We do have a quorum, so we'll call the meeting to order at 539. We do have basically just one item on the agenda. It looks like review and approve the scoring rubric and discuss the responses. Folks are okay with that. And we'd love a motion on the agenda. I moved to. Except the agenda. By commissioner. Any discussion. Seeing none, all in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. That passes unanimously. Going on to approving the minutes 1.04 from December 3rd. Do I have a motion on that? I meant to approve the minutes from December 3rd. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the motion. Moved by commissioner. Darfi. Is there a second. Seconded by commissioner. Heart. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. I'm abstaining only because I forgot to look at the minutes. My apologies. No worries. We have one extension and otherwise. Moving. On the next thing that we have is public forum. Shannon, is there anyone. I'll leave my video off because as soon as I turned it on, it started to glitch out on me. So, um, I did not have any, um, email requests for public forum. Great. Then attendees, especially when there's so few know that if you raise your hand. We'll go ahead and just take your comment, but we'll also give you space now. If you have any comments. To raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll close the public forum. But again, set the expectation that folks can talk. Moving on to committee actions. Item three. There's just something that I wanted to. Say, um, I think our last meeting. Was a little bit heated and I think there were some mistakes that were made both on my part and generally. And so I just first want to say that. Um, I am so fortunate to have worked with all of the police commissioners. Obviously don't know you as well as I know some of our city counselors. So thank you for letting me just kind of ad hoc, create this committee. And then putting the tremendous amount of work. Um, I know that you all have been putting into not just this committee, but also your regular work. Um, I have so much respect for each of you. It's been so great to get to know all of you. Um, I know that things can get heated. Know that I am generally, I think I have a lot of opinions, but I am trying to be a good chair and make sure that you all can speak first. Um, and trying to be.  I will try my best not to be offended. Um, and hopefully we can just rectify it in the moment. Um, because I do want to make sure that again, you all have so much experience, um, working. With the police, but also just generally, and I want to make sure that you all feel heard in this conversation. Um, to overly impose my views. So just wanted to say that. And then also generally, um, of course, you know, last time I think people were ruled out of order and things like that. Um, I'm happy to mediate that process and we can do that, but I hope that we can just keep the discussion, you know, um, in a way that doesn't need that, although if it does, definitely that is, is what the chair is for. So happy to also, it is okay if that is part of the process, but I hope it doesn't need to be. And the last thing that I just wanted to say is, um, I tend to use everyone's first name because I think I've received permission from anyone who's first time I've used to use it outside of the forum. That is just part of me being frustrated with how, um, um, our political process is really inaccessible and, um, a little bit, um, distant and highbrow sometimes. So that is kind of my own little protest that on a committee that I chair that I will use people's first names to make it a little bit more human. Um, if you have a problem with that, and you would rather I would address you by your formal title, again, feel free to say it here or to shoot me an email if that doesn't feel comfortable and I'm happy to make adjustments as needed. Any. Happy to take any feedback into that before we jump into three, if folks have it. Let's say much appreciated. Thank you. And, um, I will answer the taboo or commissioner Gamash either or is quite a right with me. Great. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. So Roya for your comments. And I'm certainly fine with. My first name and we'll really. Um, I'm glad to be able to. Observe. Um, The protocol for the meetings. Thank you both. Again, anyone else feel free to pipe in or shoot me an email if you'd rather do it separately, but I'll go ahead and send us to committee actions. So starting with 3.01 review and approve the scoring rubric. So. We did this a little bit backwards just because we ran out of time. So we did, um, Sureen Stephanie and I, mostly Stephanie and I really, I think had suggestions for what the. Initial, um, Kind of waiting could be and, um, Sureen, I think took some compromise between those two things and has the current waiting. Um, I think that's a good point. I think I sent you all kind of the preliminary results, but it's pretty easy for me to fix the weights right quick. If we want to make adjustments to that. So the way that we chose the final scoring is everything. Basically has a 15% except for the. Creativity score. Which has. Um, a 40% which gives kind of the response to the scope of work. 60% and the experience 40%. Um, Does anybody have. An issue with that or would like to see any changes. I'm not sure whether you can see my hand being raised or not. So I'll just talk, even though I raised my hand. Um, No, thanks. Um, I'm not sure if you can see any changes, whether or not the seven. Categories that we're using to the, to do the scoring, whether those were laid out explicitly in the RFP, or were those also generated by the committee? Yeah, I'll let sure and speak to this as well. But it was a little harder with this RFP to pick the exact selection criteria because we didn't lay them out as well. So it was a little bit more of a. It was a little bit more of a, it was a little bit more of a, it was a little bit more of an RFP and then the second section that the experience was more explicit. And showing your stuff and energy of anything to add to that. I would add that you're, it's exactly, as you said, it was much trickier this time around to call out. Um, specific points. But Randall, in terms of how it happened, the three of us did, um, collaborate. Randall, you slept before. That's my question. Thank you. Great. Um, and I apologize. I did not have the participant list up. So I did not see your hand raised, but it is up now. Great. Any other discussion. Then I'd welcome at least the way it is on board ox, it's to review and approve. So it would be great to go ahead and formalize. If I would welcome emotion on. The scoring rubric. I just want to jump in first and say that I think, I believe Perry is in the attendees. Someone was a maker of panelists. Before we go. Great. Thanks. Good. I didn't ask a follow-up question about the. Seven categories since they were viewed and agreed to by. Uh, Shari and Stephanie and Zariah. Um, so. I did have some questions along the way as I was doing the scoring about. Uh, what I'm going to call the second and the third category. So the second is ability to analyze racial, social, economic and mental health disparities and who is being released and who has access to current quality of life. The third is ability to analyze systemic racial and economic bias and policing, including geographic deployment. Of officers. So that third category does explicitly talk about. Geographic deployment of officers. And the second category does explicitly talk about mental health disparities. Uh, but otherwise they both kind of broadly talk about issues of bias, whether racial or economic. And so I was just wondering whether. There was any concern during that discussion. Uh, as those are being formalized. That that was essentially giving double weight to that particular category. Um, having seen everybody scores, I think that is essentially what happened. Um, I don't know. I guess if I feel, so it was kind of the four steps that we laid out in the scope of work, kind of the four pieces that. We want to support with. I. I think I view. That analysis as the biggest part of the scope of work. So it doesn't concern me, but. If other people have that concern, then. We, we do still have the option to change it. And I see, um, I assume Randall, that means you're done. I see Karen's hand up. Hi, I just, um, you know, I thought the same thing, um, that they were very similar and then looked at the scores. Um, and I was going to just ask a clarifying question, you know, of someone who works with data.  You know, I hear your thoughts on it that. That that's a big part of it. And for me. Just looking at reading all of them, that was the differentiator. Um, that and creativity, because.  