SUSTAINED.
DISPUTE ON FOUND AND EXONERATED.
I THINK THERE'S A MUCH LENGTHIER LIST, BUT THOSE ARE THE MOST COMMON ONES.
SO ANYONE FROM WORKING GROUP C? OKAY.
UM, UH, OUR CASE WAS 20 25, 23, 38.
I'M HAVING SOME COMPUTER DIFFICULTIES, SO SOME OF THIS IS COMING FROM JUST MEMORY, BUT I, I CAN'T ACCESS THE, THE NOTES AND STUFF THAT I HAD.
COMMISSIONER? YEAH, YOU MUTED.
UH, CARLOS, COMMISSIONER CARLOS? UH, IF YOU WANT, I COULD READ IT.
I'M ALSO AT GRAVES, I'M ALSO IN, IN, UH, CI COULD READ THE SUMMARY IF IT HELPS.
SO ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 21, 20 25, THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM A CONCERNED NEIGHBOR, THE COMPLAINANT THAT AFTER CALLING FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE, BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED FOR A FEMALE RE RESIDENT WHO WAS SCREAMING FOR HELP.
AND AFTER HEARING SOUNDS OF HER POSSIBLY BEING THROWN AROUND
[01:25:01]
IN HER APARTMENT, AN OFFICER RESPONDED TO THE CALL, ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT A FEMALE IN THE APARTMENT, BUT WHILE DOING SO, ALLOWED A MALE SUBJECT TO EXIT THE APARTMENT AND LEAVE THE SCENE WITHOUT STOPPING HIM TO QUESTION HIM OR ASK HIM TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF.COMPLAINANT STATES THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE THE CARE, DID NOT HELP THE WOMAN.
AND AFTER THE WOMAN ANSWERED, THE DOOR DID NOT.
AND I WAS NOT COHERENTLY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS AND ACTUALLY SLAMMED THE DOOR AT HIM.
HE JUST WALKED AFTER BEING THERE FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES, WALKED AWAY.
A PD POLICE OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION AND WAS DIS COURT DISCOURAGED TO HIM WHEN HE QUESTIONED HIM FOR NOT DOING A GOOD INVESTIGATION.
THE OFFICER ALSO WOULD NOT PROVIDE HIS NAME, BADGE NUMBER WHEN ASKED.
THE COMPLAINANT WANTS THE COMP, THE COMPLAINT TO BE, UH, PROCESSED AS A SUPERVISOR REFERRAL.
YOU CAN CONTINUE BE BEFORE THAT.
COULD SOMEONE WHO GR UH, WORKING GROUP C RESTATE YOUR WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? UH, I GO AHEAD BY COMMISSION.
THIS IS IS FORMED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, UH, WILLIAMS AND GRAVE.
UH, LET'S SEE, WHAT WAS THIS? UH, THE OFFICER WAS, UH, WAS ACCUSED OF, UM, VIOLATING 3 0 1 0.2, IMPERSONAL, IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE AND COURTESY.
UM, THE OFFICER SEEMED ANNOYED AT THE COMPLAINANT FOR STATING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE, HE DID NOT DO HIS JOB, AND HE HAD ALLOWED A MALE SUSPECT TO LEAVE WITHOUT SECURING IDENTIFICATION OR QUESTIONING HIM.
HE DID OFFER SOME RESISTANCE TO GIVING HIS NAME AND BADGE NUMBER, BUT EVENTUALLY DID SHARE IT.
THE OFFICE AGREED THAT HE MAY HAVE, UH, VIOLATED THIS SECTION OF GENERAL ORDERS, UH, IN REVIEWING SOME OF THE, THE BODY WORN CAMERA AND SUCH THAT, UM, THE, THE OFFICER, UH, WAS RESISTANT IN GIVING HIS NAME AND BADGE NUMBER, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY GETTING IT DOWN, WRITING IT DOWN, AND SO ON.
I FEEL LIKE THE OFFICER COULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF IDENTIFYING HIMSELF.
YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY'S HAVING DIFFICULTY, WHY COULDN'T HE TAKE, YOU KNOW, MOST OFFICERS CARRY AROUND A, A NOTEPAD OR SOMETHING.
HE COULD HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN ON A NOTEPAD, HANDED HIM A BUSINESS CARD, ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT HE WAS RESISTANT TO DOING THAT.
CAN I ADD SOMETHING HERE? YES.
IN ADDITION, SOMETHING, UH, PECULIAR TO THE CASE WAS THAT A PD ORIGINALLY LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION ON THE, THE 3 0 1 0.2, UH, AS COMMISSIONER, UM, MENTIONED, BUT A PO HAD INSISTED THAT THERE WAS ALSO VIOLATIONS ON A FOUR, A 4 0 1 0.2, WHICH IS INITIAL RESPONSE AND IN TO AN INVEST AN INVESTIGATION, AND ALSO TO 900.43, WHICH IS NEGLECT OF DUTY.
AND SO ALL THESE TO EVENTUALLY AT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND A PO CONDUCTED THEIR INVESTIGATION.
ALL THREE OF THESE CASES, THE 3 0 1 0.2 IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE AND COURTESY, THE 4 0 1 INITIAL RESPONSE, AND, UH, AN INVESTIGATION AND A 900.4 PARTY BECAUSE OF, AS, AS YOU, YOU HEARD BEFORE, HE ALLOWED THE MALE SUBJECT TO JUST LEAVE THE APARTMENT, GET ON HIS BIKE, AND WALK AWAY WITHOUT EVEN ASKING HIM ANYTHING.
UH, SORRY, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS KEEPING IT ON MY PHONE SCREEN HERE.
MY COMPUTER IS DEAD, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT.
UM, AND SO I BELIEVE WE'RE IN THE,
[01:30:01]
JUST THE SUMMARY OF THE DELIBERATION OF WHAT YOU, YOUR WORKING GROUP KIND OF CAME TO A CONCLUSION.WAS THERE ALREADY AN ACTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION? YEAH, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, THAT HE WAS SUSTAINED.
YEAH, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT POWER SUPPLY.
IT WON'T TAKE MY PASSWORD IF YOU, UH, QUESTION JOHNSON.
IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I COULD ALSO CONTINUE READING WHAT YEAH, BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE A YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MAYBE MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR YOU.
MY COMPUTER IS, UH, ACTING UP, UP RIGHT NOW.
UH, IT DECIDE YOU'RE NOT HAPPY TO DO THAT.
IT DECIDED TO, UH, UPDATE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEETING.
SO ON THE, LET ME FIND OUT AFTER VOLUNTEERING.
SO ON THE, ON THE, UH, 3 0 1 0.2 IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE AND COURTESY, WE SAID SUSTAINED.
AND AS THE OFFICER SEEM ANNOYED AT THE COMPLAINANT, WE ARE ALSO, BY THE WAY, LOOKING AT BODY CAMERAS FROM THIS.
SO WE LOOKING AT, WE LOOKED AT EVIDENCE, BODY, CAMERA, UH, EVIDENCE.
THE OFFICER SEEMED ANNOYED AT THE COMPLAINANT FOR STATING THAT HE DID NOT DO HIS JOB AND ALLOWED, AND HE ALLOWED MALE SUBJECT TO LEAVE WITHOUT SECURING IDENTIFICATION OR QUESTIONING HIM.
HE DID NOT, UH, OFFER SOME RESISTANCE TO GIVEN, HE DID OFFER SOME REASONS GIVEN HIS NAME AND BAG WHO EVENTUALLY DID IT.
THE OFFICER AGREED, THE OFFICER AGREED THAT HE DID, UH, HAVE VIOLATION.
UH, HE MAY HAVE VIOLATED THIS, UH, SECTION OF THE ORDER OF THE GENERAL ORDER CONCERNING THE 4 0 1 0.2 INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE INVESTIGATION WE ALSO BELIEVED WAS SUSTAINED.
AND THAT'S BASED ON THE BODY-WORN CAMERA.
THE OFFICER'S INVESTIGATION, UH, WAS SUPERFICIAL.
HE DID NOT ALLOW THE MALE SUBJECT TO LEAVE.
HE ALLOWED THE MALE TO LEAVE THE DEPART AND THE SCENE BEFORE HE HAD VERIFIED THAT THE FEMALE WAS FINE AND BEFORE HE HAD ANY STATEMENT FROM THE FEMALE OR THE MALE SUBJECT.
AND THEN FINALLY ON THE 900 POINT, 4.3 NEGLECT OF DUTY, WE, UM, FOUND IT ALSO WAS SUSTAINED THAT THE OFFICER NEGLECTED TO INTERVIEW THE FEMALE AND CHECK IF ANY CRIMES WERE COMMITTED.
HE ALLOWED A POTENTIAL OFF OFFENDER TO LEAVE THE SCENE WITHOUT PROPER IDENTIFICATION IN QUESTIONING.
AND IN THIS CASE, ALSO, THE OFFICER AGREED THAT HE MAY HAVE VIOLATED THIS SECTION OF THE GENERAL ORDER.
SO, UH, NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE AGREED, UH, WITH THE A PO ON ALL THREE OF THESE AS SUSTAIN.
AND, UH, I THINK APOS, UH, WAS FOR NOT THAT WORD.
MAY I ASK SOME CLARIFICATION? I THINK WAS WRITTEN OH YEAH, WRITTEN REPRIMAND WAS WHAT WAS, UH, RECOMMENDED.
AND IF WE WERE TO, UH, TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT, IT WAS, ONCE AGAIN, WE WOULD'VE SAID MAYBE SOME TRAIN, SOME FURTHER TRAINING.
UH, SO I THINK THAT SUMMARIZED IT.
DO YOU AGREE, COMMISSIONER? YES.
ANY QUESTIONS? SO IT APPEARED HE WAS ACTING A BIT UNPROFESSIONAL AT THIS INCIDENT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SAW HE WAS JUST ANNOYED THAT THIS NEIGHBOR
SOMETIMES I CAN UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF POLICE HAVING SOME STRANGERS SAY, BUT, UH, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO BE IMPARTIAL AND TORI RISE ABOVE THESE THINGS AND DO HIS JOB.