So. It, like you said, is it possible that. We can leave the two because that would then give more weight to something we all think is important. Is that what happens. Yeah. I think so, Stephanie. You have thoughts. No, I can't quite follow the. Uh, I can't quite follow the concerns. So I'll just stay out of it. I would just say, you know, I don't think that's a big part of it. Um, I think this is not responding to you, Karen, but. I found that the rubric categories were useful, but not exhaustive. And there were a lot of things that I experienced in reading them, that there was no place to, uh, assess the proposals. But in the end, I felt like my score is represented. So, um, I think we have the right weights. Well, that's, that's helpful perspective. So thank you. Thanks. And one thing I will say. Again, a little bit backwards since we've already done the scoring, but, um, what I will propose in the next item is that we, um, I kind of, I guess laid out six of the lowest scoring. Um, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know how to discuss the top scores and anything that wasn't included in the rubric in terms of our feelings. So. This isn't the end all be all in terms of determining a best. Best value proposal. If there's no other comment, I'd have another quick comment. Um, If no one else is in the queue. Go ahead, Randall. Yeah, thanks. So, um, I don't think, I mean, I'm certainly not going to put too much, uh, kind of spend too much time or energy worrying about the weights. Uh, to some extent, these are arbitrary, you know, weightings and numbers that are given anyways. Uh, and so I'll just say again, you know, given that I did see the second and third categories, more or less kind of asking the same thing. I did in order to differentiate them kind of focus on the extent to which I thought that they're asking different things. So I put it. You know, so in that third category, talking about geographic deployment of officers, I spent a fair amount of kind of attention in scoring each of those RFPs on whether the RFP did kind of attest to some expertise in looking at geographic deployment of offers, officers specifically. And so that was kind of how I chose to assess that. I didn't say, well, you know, it's, it's asking the same thing as second. So it's just giving it double weight and that's fine. You know, I wanted to make these categories actually make some sense. So I'm less worried about the weighting and more about kind of the categories that we have for analysis in the first place. And I do just think as a general point that kind of, you know, again, again, I apologize for not having been there for the end of the last meeting. I do think as a general point, you know, giving each of us, you know, score sheets and saying, okay, create all of these RFPs according to the score sheets and then say it, but actually we haven't even agreed on these categories yet. So we'll vote to agree on the categories at the next meeting. I just think it's doing things backwards. So I mean, I would have liked to have had more substantive discussion about those particular categories and how to weight them before we were actually assigned the task of weighting them because it also kind of viewed how I would have viewed those proposals. And I understand that we're saying that we're going to continue to have substantive discussions about the RFPs. And that, you know, it's interesting that that the scores is helping us to make a kind of first cut and that there's still chance for discussion later, which I think is fine and appropriate. But I, again, so it's not a substantive worry that I have, but it's just a frustration about the process. Although again, I acknowledge that I was not there from last meeting. So I have very, you know, very thin grounds to have that kind of concern. Yeah, Brandon. Unfortunately, I think that was a decision that was kind of made at the end of the last meeting. I think. I personally was happy to kind of take the purview of the commission to either extend the meeting, which was had already gone quite late or to meet the next day, but I think that wasn't the commission's general desire. I probably should have reached out to you individually to let you know that that was a decision that was made to see if you wanted to weigh in in particular, but yeah, that had kind of been decided at the end of the meeting by the committee. So I think that was a decision that was made at the end of the meeting. I think that was the rest of the committee commission. So, so, so just be clear. So the commission decided to just. To delegate to the three of you, the task of. Of generating the score sheet and the weights. We did the score sheets. And I think there was some, I think we didn't come to a consensus and sure. I mean, or anyone else correct me if I'm wrong, we didn't come to a consensus on what we would do with the score sheet. But then it was proposed that we just put in weights instead, knowing that we could always change them to have something to start from. But the score sheet itself was generated at the last meeting. No, we, it was said that Shireen and I would go back and generate the score sheet and send it out to everyone. Okay. Thank you. Karen, I don't know if your hand is still up or if it's up again. So. I'm prepared to move that we. Sorry. I'm prepared to move that we approve it. As is. At this point. Great. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second that. Seconded by. Commissioner. Paulino. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. So we are on to our next item. Of three points out. Too, which is the responses, discussion and selection. So the first thing I want to say is Milo, your scores for some reason didn't weighted with enemies. Like. schoves were uniformly. Like. And Andrea, I didn't know what to do with it. So if in the course of the meeting, you want to go back and like look at all of them or look at the top six and give us, go ahead. I'm sorry if those, I didn't want to put zero because I didn't think I could. So obviously I did something intentional that was not interpreted correctly. But I probably should have checked first because I didn't realize how that was going to affect it. I will just say that in terms of the responses, I would put, you know, for the sake of our discussion, number two would be my first choice and number six would be my second choice. Okay, that's helpful. I don't, maybe it was a lot of 0.1s was also a lot in the way to cheat. So maybe I just, or zero point somethings. So maybe you just meant to put near zero scores, which I maybe just wasn't, and I just weren't expecting. So. Right, cause I just felt that some of them weren't, I guess I was looking for a more holistic approach and some of them didn't do that.  So I nixed that. Okay, I see. Is Audrey on? I don't see her. I think she just got off. Okay, I'll afford her my invite, but I will, if you don't mind shooting Audrey an email, asking her to just put your scores in as was, and that that wasn't a mistake. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Okay, with that said, I did send folks a summary of the scores. And again, I apologize that did not include Milo, although she just indicated a preference for two and six, but it seemed like the top scoring proposals were one, two, three, six, nine and 11. And they were a mix of highest, highest scores, as well as lowest, lowest cost. And I guess with that, I wanna open up some room for discussion. This, all of them, at least one person ranked as their first. So I didn't, even though some of them were more on the lower side, I didn't feel completely comfortable cutting them. So yeah, just wanna open it up for some discussion on a more non nuanced discussion of what people liked about the proposals or did not. I don't know if it makes the most sense to go in order or how folks are. Soraya, do you wanna share your screen? I mean, I can definitely see it. Yes, I'm happy to share my screen. The only thing is I don't know, oh, you mean in terms of the screen? There was a, yeah. Yeah, for the summary of the, I'm a little hesitant to share the proposals because right now with us talking about them in numbers, they're anonymous. And if I were to share my screen on the proposal, it would not be. You have the names, okay, right. So, but I'm happy to share what I just sent to you all just for folks, so people. I can look at it. I can look at it on my screen. Yeah, it may be good just to put it up for the public too. I now realize it's not that, not that it's all that informative, but for our folks who wanna know, these are the ones that we kind of kept. I removed, again, some of the ones like that were in the eight lowest scores and either very- Just note, I'm sorry that you are sharing your entire desktop so you can see in the background some of the names and proposals. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Should've pressed stop share instead of doing that. Oh, well. Okay, so we have, we have the one proposal. I don't even know if I should share this with the total cost. I'm gonna stop actually. Is Joy on? No, she's not. She sent me an email that she wasn't, but she did say that we could text her if we needed, if you needed her to pop on. Okay, yeah, I'm not sure. I'm still not 100% sure how city does their R, their RFPs. I assume it's okay to share their cost, but I could also just remove the data and show if it's lower, but it's in y'all's inbox. So maybe that's the best way to do it. Then I definitely won't be sharing anything that I shouldn't be sharing, although I guess I just did, especially this is being recorded. Well, that was a cheerful pause. But I guess maybe we can take them in turn then if folks are okay with kind of accepting the reasons that I gave for eliminating the kind of what I saw to be the bottom six and talking about the top six in turn. I'm good with it. That makes sense. I'm good with it. Makes sense. Awesome. Thanks for sharing with me. I would almost be in favor of just calling one, three, and nine. I mean, it seems like the average score was significantly higher for two, three, sorry, two, six, and 11. But I'm happy to talk about them all, but I think we should just kind of cut to two, six, and two, six, and 11, sorry. Yeah, two, six, and 11, my apologies. Keeping it to two, six, and 11. Are you bringing a motion, Jabu? Yeah, I was just gonna say, is that a motion? Second. Second. I make a motion to call one, three, and nine and focus on two, six, and 11. We have a motion. There, I think there was a second by Commissioner Durfee. Yes. Any discussion? Yes, if I may, Chair. So I am inclined, I think, to vote in favor of the motion, but I would just note that I believe that at least one of the proposed RFPs to eliminate is ranked the highest by at least one person on the joint committee. So I'm reluctant to exclude something which at least one person takes to be their most favored proposal. I think I should at least get a discussion. And I believe that this motion does do that. So I'm concerned about it for that reason, even though, yeah, so that's my concern. And I don't wanna cross talk or break rules, but I see that and I think it's mine. So I'm sorry. Yeah, I will say, so for one of them, it was Karen, for one of them, it was me. And for one of them, it is, I can't even tell right now, who had done, is there right? But so I'm okay with that. Karen seconded the motion, so I assume. Right, I was gonna say, if the people whose favorites are being cut are in support of it, then I have no concern. Yeah, I can only speak for myself that I thought that just it's hard to tell by what we're looking at now, but I can see what I have here. And so I'm just assuming, but I, we could leave for to be more democratic. If there is one that ranked high and discussing four isn't going to, not gonna be. So I'm open to whatever. Sure, and did I see your handout? I had thought one, I was concerned that one was my own and I was going to explain that we submitted these, I submitted mine on Sunday and have since spent more time, not much, but a little more. So I can see where folks would change them. I think if, if no one has objections, we can vote on this, but it certainly, I agree with Randall that if there is someone who were, you know, but I think that's the point of the motion is some, if someone's concerned, they'll just raise it in discussion. The only, sorry, if I can take the floor myself, the only reason that I would hesitate to do that is those are also cutting, those are, I guess, before we do that, I want to have a quick discussion about where we are cutting the three lowest cost proposals. So those were all in a different range or at least like two of them are, I would say even in a different range than the ones that we would be keeping. So if that, if folks are. Yeah, that's a valid point. I would have to go back and look at one, but I can say I had some really substantial concerns about number nine. I can elaborate, but I don't think number nine would really be acceptable for what we need. Right. And then, so what I will actually remind me, sorry, mine looks different now because Audrey went in and included Milo scores. So I think I have a bit more information now. Yeah, and that actually does change it. So one is now ranked considerably lower, I think than it was before. So I think now one and nine are kind of, which are still the lowest range proposals, the lowest cost proposals, but they are more low now than they were before, I guess is what I should say. And I, so I mean, for the purpose of the current motion, which is on the table, I'm uncertain as to how the cost is supposed to have been factored into our individual collective decision-making so far. So six have been kind of removed. And I don't, and it sounds like cost was not a factor in the removal of those six. It was just the scores were the factor in the removal of those six, is that correct? Well, number seven was really exorbitant. So yeah, let me just to clarify, I'm just gonna read out the email that I sent you, which is, I recommend from the six responses that I did have an understand was I recommend we move these proposals from consideration four, five, seven, 10 and 12. They were in the bottom half technically, except seventh and eighth, which were tied for fifth and sixth. So they were in the bottom, whatever, eight. But seven was by far the most expensive at more than double the second most expensive while eight was in the top half of the most expensive. So four, like we basically kind of remove the lowest scores and then two that had low scores and a high cost. So it was factored in, but it was mostly based on technical. I mean, well, so with the email that you just read, and so the way that I read it was, we were removing those six because none were anyone's favorite. They were all in the bottom half technically.  Some of them aren't quite bottom half, but then there's some cost considerations, but you're saying they're all tied for the bottom ones and none of them were anyone's favorite. So I thought that was the rationale and that didn't involve cost considerations at all. Correct. And now we're making a motion to move, to not remove some on the basis of cost considerations. I mean, I think at this point it makes, what we're looking for is the best value proposal. So to some extent, we wouldn't want to choose one or we'd have to strongly justify choosing one that had a lower score and a higher cost through, which doesn't mean we can't, but we'd have to justify that. So at this point, we're looking for best value. So yes, when we now talk about removing the ones with the lowest scores, with lowest scores of what remains, it does have an implication in terms of what is the balance now? So I would say the first ones were easy to remove because they were both, they were kind of not seen as best values because there were plenty of diversity of other costs that were left. Now we're starting to cut the lowest cost. So I wanted to point that out. Does that answer your question? Well, it does, I think the idea is, based on the information that you've sent out, nothing would rule out the possibility that one of the ones that was cut from the first round was, although not in the top half of score, still extremely kind of low cost compared to the others. So at least based on the email you sent out, that was still a possibility. And I didn't go through and recheck all the costs because there wasn't a room in my score sheet for cost. And so I just graded the RFPs based on the facts I had to be able to make. So I just wanted to make sure that there were none that we were kind of excluding from that first round, which may have been, although not the highest score, still extremely kind of value effective. Right, so the ones that we do have, the ones that we're talking about cutting now had higher scores than the ones that we cut, but were similar cost, if that makes sense. So we have other low cost proposals left, in the six at least, that had comparable cost to some of the low score, low cost ones that we had cut. Right, so if all of the ones that were cut were, and we could say dominated by the ones that were remaining, both in terms of score and price, then that's fine. But I just want to make sure that we're kind of making that explicit in how we're doing this process. Jabu, could you remind me of your motion? Was it one, three, and nine? Yes, one, three, and nine. That was the one I wanted to call, correct. I would move to men that to be one and nine. I'm happy, I'm fine with that amendment. Great, and Karen, you seconded, so you can with that. Yes, great.  No, please go ahead, Ravel. But no, I just want to make sure I understand the motion is to cut one and nine, or to leave on one and nine for consideration. To cut one and nine. Those are the two lowest cost ones, is that correct? Yes. Okay, so I guess I'm still not understanding, I mean, right, so if the idea is, let's leave the ones that are very high in value on the table, and I'm not sure why we're cutting the two that are kind of clearly ahead of the others in terms of cost, and we're leaving the one which is not kind of significantly superior in terms of score, but it's pretty much close to the other ones in terms of cost. Do you have an amendment you would like to make, Randall? I mean, at this point, I'm just gonna vote this down and just say, let's discuss all six. So I think, can we just call the question then? Councillor Hightower. We had a second, right? We'll have a second to reflect on what Randall said. Everyone good with what we're voting on, which is to remove one and nine, which are the two lowest cost proposals and could be the highest value. It depends on how we define value.  