SO, UM, SO WE AGREED THAT WITH THE A PD AND APOS, UH, ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE, COULD I HAVE SOMEONE MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION? WE'LL, SECOND.
AND THEN WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.
THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE ON RECOMMENDATION.
WHAT WAS, UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE O PO'S RECOMMENDATION AGAIN? WE SUSTAINED THAT THE OFFICER DID VIOLATE THE, THE, THE CHARGES, THE THREE CHARGES.
WRITTEN REPRIMAND THE REPRIMAND, WRITTEN REPRIMAND, RIGHT? YEAH.
HE WAS, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT HE RECEIVE A WRITTEN REPRIMAND, UH, WRITTEN REPRIMAND, YES.
AND I, I, OR WHEN I HEARD THE CASE, I ORIGINALLY HAD A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS UNDER OUR PURVIEW, BUT THEN I WENT BACK TO OUR,
[01:35:01]
UM, WHERE ARE THEY? JUST HAD IT HERE.UM, YEAH, UNDER OUR, UH, ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, REVIEW ANY INVESTIGATION OF DEATH AND CUSTODY, SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR OTHER SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.
SO I ASSUME THIS WAS CONSIDERED OTHER SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.
SO IT'S DEFINITELY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS FOR WORKING GROUP C BEFORE WE, UH, I MOVE ON TO CALL COMMISSIONERS TO VOTE? WE, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO, SIR.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER? AGREE.
[13. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group C regarding Case 2025-2338. ]
ON TO WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER 13, REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER.REVIEW WORKING GROUP C REGARDING CASE 20 25, 22, 3, 3 8.
IF SOMEONE FOR WORKING GROUP C COULD JUST RESTATE THE ACTION RECOMMENDATION JUST PASSED, WE, UH, RECOMMEND THAT THE, THE ALLEGATIONS BE SUSTAINED, UH, AND THAT THE OFFICER RECEIVE A WRITTEN REP REPRIMAND, WHICH WAS, UH, ALSO APPROVED BY A PO AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
[9. Approve the creation of a working group for the “CPRC Year in Review” to prepare a one-me report summarizing the Commission’s first-year accomplishments, challenges, and lessons learned, including compilation of commissioner input and a dra report for Commission review. ]
OUR LAST DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM NUMBER NINE, APPROVE THE CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP FOR THE CPRC YEAR END REVIEW.TO PREPARE A ONE-TIME REPORT SUMMARIZING THE COMMISSIONER'S FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED, INCLUDING COMPILATION OF COMMISSIONER INPUT AND A DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMISSIONER REVIEW.
NOW, I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN ITEM THAT COMMISSIONER CARLOS BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE DISCUSSION.
I'M SORRY, I GOT DISTRACTED AGAIN.
WILL YOU REPEAT IT AGAIN? YEAH, THE, UH, ACTION ITEM NUMBER NINE, THE CPR YEAREND REVIEW.
UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER HARRIS TOOK ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DRAFTING A YEAREND REVIEW.
AND WHAT HE ORIGINALLY ASKED, RATHER THAN DISTRIBUTED THE FIRST TO THE, TO THE, THE WIDER GROUP, HE ASKED A FEW OF US, MYSELF AND I THINK THE VICE CHAIR TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
AND THEN BESIDE, BECAUSE I, THIS IS MY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK HE THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME CONTROVERSIAL THINGS HE PUT IN THERE AND HE JUST WANTED A SECOND OPINION ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, THIS IS TOO HARSH OR NOT RIGHT.
UM, SO I, I REVIEWED IT AND LOOKED AT IT AND I'M NOT SURE, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR, WHAT YOUR VIEW IS, WHETHER IT'S READY FOR A LARGER, UH, THING.
BUT ONE QUESTION WE HAVE HERE, AND THIS IS TRYING TO BE IN, WE'RE TRYING TO BE IN, UH, FOLLOW OMA, IS WHETHER THE APPROPRIATE THING HERE IS TO MAKE A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THIS NOW IN DETAILS.
THERE'S TWO OR THREE, SO LIST AND QUORUM.
AND THEN, UH, HAVE A WORKING GROUP FORMALLY BRING THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TABLE.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, UH, SUGGESTION HERE WAS THAT THERE SAID SEVERAL OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, MYSELF, THE VICE CHAIR.
SHOULD I, SHOULD I WAIT? YEAH, YEAH.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU SAID THAT 'CAUSE YES, I CAN REPEAT IT AGAIN.
YOU WANNA JUST KEEP GOING OR I JUST WANNA GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO THE, THE, THE COMMISSIONER HARRIS DRAFTED FIRST DRAFT AND, UH, DECIDE TO HAVE ONE OR TWO OF US JUST LOOK AT IT TO JUST, UH, A SECOND, A SECOND PASS AND SEE.
AND RIGHT NOW OUR DECISION WAS WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES US FORMING A WORKING GROUP
[01:40:02]
TO FURTHER BUILD IT UP AND PUT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION UP FRONT, OR IF IT'S STILL AT THE STAGE WHERE, SINCE THERE'S SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS HERE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, GRANTED THERE'S SOME COMMISSIONERS THAT'S ONLY BEEN HERE FOR A FEW MONTHS, AND THIS IS LIKE THE YEAREND REVIEW, WHICH IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN A YEAR.IF IT'S STILL, IF WE SHOULD FIRST ASK FOR MORE FURTHER INPUTS TO THE, TO THE, TO TO, UH, FOR THE INPUTS, THINGS THAT WE THINK THAT NEED TO BE ADDED, SO TO THE BIGGER REPORT BEFORE DISTRIBUTING THIS TO THE BIGGER CASE.
SO WHAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IS HOW DO WE PROCEED HERE? HE HAS A FIRST DRAFT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, IS IT READY TO DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYBODY ELSE? DO WE ASK FOR FURTHER INPUTS? FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE INPUTS I, I FOUND IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT IN REVIEWING OUR LAST YEAR, THERE'S DATA AND STATISTICAL DATA ON THE NUMBER OF ATTRITION OF HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS WE'VE HAD AND HAVE LEFT AND SO FORTH THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A REPORT.
AND, AND IT, IT WASN'T PRESENT FORM, WASN'T THERE BECAUSE I THINK DATA TELLS MAY GIVE THE PUBLIC A, A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFICULTIES WE'VE HAD.
UM, TODAY WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'VE SEEN HOW THE, WHILE THE CITY AND THE CITIES HAVE OFTEN ASKED US TO DO SOMETHING, IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW THAT'S BEEN DONE.
AND SOME OF THE, THE RAMIFICATIONS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU PRE THE REVIEW EVEN THE CASES? AND SO THOSE ARE, IF WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE THE PUBLIC A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST YEAR, WHAT OTHER THINGS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE REVIEW? THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, WHERE IT'S AT.
SO, AND LOOKING FOR INPUTS AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THIS? YEAH.
AND I, I LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU GUYS 'CAUSE I GAVE YOU A DRAFT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IS, IT'S, UH, YEAH, LIKE YOU SAID, A LITTLE CONTROVERSIAL AND I WANTED YOU GUYS TO HAVE YOUR INPUT ON THIS, NOT JUST WHAT I THINK, BECAUSE WHAT I THINK COULD BE WRONG.
AND I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE YOUR INPUT AS WELL.
I, I MEAN, I, I RECEIVED THE YEAR REVIEW.
WAS THIS ALSO SENT OUT TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS? I SENT IT TO YOU, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR.
SO JUST TO, UM, LET THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW THIS IS A 14 PAGE DOCUMENT.
IT'S VERY LENGTHY AND CLEARLY FROM ONE COMMISSIONER'S PERSPECTIVE.
SO I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS, DO WE WANT TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO ADDRESS A ONE TIME YEAREND REVIEW THAT ONCE WE MAKE THIS REPORT IT WILL BE DISSOLVED? OR IS THERE A BETTER PROCESS? WHEN I WAS TALKING TO THE CHAIR, I THOUGHT MAYBE IT COULD BE A CALL FOR WHAT HAVE BEEN YOUR PARTICULAR CHALLENGES, YOUR SUCCESSES, WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE INSTEAD OF A WORKING GROUP? SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
I, I, I WAS JUST WONDERING 'CAUSE UH, AS HE BROUGHT UP THAT THERE'S MANY OF US ON HERE THAT HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR, AND I THINK THE MOST SIMPLEST EASY PATH FORWARD BECAUSE OF THAT WOULD BE TO JUST TO HAVE THEM DISTRIBUTE IT TO ALL OF US.
WE CAN ALL INDIVIDUALLY READ IT AND IF THERE'S ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WE WANT, SEND THAT BACK.
I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO HAVE A WORKING GROUP BECAUSE IF THERE WAS A WORKING GROUP, IT WOULD JUST BE THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.
SO I THINK IT'S JUST UNNECESSARY AT THIS POINT.
I LEAVE IT TO THE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR.
I MEAN, IT, I I I JUST WANTED TO TELL THE PUBLIC, AND MAYBE I COULD HAVE REPHRASED IT IN A BETTER WAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE HONEST.
AND IT IS A A LITTLE CONTROVERSIAL AND LIKE, LIKE THE VICE CHAIR SAID, IT IS ONE COMMISSIONER'S PERSPECTIVE.
NOW, IT MAY BE MORE, BUT IT IS MY PERSPECTIVE AND I WANTED OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO LOOK AT IT.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS, UH, I'M, CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CONTROVERSIAL MIGHT BE? I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS HAD, UM, QUITE A BIT OF CHALLENGES, UH, WHETHER, I DON'T WANNA GET INTO WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, BUT WE'VE HAD MANY CHALLENGES.
THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF, UM, THOUGHTS ABOUT, WELL, WHAT DOES CITY CODE 2 15 4 SAY AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE IRONED OUT ALL THOSE DETAILS YET.
I THINK THAT AS A A COMMISSION, UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, UH, I THINK THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS US TO BE A BIT AUTONOMOUS AND, AND SO FAR AS MAKING OUR OWN DECISIONS.