So starting with Jabu. Yes. Milo. Yes. Stephanie. Yes. Karen. Yes. Shereen. No.  Did I already call Karen? You did, and I said yes. Great. Perry. Yes. Randall. No. Franklin. Yes. Who's not here? So Zariah, no. I have six yeses, three noes. So that motion passes. We're now going to be considering two, three, six and 11. And just to quickly, Leah, there was a discussion of that you can't see people speaking and need to see the screenshot of what is being delivered. I don't know what's going on with you being able to see people speaking. I don't know if that's on our end or your end, but in terms of screenshot of what we're deliberating because we're deliberating an active proposal, which to joys at least advice, the city attorney's advice, we may be still negotiating and so on. We don't necessarily want to reveal who we're talking about and the cost of the proposals relative to the others. So that is why we're not screen sharing as this is, this is, even though our discussion is in the open, the material that we're viewing as seen as executive material. I hope that's helpful. Great. So if folks are okay with opening proposal number one, we can talk through it. No, I'll give those. I mean, two. Yes, two. The first proposal, which is proposal number two. Thank you, Randall. I'll open the floor for comments. I guess I'll start. This was my personal favorite one. I feel compared to some of the other ones, they recognize the enormity of the task of what was being asked. I felt that I appreciated how they recognize that short-term feel-good measures aren't, sorry, isn't true real reform in that that's only kind of like stop gap. And I also appreciated that they actually mentioned a fair amount about marginalized groups besides just kind of regurgitating what the resolution that we, that was passed months ago stated for them to do. Others? Go ahead, Trunyan. So I really liked this, but where I was concerned, where I wasn't seeing, and I went back and read it again and I feel like I must have overlooked it because I know how favorable folks are. And I'm strong on this one. It was one of my top ones, but I didn't see the data analyst background. And I'm wondering if anyone can speak to that because that concerns me. So I often, in reading these, would read about what their plans were, but then would go to the description of the folks who would be on the project. And I just didn't see the background there. And that's why this didn't come out number one for me, one of the primary reasons. Yeah, it seemed no hands, although there are folks kind of afraid to jump in. I ranked this one really low because I did feel like it was much more of a, I mean, it seemed like they had a lot of sector expertise, but was really focused on training. And I didn't feel like I really saw the kind of research skills that I wanted to see in this proposal. I'm sorry, Zarai, could you repeat that? Yeah, I thought that they, I mean, they kind of reiterated what our needs were in the proposal, but I didn't necessarily see that they had an approach to doing some of the research I thought that. And then knowing, or I guess, at least reading in their proposal, their emphasis on training, I was afraid that they weren't, that even though they had a lot of subject matter expertise, that they didn't necessarily have the research chops that I would want an organization like this to have. Number two, I guess I didn't interpret it that way. Number two was definitely my preference, probably by far from the others with number six, for me, as I mentioned earlier, I agree with some of the things that were said, where they, to me, really seem to understand the enormity of the moment. I guess I found their approach to be more holistic in terms of understanding the need to make an evaluation of the police department, but then after that's done, how does it fit in with community needs? I feel like they did the best to express that. I also liked, oh, they're trying to find it. There was something specifically too, when they spoke of the information that they would be gathering when they would be interviewing police officers. And I like that they thought about, I don't wanna say little things, but things that the other proposals didn't reflect, such as asking about activities that are, I think they use the term self-initiated, I have to go through and try and find it. And I'm like, wow, that could be something that we need to take into consideration because you have the day-to-day duties that are assigned, but then you might have something else that's not necessarily assigned, but it would be good to know what type of initiative and proactivity is being done because we quite frankly don't care enough about that. But I just felt that they had the strongest and it seemed to me that they had done some research on Burlington. I think they were just really speaking to a lot of concerns that I hear about in the community, especially short-term, warm and fuzzy PR, things that don't ultimately get us anywhere. I guess I was really feeling that, also talking about 21st century policing, they mentioned that, nobody else talked about that. They acknowledge mistrust issues. And I really made a note of that because not a lot of other proposals did that, six did that to a certain extent. And that acknowledgement of mistrust is really important to think about when determining what is going to be best when we take a look at what things are being done that could possibly move to other city departments or into the community. Great, thanks Milo. I see Karen's hand up and then Stephanie. Stephanie was up before me. So go ahead, Commissioner Seguino. So I appreciate your catching that, Zariah. This was my top ranked proposal as well. I just was looking at the lead consultant on this and she has a background that looks quite strong in qualitative research analysis. I'm looking at a couple of the other people. It looks like the, I think the most quantitative piece is around call analysis. So I felt like they had the qualifications but I would put an asterisk on that based on Zariah's comment. I also felt like they really appreciated the moment that we're in and there were some other strengths of their proposal that I really liked which is that they are going to give us recommendations on the use of police data which I think is an important issue for us that they will do a disparities analysis and that they, as the lead consultant as I recall is a person that was on the commission to do a review of the Charleston, South Carolina police department with regard to racial disparities. So that felt like a significant piece of experience that would be helpful for us. So those are the reasons I ranked that so highly. Great, so we've got Karen and then Randall. Sorry, I'm trying to use my computer and my phone. Yeah, I also, you know, I guess I'm not as familiar as Professor Sigwino is with the names and sort of the titles and what folks do. And I think in this process, just to be really transparent, and some of my choices were aligned and some of them were not, but I wanted to make sure that because we have two RFPs out there that there was a balance between the two and that, you know, folks, I think in my mind, you know, I wanted to see a little bit more and again, I'm not as familiar as others are, but I wanted to see, you know, more in that first category and I didn't see it with this one. So it didn't rank low, but you know, I guess I don't have any further discussion in that I just wanted to see the balance between the, because I assume that this work in the community, you know, this is going to be with the police department and I thought other proposals were more, gave more information about how they would do it and what we would get. So this one was sort of in the middle for me. Thanks, Karen, Randall. Yeah, thanks. So I agree with, I believe it was Commissioner Hart's recognition that the data analyst was not, that their CV was not included in the packet and not much information was given about the proposed data consultant there for proposal number two. I also do, I think, I think with Chair Hightower, I think that I share the concern that besides kind of, I mean, so I think this proposal did mention that it looked to identify, you know, that they were considered the actual potential roles of other city entities and providing public safety services to the Bruncheon community. But I think that was kind of the extent to which it seems though this proposal was really trying to envision a comprehensive public safety apparatus in which the police department would play a role. I didn't see much of a sign, at least in the document materials that they gave us, that they had much either kind of experience or vision in crafting that kind of comprehensive apparatus or picturing what the police department's role would be in that. That being said, this was also one of my favorite proposals. And so I don't want to, the things that I'm saying here to kind of, you know, excessively detract from that proposal. I do like it, but I've recognized the concerns I think people have, what some aspects of it. Great. Anyone else on proposal two? Go ahead, Perry, and then back to Sharon. Could I just make a point of order? I'm sorry, Perry. Do you mind if I chime in? There's a request that folks just say their name if they're not seen by video. So folks observing knows that's all I wanted to say. Okay. Yeah, I wasn't, this was not one of my favorites. I think I'm looking at the CV for some of the stuff. But if looking at their sort of general structure as an organization, I definitely, I think Zariah, your term was like specific sector experience, but I'm not sure exactly how you phrased it, but I think that was a good way to phrase it. It seems a little bit like it's mostly folks who have direct experience in history with law enforcement and directly like working as law enforcement officers. I'm not sure specifically about the one stuff who's highlighted in the CV, but sort of generally in the proposal and then throughout the organization. And I just, I'm not sure that's the direction that we would go in. I think Zariah, your points about the emphasis on training. There were just, I mean, to be honest, I think there were just other proposals that stood out to be me more, particularly like three. I know 11 is one that other folks liked. I think I would be happy with either of those. This would not be my first pick. This was more towards the bottom for me. Thank you. Great, Randall, I don't know if your hand is up again or still. This is me re-raising my hand. Thank you. This is Randall Harp. This is just a question about process right now. So I'm just wondering whether or not in discussing the merits of each proposal, whether we're also right now doing kind of comparative discussions of, I like this one better than that of whether we're just kind of discussing the merits of each one, just because I'm just gonna make sure that we kind of, that what we're tasked with doing in each of these is clear. Yeah, I think just because I don't know how when people reviewed it, I think it'd be good to stick. I mean, I think it's good. It's fine to say I've ranked this one like pretty low. I ranked it pretty high. But maybe, I was trying to debate this as you all were talking. I think maybe what we can do is go through each one, take a little bit of a straw poll on how folks are feeling in terms of recommending this one going forward or not. And then, which won't count for anything. It won't be anything formal. And then when we're done with all four, talking about comparative and trying to get to consensus, does that work for folks as a process? Great. Then anybody else on this proposal specifically? Go ahead, Srin. This is not about a proposal, but I do know that the chief and Kyle Dodson are on, they were in attendance. And I'm wondering if we'll be hearing from at least the chief at some point on his perceptions of what we're down to in terms of department assessment, to the extent it's a department assessment. Yeah, I think that's, I wonder if we can go through this process just to not include more voices once we go through each of the four and then maybe Kyle and the chief can come on and give their thoughts when we're, and or however they wanna do that. And I guess I don't know how they feel about that since they're in attendees versus panelists, but good point, thank you, Srin. Other thoughts on this proposal? Are we ready to take a straw poll? I'm sorry, another question. Are you doing a straw poll after each one or are we discussing the four first and then doing a straw poll? I guess I just wanna get a sense of, yeah, a straw poll in terms of if people would feel comfortable with this being the proposal. I think I wanna get us a little bit more of an indicator than just words. Maybe that's because I like numbers of how people are feeling about this proposal as we finish talking about it before we have the discussion of comparing them. If that doesn't seem right to you then, go ahead, Stephanie. Yeah, even as we speak, I'm rethinking some things. So for me, I think it would be helpful to wait until we've gone through each four and then have a straw poll. Okay, great. Randall. Yeah, just wanna say, I agree with that, with Commissioner Squeenow. That works for me. Great, then anything else on two or should we move on to three? Moving on to three, it is, who wants to start? Nobody else wants to, I will. Go ahead, Stephanie. I had numerous concerns about this proposal. It said, for example, they wanted to establish a steering committee that included the city council and commission and so forth. And I just didn't think that procedurally that made a lot of sense. It seemed duplicative. It wants to organize 10 focus groups to understand community expectations, but that's being done by other consultants and that's not really needed. It's mentioned of racial disparities was there, but it seemed shallow. It didn't mention call analysis and they seem to lack quantitative expertise. And the proposal in some way sounded more like they wanted to facilitate a process rather than actually doing the work for us. I had a few more things, but that's sort of the gist of what my concerns were. Thank you, Stephanie. I'm sorry, technical difficulties, commissioner Durfee. Hi. So I'll talk a little bit about what I liked about this proposal. I did like it. And I think mostly, I do want to acknowledge Professor Seguino's or commissioner Seguino's points about the sort of the bulk of the process because I, as most folks know on this call, am a fan of efficiency and some of the processes did not seem to be, they seemed a little redundant. However, this is the first proposal to use deconstruction, the word deconstruction. And so I think that was attractive to me and then reading through what they meant by that and then sort of going in it just seemed like a very thorough process, but there were a lot of meetings and a lot of redundancy and I did worry about time. And I mean, but I did think that qualifications were there. I did think that some of the staffing was impressive, the years of service, but yeah, my one concern would be, how are you gonna actually put something that sounds as good into motion? But I did like the approach of sort of rolling everything back and taking a really clean look at it. Fan of deconstruction. Thanks, Karen, Randall. Yeah, thanks, this is Randall. Yeah, I actually, I would just say with deference and respect to my colleague, Commissioner Durfee. I actually feel like the deconstruction language might not be what you think it means there. And I just feel like that they were used just in order to kind of understand the component parts of the department, but only in the sense of kind of putting those pieces back together in a more efficient way rather than really, I think understanding. I would say envisioning the services that, was that it, go on. Just, it is, I just wanna say, I read it and that's actually sort of how I saw it, so. That's fair, that's fair, I will do respect. No, no, that's fair, that's fair. I was not terribly impressed with this proposal. Part of the reasons why were just, I mean, it wasn't my least favorite, but part of the reasons why were even looking at the work that they had done previously. So the two reports that they had performed for other departments, I read those through. And I mean, understanding, of course, that's for all of these, people are doing the work that they're asked to do, so they're tasked to do something, they do that. But I think that it seems evidence to me that they had the opportunity to engage with some of the questions that were asking of this consultant to do in some of those other reports. And it seemed to me as though they simply did not do them to the degree that I think they could have or should have. So there was, I think, a great deal of attention paid to ways of increasing efficiencies in the department, ways of increasing certain of the department's functions. But even ones, these are departments that are under consent decrees. And it seems as though there's serious opportunities for those departments to figure out what exactly is working and is not working in those departments specifically. And I feel as though they didn't really meet the challenges that those consent decrees are asking. And so in addition to just the fact that I wasn't terribly impressed with the proposal, I thought that the submitted body of work was not to the caliber that I would have liked or would have expected it to be. Thanks, Randall