SO THE, THE CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS OF THIS DRAFT IS,
[01:45:02]
IS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, I'M TRYING TO BE CAREFUL OF MY WORDS HERE.AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE COMMISSIONER HARRIS' THE BASIS OF THAT, BUT I THINK A, A SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND START THAT PROCESS.
SO I SUPPORT THE WORKING COMMITTEE AND, UM, AND I, I WAS, UM, KIND OF, KIND OF INCLINED IN THAT WAS THE DIRECTION TOO.
BUT PART OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S TROUBLE ME ABOUT SOME OF THIS IS THAT, UM, WHENEVER MULTIPLE TIMES WE'VE SAID PEOPLE PLEASE SEND QUESTIONS, LIKE WHEN WE'RE A GOOD EXAMPLE, WHEN WE'RE ASKING THE POLICE, THE POLICE, THE CHIEF POLICE COME IN, ASK FOR QUESTION, ASK FOR QUESTIONS, AND NOT EVERYBODY PARTICIPATE.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A REVIEW THAT DOES REQUIRE, BESIDES JUST COMMISSIONER HARRIS INPUT THE INPUTS FROM, FROM OTHER PEOPLES TOO.
AND SO TO START WITH, IT WOULD BE NICE IF EVERYBODY JUST DID A TWO, THREE THINGS.
WHAT ARE THE THREE OR FOUR THINGS THAT HAPPENED THAT I WOULD LIKE THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW? LIKE THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW? AND SO IF, IF, IF IT WAS EASY TO ORGANIZE AND SAY EVERYBODY DO THAT AND PUT IT IN, THEN COMMISSIONER HARRIS TO PUT IT TOGETHER, THAT'S FANTASTIC.
BUT IT THAT, IT SEEMS THAT ONLY WHEN WORK IN GROUPS WILL DO THINGS, DO THINGS MOVE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY FEAR IS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THEY'RE BUSY OR WHATEVER, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR WHO COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T THINK OF, I DIDN'T REALIZE HE HAS A PROBLEM, BRING THAT AND SHARE IT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY.
UH, TO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PENA, WHAT HAPPENS? IS THERE SOME THINGS THAT HAPPEN THAT, THAT IT IS GONNA BE JUST DATA FOR YOU, RIGHT? DOES IT HAPPEN? AND I THOUGHT THE COMMISSIONER HARRIS BELIEVED IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED THIS WAY FOR YOU, IT WOULD BE JUST A NOTE, YOU KNOW, YOU WEREN'T HERE, SO YOU CAN'T, UH, UH, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THERE OR NOT.
BUT YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, OH, GOOD FOR ME, I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THIS HAPPENED.
AND SO, UM, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY OF GOING FORWARD? IF WE DID DISTRIBUTE IT, THEN IT WOULD BE REALLY, IM IMPORTANT THAT EVERY ONE OF US SEND OUR 2 CENTS.
BECAUSE IF FEW OF US HAVE BEEN HERE FOR TWO WEEKS OR TWO MONTHS, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN SAY AS PART OF THE YEAR, PUT THAT IN.
BUT MY FEAR IS THAT MY, AND MAYBE PART OF WHAT I, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD PUT ON THIS REVIEW IS THAT NOT ALL COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UPFRONT WORKING AND COLLABORATING IN, IN, IN HELPING THE, THE, THE PROCESS.
AND MAYBE, UM, THOSE WHO HAVE BETTER, UM, UH, COMMUNICATION, PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION EXPERIENCE THAN I
'CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE HAD STRUGGLES AND CHALLENGES AND TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO NOT HIDE THAT FROM THE COMMUNITY, BUT TELL IT IN A, IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY.
UM, SO IN THE DOCUMENT, DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE TIMES WHEN NEW COMMISSIONERS HAVE COME ON, LIKE THAT MONTH SO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW, OKAY, WELL THIS COMMISSIONER STARTED AT THIS TIME, SO ONLY THIS IS RELEVANT TO THAT COMMISSIONER? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT.
IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY JUST GENERAL THINGS THAT HAPPENED.
THERE'S NOTHING, NO, THERE'S NO MENTION IN SPECIFIC OF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT, THAT HAVE LEFT MY, MY REQUEST THAT I, ONE OF THE THINGS I WILL DO IS I WILL ADD SOME OF THE STATISTICS I WANT.
I'M GONNA NAME EVERYBODY WHO'S THERE AND YOU KNOW, WHO'S, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL, ANYBODY WHO'S DECIDING TO TO JOIN THIS WILL UNDERSTAND.
IT MUST BE HARDER THAN IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE SO MANY VERY SHARP AND INCOMPETENT PEOPLE HAVE COME ON AND HAVE TO LEAVE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, YOU KNOW, FAMILY WORK AND SO, ET CETERA.
SO, UH, BUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IF, IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S TAKEN TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE, UM, SOMETIMES IT'S HARD NOT TO DO IT WITHOUT GIVING EXCUSE, WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE YOU'RE GIVING EXCUSES.
I MEAN, I, ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK IT'S, YEAH, I'M CURIOUS IN GENERAL TERMS OF WHAT THE VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR GENERALLY THINK OF IT.
DO YOU THINK I'M OFF THE RAILS? DO YOU THINK I'M, I MEAN, YOU CAN TELL ME IF I AM.
I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD BE TONED DOWN.
UH, MY, MY STYLE IS I WELCOME TRANSPARENCY AND I LIKE IF SOMEBODY, THIS IS, YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, YEAR AND A HALF, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU FEEL.
UH, IF PE IF THIS COULD BE, UH, PEOPLE COULD READ THIS IN THE, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS IS ONE PERSON'S EXPER EXPERIENCE, I WOULD LOVE THAT.
I, WHAT MY FEAR IS THAT WHEN SOMEBODY READS
[01:50:01]
A COMMENT THERE, THIS HAPPENED, THEY MAY THINK 11 OF US AGREE WITH THAT.IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY THE, THE CASE.
I THINK I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE MAYBE EDITING THINGS THAT I, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU SAW IT, IT WENT DOWN THIS WAY.
YOU SAW YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED WAS THIS, I MAY SEE IT, UH, DIFFERENTLY, BUT I, I HESITATE TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION 'CAUSE I VALUE YOUR EXPERIENCE, BUT I'M, BUT I'M AFRAID OF IT.
THE DOCUMENT COMES ON AND THINKS THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THIS WAY.
IT'S, IT'S, AND THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY I, I HAVE WITH IT.
WELL, I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT WITH THE WORDING THOUGH, CAN'T YOU? YOU KNOW, AND SAY, YOU KNOW, HERE ARE SOME COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN GET AROUND THAT JUST BY HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S WRITTEN RATHER THAN FAIR ASSUMPTION.
AND, AND TO BE HONEST, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM.
I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE WHAT, SINCE LIKE AUGUST OR SOMETHING LESS THAN A YEAR.
AND I MEAN, SOME COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
I THINK WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND I, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE NICE FOR ME TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE IMPROVING, WHERE WE'VE IMPROVED, YOU KNOW, OR YOU KNOW, YOU HAD THESE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, NOW YOU KNOW, THINGS, THINGS ARE BETTER NOW.
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO HIGHLIGHT THE POSITIVES IN THAT AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMEFRAME FOR OUR YEAR IS, YEAR IN REVIEW.
IS IT JUST 2025 OR MID 2025 TO MID 2026? I DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, I, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH SENDING IT OFF TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS.
AND WE ALL AT LEAST GIVE SOME COMMENTS ON IT, YOU KNOW? AND I WELCOME ANY CRITICISM IF YOU DISAGREE, PLEASE JUST DISAGREE AND EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, LIKE I SAID, I WILL OWN UP TO MY OPINION OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT I STATE HAPPENED, AND IF OTHERS DISAGREE.
THAT'S, THAT'S, I, I, I, I'M OKAY.
MY, MY ONLY PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT, AND I, I GUESS I'M GONNA END UP QUO COMMISSIONER FLOOD, BUT WHEN YOU LEAVE IT UP TO EVERYBODY, YOU LEAVE IT TO NO ONE.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SOMETIMES WORKING GROUPS CAN, CAN DO, BECAUSE THEN THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING SOME OF THE HOMEWORK.
IF WE JUST DISTRIBUTE IT, IT'S, LIKE I SAID, WE WILL DO HOWEVER WE THINK, BUT IF JUST DISTRIBUTE, JUST BEAR IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, AND NOT ALL OF US MAY RESPOND IN THE NEXT WEEK AND GIVE, YOU KNOW, A RES UH, A REPLY BACK.
AND THEN WE KEEP ANOTHER YEAR IN REVIEWS.
AGAIN, I, I, I STILL SUPPORT A WORKING GROUP TO GET THE PROCESS GOING.
PROCESS MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE WHAT COMMISSIONER HARRIS HAS PRESENTED, BUT ALSO I THINK THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON, SHOULD BE PROCESS ORIENTED.
IT SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT PROCESSES WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING, WHAT PROCESSES, WHAT CHALLENGES WE HAD.
I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE'S FEELINGS ARE.
I WANNA KNOW WHAT PROCESSES WE IMPLEMENTED, WHAT PROCESSES WERE CHALLENGED, UH, WHAT PROCESSES WE COULD IMPROVE ON.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT A WORKING GROUP COMPOSED OF AT LEAST THREE COMMISSIONERS BE FORMED TO PRODUCE, TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS AND PRODUCE A-C-P-R-C YEAR IN REVIEW.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONS THAT WANT TO VOLUNTEER? I SECOND, UM, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? MAYBE RYAN OR KEVIN CAN ANSWER THAT.
WHEN IS THIS REPORT DUE? I, WE HAVE, YEAH, SO I MEAN, IT IS JUST DUE WHENEVER YOU COULD TURN IT IN.
UM, REMEMBER THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR, MAY OF 2025.
AND SO YOU WOULD TURN IT IN IF YOU WANNA TURN IT IN BY AUGUST, SEPTEMBER.
IT IS BASICALLY UP TO US TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
THIS JUST A REMINDER THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE DOCUMENT, THE CODE THAT ENABLED THIS AS SAID SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY TURN OUT AND, AND APPLY AS A SUPPLY THE COUNCIL WITH A YEARLY REVIEW.