and Milo. Hi, this is Milo. I agree with a lot of what Randall just said. I did like that word deconstruction. So I really put more time and I also read their accompanying reports. And I hate to go back to that word holistic, but that is kind of the way that I looked at these in terms of what we needed. And I felt that they just didn't deliver on all the aspects that I think that we need. And once they did that deconstruction, what were they going to do with that information? And I just didn't think that came through. Thank you. Thanks, Milo. Anyone else on this? Otherwise, I'll jump in and say, it's funny, it doesn't like that we're talking through this. I'm not wondering if we should have left the other two in. I do think I ranked this one higher, I think partially because of their deliverables, but like I see the point that Stephanie and Randall are making in terms of, I liked the framing of kind of their intro of their approach, but then yeah, when it talks about ways to do the work, it is kind of sparse and doesn't seem to have delved into the context and even the RFP quite as much as some of the other proposals did. So I think I see that point, so. So just as a point of clarification for the group, so this ranked high. So it's on the last four and there were 12. So I cannot be the only one that liked it. I do know what deconstruction means and I did read the other work, but I actually just thought the approach was different and creative and because you all know me, I will pick the most analytical and boring one, but someone rated this high. So if someone has anything positive to say, that's helpful. If not, I think we should probably look at some of our decisions that we've made around these four. Karen, I ranked this higher than you did. This was, I had a tie for second and this was one of my second. So I definitely just think that in light of, I think because I skimmed the proposal and then I looked at the deliverables and then scored it. And I think when I'm looking at the proposal again, I see at least Stephanie's and Randall's points, so. Right, yeah, I acknowledge those points as well. I just, I'm mindful that we did just, proposals out and I did second that motion. So I just want to make sure that we're all feeling careful. And I guess at the end of this, I would suggest that if anybody really feels that something got cut that they really liked that we have a chance to talk about that. Right. Because in talking through what it does provide, we all have different expertise. And so we might just want to reserve a little bit of time for that. Great, Randall, I see you're handing. Oh, I'm going to give Perry a chance first because they haven't spoken yet. And then Randall. Yeah, I see what your point is Stephanie. That's, I think it's a good point. I think some of the things I liked about this is, I always look at like who was behind the organization and I was impressed by some of their bios, I think. Thinking about that aspect a little bit further though, about the duplicating work, I agree that that would maybe be a concern. So on another read, I don't love that aspect. And I was intrigued by the section where they talked about integrating with like government and nonprofit services, but then I'm rereading some of the other parts and seeing that they're kind of actually a bit more hesitant about that aspect. Like it's a bit, it's not really clear. And so I had initially ranked this higher and now I'm not, I'm feeling it's a little bit, I'm not as impressed by it right now. And I'm hearing your point Stephanie about the duplicating efforts. So yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to feel about this. I mean, for me, the staff component and like the analysis that they're bringing and the background they're bringing is pretty important to me when I look at these proposals, but it would concern me it's a duplicate work and it's not the way that the proposals were written, it doesn't really seem exactly clear what their exact vision or outcome is, which is a bit frustrating, just looking at over again. Randall. Yeah, thanks. Now I will not speak in favor of the proposal. All I would do is just apologize to Commissioner Durfee for even sounding as though I was suggesting that you did not understand the word deconstruction what was going on that proposal. I chose my words poorly, I apologize. Apology accepted Randall and Professor Harp. I know it's hard. Thanks for that both. Yeah, and then the other positive that I would say is I do, I did think and again, still not, still looking at it again, kind of, you know with Stephanie's comments in mind, but I do think also think to Perry's point, one of the reasons I did rank this so high is I liked the emphasis on organizational development skills that the, that was in the staffing. So I do think that'll be an important part of the change management process.  Great. Other thoughts on three? Are we ready to move on to six? Moving on to six. The wheels wants to start. I'm just reading off my notes here, so I'll just try to be succinct, but cover it. First of all, I thought that they began by outlining the goals of the project and they demonstrated a very good understanding of what we're looking for and the moment that we're in. I thought that they were very good on call analysis. They seem to have the quantitative expertise. I liked that they were going to identify comparable cities in terms of alternative policing practices to compare to Burlington. I liked their qualitative analysis of BTB, BTB Burlington Police Department through interviews to understand the culture, community and perceptions of the police. I thought that was very good. I thought that they were good on racial disparities analysis and that they weren't just going to look at traffic stop data, but also were going to look at policies and review complaint data. And I was impressed that they had a diverse team and they have some experience in Burlington through the opioid project, which I think is a plus. Go ahead, Jibu. So this was my second favorite, my second highest pick. I found a lot of similarity between this one and RFP number two. I also found it interesting that the lead consultant for RFP two, I think must have been at some point employed by RFP six because the Charleston racial audit was co-authored by lead consultant from there. So I found that interesting. I guess I think the only one, my only knock on this one possibly might have been almost maybe too many cooks in the kitchen compared to some of the other ones, but that's, I guess that's kind of nitpicking small. I'm not going to talk long cause I keep on talking, but this is one of the, this is my second highest, although I can't really tell now, but yeah, for reasons mentioned already. And then also with the emphasis on, I just thought the whole proposal was well put together. I agreed on the approach and I actually felt that the number of people that they have that will be working on this would make it, I mean, it just seemed like really efficient, really tight. I can't speak to the quantity of data, but I just really liked, I really liked this one. I thought it was probably one of the best organized proposals as well. Go ahead, Shereen. I won't add too much other than to say that this was the one that I gave my highest score to just for all around. Oh, I see Brandel and Milo again. So I think Milo hasn't spoken and Brandel maybe has, so maybe in that order. Thank you. This is Milo. This for me, it came in second for, I just want to quickly say, I agree with some of the things that were already said in support of this. I thought that they're having some knowledge of Burlington was definitely a plus, bless you. I thought the details with regards to their methodology were good. I like the fact that they talked about a culture change because I believe that that is a really huge issue in our area with our police department. So I like the idea that that would be looked into. Thank you. Thanks Milo, Randall. Yeah, thanks. This is Randall. Yeah, so I don't think I'm much to add to what's already been said. I thought it was one of my more highly ranked proposals. It seemed to me to be both well tailored to the RFP that we put out and also with the previous work that they submitted highly competent overall. It seemed as though the recommendations that they suggested in the previous work was thoughtful and perceptive and useful. And I expected they would continue to do that kind of that degree of work for us were we to hire them. So I mean, it seemed like it was solid all around. The team seemed good to me. Yeah, nothing more to add than that it seems just pretty solid. Thanks Randall, anyone else? I liked that they wrote the proposal to kind of to our specifications but I think kind of showed that they have a consistent process that they would use across all of the different things which to me says that they have a process that they tend to use even as they're kind of writing this to our proposals. I did like kind of to the other