AND SO THERE'S THE, HENCE THE PRESSURE THAT WE ARE MAYBE BEHIND ON THAT.
AND SO WE'RE CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO VOTE A SECOND.
SO THIS IS THE OPEN FLOOR FOR THE CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP WITH AT LEAST THREE WORKING MEMBERS FOR THE CPRC YEAR-END REVIEW IN REGARDS TO THE
[01:55:01]
CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP.ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? I THINK I, WE WANNA KNOW IF THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO SERVE ON IT.
IS THIS THE TIME FOR THAT? WELL, I THINK YOU MOTION TO VOTE TO CREATE.
SO I THINK RIGHT NOW AND THEN THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP.
WHO WOULD VOLUNTEER? 'CAUSE I, I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE THAT ARE PUSHING FOR A WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONER EUGENE WOULD BE SOME OF THE ONES ALSO VOLUNTEER TO BE IN SET WORKING GROUP.
SO I GUESS WE CAN TAKE A NOTE.
I WOULD SAY, YEAH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT CREATING THE WORKING GROUP, WE WILL, I WILL CALL TO THAT ON THE CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP FOR THE CPRC YEAR IN REVIEW.
COMMISSIONER CARLOS, I'M SORRY, YOU MUTED.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER? YES.
I BELIEVE WE STILL HAD ENOUGH TO PASS THE MOTION.
JUST ENSURE THAT YOU STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKING GROUP.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKING GROUP, AS THIS IS A NEW, UM, KIND OF MANDATE TO PREPARE.
ONE TIME REPORTS SUMMARIZING THE COMMISSIONER'S FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED, INCLUDING A COMPILATION OF COMMISSIONER'S INPUT IN A DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMISSIONER REVIEW.
SO THIS WILL, THIS WORKING GROUP, ONCE IT MEETS ITS GOAL WILL BE DISBANDED.
YOU DID SAY IT WAS THREE MEMBERS.
DO YOU WANT TO SELECT THE MEMBERS NOW? YEAH, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER TO BE INSTEAD OF WORKING GROUP UP IN BROWBEAT INTO IT.
OH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER EUGENE.
WE HAVE ONE, TWO MORE COMMERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER NOW AS A REMINDER OF THIS WORKING GROUP, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T ASK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR INPUT.
IT'S JUST THESE THREE WILL BE HANDLING SAID REPORT.
AND JUST REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU'RE EMAILING EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS, DO NOT CREATE A QUO OR TILL.
SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOUR EMAILS HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS OR LESS.
I, I THINK IN THE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST BEING FAIR TO EVERYONE ELSE, I, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
I WILL MORE THAN WILLING TO MEET UP WITH YOU GUYS IF YOU WANT.
I JUST WANT OTHERS TO WORK ON IT AND COME UP WITH THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT THOUGHTS ON IT.
IF THAT'S WHAT, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? BUT COMMISSIONER HARRIS, I THINK YOU NEED TO BE UNDER THERE.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A THIRD, IF I'M NOT IFM NOT MISTAKEN, HOW VOLUNTEER COMMISSIONER PENA, IF YOU'RE ASKING, I'LL DO IT.
I JUST WANTED TO BE FAIR AND EVERYONE ELSE, YOU KNOW, I WAS ACTUALLY HOPING THAT SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD BEEN HERE, LIKE COMMISSIONER RUSSELL OR COMMISSIONER DEPA WOULD'VE BEEN HERE FROM THE, FROM THE VERY, VERY BEGINNING WOULD CONSIDER, BECAUSE THEN THERE'S A BETTER CHANCE THAT IT IS, IT DOES ENCOMPASS NOT JUST THE LAST TWO, THREE MONTHS, BUT IT ENCOMPASS A, A LARGER, A LARGER, UH, THING.
BUT COMMISSIONER RUSSELL UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT HERE.
UM, HARRIS AND I, WE'VE BEEN ON IT SINCE THE BEGINNING, RIGHT? YEAH.
NO, THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING FOR IT.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER PENA COULD PROVIDE SOME FRESH INSIGHTS AND PERSPECTIVES.
WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP OF THREE THAT WILL BE COMING UP WITH A CPR YEAR-END REVIEW FOR A ONE TIME REPORT SUMMARIZING THE COMMISSIONER'S FIRST YEAR'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER HARRIS HAS BEEN REALLY GREAT AT PROVIDING US, UM, AS I READ HERE, THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE SYSTEMATIC CONSTRAINTS.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF CHALLENGES, BUT WE ALSO WANNA HEAR ABOUT THE SUCCESS, THE LESSONS LEARNED, THE FACT THAT I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER LEE THAT YOU MENTIONED IT, IT'S BEEN GOING WELL FOR YOU.
AND I, I LOVE TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE THAT'S, IT WAS A DIFFERENT PROCESS AND SYSTEM WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.
SO APART FROM CHALLENGES, THOSE LESSONS LEARNED, INCLUDING COMPILATION OF COMMISSIONER'S INPUTS AND A DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMISSIONER REVIEW.
NOW AS A WORKING GROUP, I ASSUME YOU GUYS WILL COME UP WITH A DATE AND BRING IT UP TO THE AGENDA SO WE CAN VOTE AND SET RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T REACH OUT TO THE REST OF US, RIGHT? SO PLEASE START SENDING OUT THOSE EMAILS ASKING FOR INPUTS.
BUT IT WILL BE A WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED THE ONE OF OUR LAST
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS THE TIME AND SPACE.UM, IF YOU WANNA BRING UP ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO CHAMPION FOR NEXT MEETING, UH, PLEASE LET IT MEET, LET US KNOW.
SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS NEEDS TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM.
I JUST, UH, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE AGAIN WHAT I, UM, WAS TALKING ABOUT AS FAR
[02:00:01]
AS IF WE DISAGREE WITH WHAT OPO OR UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, AGREES ON FOR, I GUESS, UH, THE DEPOSITION.SO IF, IF THERE IS LIKE MONEY THAT IS LOST TO SOMEONE AND WE DISAGREE, THAT DOES LEAVE THE, THE CITY UP IN A POSITION.
AND I RESPECT WHAT CARLOS SAID AS FAR AS, WELL, YOU NEED TO, TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE POLITICAL OUTCOME OF IT.
AND I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT A POLITICAL OUTCOME BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ANY LAWSUIT TOWARDS THE CITY THAT IS ACTUALLY TAXPAYER FUNDS COMMISSIONER, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR FUTURE AGENDA ITEM SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION FOR, RIGHT.
WELL, I GUESS THAT'S MY, WHATEVER YOU WANNA DO ON IT, WE NEED TO DECIDE IF, HOW LONG IT'S GONNA TAKE BEFORE THOSE CASES ARE GOING TO BE SO THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AND IN THE CASE THAT IT DOES HAPPEN, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME OTHER PROCESS SET ASIDE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER FUNDS.
COULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE DISCUSSION OF, IF I MAY, CAN, IF I MAY.
THE WAY I WROTE IT DOWN WAS CONSEQUENCES OF NON CONCURRENCE WITH A PD AND A PO RECOMMENDATION.
UH, WHAT I'D LIKE YOU GUYS TO THINK TOWARD IS THE GOAL IS FOR YOU TO BE MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE A PD RIGHT? MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION.
IF WE CAN GET YOU THERE, THERE'LL BE NO CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE YOU'VE MADE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE BEFORE SHE'S, BEFORE THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.
SO YOU WORDED THAT BEAUTIFULLY.
YEAH, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET A FOCUS ON HIGH SPEED, LOW DRAG SO THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION CAN HAPPEN BEFORE THE CHIEF OF POLICE MAKES HER FINAL DECISION.
OKAY, WE HAVE THAT FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE OFFICER MICHAEL BERGESON, WHO'S BEEN IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
UH, FROM WHAT DIVISION ARE YOU FROM? PROFESSIONAL STANDARD, SIR.
ANY OTHER CURRENT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? UH, CAN WE CONSIDER, UM, ASKING, UH, OFFICERS TO CARRY AND HAND OUT NUMBERS FOR THE A PO OFFICE? UH, SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE IS A PLACE THAT THEY CAN CALL WHERE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICE THAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? SO YES, LET'S PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING DISCUSSION OF MAYBE THOSE NEW POLICY IMPLEMENTATION.
YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN HAVE THE AGENDA.
JUST A REMINDER FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE BRINGING UP FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT MM-HMM
THE, THE EXPECTATION IS TO CHAMPION THAT, THAT ACTION ITEM.
TO INCLUDE US INTO DISCUSSION.
I, I CAN TELL YOU AS A, UM, ELEC A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS TDLR.
UM, I'M REQUIRED TO PUT ON A, A PHRASE THAT'S BASICALLY SAYS COMPLAINTS CALL TDLR 1-800-SOMETHING ON EVERY DOCUMENT THAT I HAND TO A CUSTOMER OR SOMETHING.
I THINK THE POLICE COULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR.
MAYBE PUT IT ON THE TICKET FORM.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
NOW THIS IS NOT THE ONLY TIME TO INCLUDE AGENDA ITEMS. YOU CAN ALWAYS EMAIL YOUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO PUT AGENDA ITEMS. WE CAN HELP YOU CHAMPION ANY AGENDA ITEMS, DISCUSSION ITEMS, VOTING ITEMS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCLUDE IN THE AGENDA.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, THEN I AM, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT.
UM, THANK YOU HAVE VERY EXPERTLY NAVIGATED THIS VERY CHALLENGING PROCESS AND AGENDA FOR US TODAY.
SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR, UH, FOR, FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THAT.
OF COURSE, I, I SIGNED UP FOR THIS.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.
THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE WORKED WITH ME IN THE PAST KNOW THAT I AM HERE TO CHAMPION FOR YOU, UH, AND ADVOCATE FOR YOU WHATEVER THOSE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE.
SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, I WILL CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING AT 5:09 PM I SECOND 5 0 4.
I'M SO SORRY, MY, IT SAYS IT'S A CLEARLY A COMPUTER ISSUE.