people have made this but their past experience with Comstat but also I wasn't like I don't and I liked the team. I did also have the concern about how many people it was but it is given the size of the contract that doesn't, it makes sense to me I guess. The, I will say that I didn't, I guess some of the other pieces in terms of context grabbed me a little bit more. I feel like they didn't have as much of that grounding piece but I ranked this fairly middling. So, high middling. Any other thoughts Randall, is that your hand again? No, I apologize but I will ask this one question. Can you actually clarify what you said by high middling, was that for the overall proposal? No, that was, yeah, that was for me. Right, okay, thank you. Yeah, for you, for this proposal. Overall, great. Any other thoughts or should we move on to 11? Casually looking at Stephanie, but welcome others who are brave enough to go first. Okay, I'll go first. Is that all right, do you want me to go? Yeah, please Stephanie. I could not help but be influenced by the cost when I compared it to others. So I maybe take that into consideration. It doesn't, I guess, a couple of overall comments, general comments that it doesn't seem to get the moment that we're in here in Burlington. And I do think that's important for coming into the city and figuring this out with us. I didn't, I thought they were incompetent in terms of call analysis. They, I thought were, however, just in general short on details and were not as convincing on identifying alternatives. Also, I guess the one thing that stood out to me as missing was what about offering, you know, what some others offered, which is a decision-making framework for allocating calls. I didn't see that in the discussion and if I missed it, please let me know. But it seemed to me that that was one of the central things that we want to address in this project, in this consultancy. Others? It's Karen Durfee. And I'm quick, I can't be quick on my draw tonight. So sorry, Stephanie, that you have to be the first one. I'm happy to always be the first and the least popular sometimes. But I liked this one, this one ranked high for me.  I personally did like the fact that they didn't go word for word with our ask for the RFP. I think I was convinced somehow that, you know, that meant something to me. And I think they, I did like the piece on assessing disparity in police encounters. This is not my business, you know, this is not what I do, but I think they spent, I need people, I need the proposals to spend a bit of time, you know, really sort of speaking to the parts of the community that I think need the most focus and then in terms of policing. So I thought this, for me, this proposal did that. And I also do, I was impressed by the team, I was impressed by their qualifications. I did look some of them up and most of them are female. That's it. Others? Randall, I see your hand again. Yes, thank you. I will, I'll second pretty much everything or most of everything that Commissioner Cigguino said there and I'll just add. So I think that this got a fairly high score from me, but I feel as though the high score was partly an artifact of the score sheet. I feel as though they ticked off the various boxes, but I was also not particularly, I was not as kind of wowed by the proposal in some ways as I could have been or might have been, although I liked the proposal quite a lot. I mean, it was my highest scored proposal. So let me not kind of make it sound as though I'm I'm not going to too much, but I could say, but I do think some of it was an artifact of the score sheet. I do have a question, I'll actually forget to the question, I'll just say, I did think that it was, because I mean, I thought that they did check all the boxes that they needed to check and I didn't look at the, I wasn't comparing the cost because again, there was no place in the score sheet for cost, at least for that, at that moment. But it seemed as though the people that were involved were kind of all thoroughly competent people. Now, to my knowledge, we didn't have any kind of proof of previous work for them in the same way that we did for others. So I was not able to assess the kind of work that they had done. And so that was a factor for me. You know, again, it just made hard for me to judge what kind of stuff they have done in response to some of the proposals in the past or what their finalized work product would be. But it did seem as though they kind of were speaking to the things that we were asking for. And it seemed like they're kind of competent in doing so. So the question that I have for commissioners to go in, it was just your interest in concerns about how they would handle the call routing. Could you say more about that? I mean, it seemed to me as though they at least said in the RFP that they would basically respond to community's concerns and how they would like those calls routed in the future. So while they didn't lay out a particular decision matrix, they did kind of suggest that they wanted to understand what sorts of other entities would be involved, how those would be routed, et cetera. So could you just kind of clarify what you meant with your concerns about how they handle the call information? Yeah, you're right about that. I had read in one of the other proposals that they were going to offer a framework, kind of a decision tree. And I like that as a more substantive way for making decisions. But yeah, that was my reasoning on that, but you are correct that they did talk about kind of assessing alternative services to be used. I just kind of like the idea of, being really clear about a decision tree, about how you would triage calls. I like that idea of being explicit. Thank you. See no other hands. Although feel free to jump into queue. I'll give my feedback as well. I liked this proposal. Maybe it is because I had a more substantial part in writing the RFP than others. So when it wrote to them, like, oh, this is great. Of course. So I could see that maybe, if Randall says that he scored at the highest because it ranked the most closely to the RFP. I could see me being a fan of that. Clearly it did have some pause at the cost, but overall I did like how they wrote to the proposal without exactly copying it. And I think in each section kind of gave an, at least to me like an even-handed approach in terms of looking for alternatives, but like really understanding BPD and so I really liked the approach. I think one of the things, I guess, just to take it one step further that I'm thinking about as we do this as if it would be worth. And I was joy we're on the call. Shannon, I don't know if you can maybe text her and ask if she could join for a bit. But if, sorry, I just saw you go on me at cell. I'll pause. Oh, I was just saying, absolutely, I'll do that now. Thank you so much. Because I do wonder if this would be something where it's worth going back to them with a best and final offer. And I don't know if that's something that the city does as they're contracting terms, but just learning that out there. Other thoughts on this last proposal? Hi, this is Milo. It wasn't one of my favorites, but I will say what I did like that they address specifically. And maybe it's just the term that they use that brought out the emphasis more for me was how they talk specifically about quality of life service providers and getting information from them to assess the capacity to take certain types of calls. And I would probably say that that was the most interesting aspect of the proposal in terms of how they reviewed, how they would go about doing that. Because as we know and how we've discussed numerous times, there are a lot of quality of life issues that occur in Burlington. So I would give them that the cost was a concern though, because I felt that number two into a certain point, number six, also address those same things, but at a lower cost. Thank you, Milo. Randall. Yeah, thanks. I actually just want to follow up by saying something that I was positive about with this proposal and I haven't sent too many positive things before tonight, but the positive thing that I did like about this proposal was that they did have members on the team that have some expertise in broader aspects of the criminal justice process other than just policing. And I thought that was a very useful thing to have as expertise on the team. And so they talked about that in this proposal and not many of the people did. And so I thought that was a very good thing and I was happy to see it because I think it's useful to keep that broader perspective on the criminal justice process in mind as we're looking at how policing fits into all of that. Yeah, I think that was something that caught me because I think we haven't, I mean, this is a police department assessment, but I do think we have in the past focused a lot on the police department. And I think not seeing it as part of a larger criminal justice system was an error. Great, so do we want to talk now across the four RFPs? Did folks want to take that straw poll then talk? Did you all go ahead? We want to hear from Chief Beirut before we go further. If that's people's preferred, do you want to do the straw poll first or do you want to talk to hear from the chief and or Caldatson first? So I would welcome hearing from the chief and or Caldatson prior to the straw poll, but that is my personal opinion. Great, I haven't heard anything. No, go ahead. Sorry, I have a quick question. Have they seen the proposals? Are they familiar with them as well? Yes, they got them at the same time we did. Okay. So I assume I'm making assumptions. Welcome, John, I see you first. So if you want to start, if you have thoughts. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we did review these, I did review these. I've been listening to your discussion and I think that my best course of action in this is simply to iterate what I think we are looking for as a police department and not to discuss any of the specific submissions, not discuss any of the folks involved in it. We are looking for analysis of our call volume. And just to clarify again, the RFP, I created the original RFP for this and submitted it in early September. Obviously council member Hightower, excuse me, councilor Hightower, city councilor Shannon informed me that I should only be saying councilor and not council member. That is a holdover for my days in New York. I've been doing it improperly this whole time and I'm seeking to change it going forward, but I'm certain it will slip out additionally. However, councilor Hightower, chair Hightower, then edited it substantively and brought it to all of you and you all made additional edits as well. But the base document was prepared by me and what we were seeking is a picture, frankly, of things that I would have loved to do long ago, had we better resources, whether that's funding or personnel, et cetera. And that is a real picture of our call volume. An understanding of our call priorities and entriaging those calls, I would want a system that is able to undertake qualitative assessments with officers that is focus groups, et cetera. I began some of these processes in an internal process called vision 2020, which had to do with looking at our department in the form of a CAT scan and looking at what was working and what wasn't. And giving officers the opportunity to do what every officer has done in the course of 10 hours in a cruiser, which is complain about the way things are and actually make those complaints, things that were actionable and changeable. And we began that process, I mean, gosh, I guess we're four chiefs ago now. We began that process, ultimately presented it to Chief Morrison, just as COVID hit and the money got sucked away. And we had money for a while that was going to be directed towards some of those vision 2020 efforts, some of the training things that we really wanted officers to get. But that process was an internal review, having a more professional entity conduct such a review and actually get to hear officers about what they think is important and so far as the calls to which they respond would be tremendously valuable for us as an organization. Issues about avoiding disparities, about eating away the disparities that we currently see and determining the degree to which this agency can contribute to reducing those disparities. I don't know the answer to that question at the moment. And having a professional entity come in and help make that possible would be tremendously valuable. And finally, issues with, for example, citizen satisfaction, understanding that our response to calls will create ripples in citizen satisfaction. And that's not merely the citizens who called in during the course of the budget process. It is not merely the citizens who were parts of the movement in Battery Park. It is also the 5,000 citizens who signed a petition for the city council that was never discussed in public and was merely accepted and filed. And those people too, are voices that have real claims to wanting Burlington services and wanting to understand what the police department does or doesn't do and wanting expectations for what that department does and doesn't do. So an apprehension of citizen satisfaction. What I'm less interested in is the social work aspect of it. And the reasoning is this, not because I think that is unimportant, because I don't. I think that is tremendously important. And I do want to explore, as you know, based on my presentation to the city council last night, I want to explore social workers in the police department more Lacey's. I have said from the beginning that one of my most invaluable employees is Lacey Smith, owing to the autonomy she has to address these kinds of issues and take them off police plates. But in so far as call volume and the analysis of call volume, mental health calls and social work calls are not a tremendous piece of our call volume pie. And the sense that that is a component of it is very important to, for example, I think the facilitation process. I think it's very important for us to be able to hone our services. But at the moment, we're not in a position to be talking about home services and sharpened services. We're talking about a position of saying, what are we still going to do as we increasingly no longer have the officers to do it? And so a look at that and understanding, again, call volume and call priority and triage and interviews with officers and then digging into the disparities that we experienced. Those for me are the real important parts and are what I would have loved to do. I would have wanted to begin this process two years ago. And I'm certain almost every single chief who has sat in this office has thought the same. This is a tremendous opportunity for us to actually get an external reviewer who has capacities that we don't have both because of skill set and because of time and focus to do something that's necessary. The last time something like this was done to my knowledge in this police department occurred almost three decades ago when they did a staffing analysis. And a lot of that analysis I've looked through, if I took that, if I printed it in a new computer font because it looks like it's an old typewriter font and I took out words like land and replaced it with things like cloud so that instead of having a land we've got a cloud-based network. I think a lot of that could actually fit in today with regard to looking at a staffing analysis but I don't know for sure. And I really want somebody to come in and have the opportunity to look through Valkor which is our computer aided call. It tracks our calls, it's our system and look through other kinds of calls and give us that kind of advice. And so as you think about these candidates that's what I would ask. And then I don't have a vote here and I'm not weighing in on any specific candidate and I am trying to remain impartial to your part of the process but in so far as guiding what I have already begun to have to do owing to where we are staffing wise and guiding that further and getting us out of the position that we will be in just a few months and helping us develop a horizon for that period past just a few months when we hopefully are able to get additional resources in place whether they belong to us whether they belong to other things and really start to move forward again with a shared picture of public safety those are the things I am looking for. A true analysis of call volume and understanding of priority and triage interviews with officers avoiding disparities so that there is buy-in in this agency to keep people here and to create the cultural change that you're talking about. Avoiding the disparities or eating into the disparities that we see or understanding those disparities and then citizen satisfaction because ultimately we answer to our neighbors and they have to be satisfied with this process and they have to understand what it is that they're gonna get. And that's what I got for you. I'm on mute. Thank you, appreciate that. I appreciate you giving the list again at the end and also appreciate kind of the framework of laying out your priorities instead of commenting on any of the specific proposals. I thought that was really great. Perry, did you have a specific question or should we move to Kyle? I have a question. Oh, okay, go ahead Perry. I was actually curious. I didn't know if you all did rank them but I was curious to hear whether you have a specific question. From me? Yeah, and director Dodson, yeah. No, I'm not gonna offer it. I don't wanna offer that. I don't think that's, I think I'm making clear. I wanna say what it is that I'm looking for. Okay. Franklin, did you have a... I think it's a fair question though. We can't hear you. Franklin, your audience not coming in. Can you hear me now? Yes. I think it's a fair question though to say which of the RFPs that are left meet your criteria the best. I think that's, this is not my wheelhouse. So it's kind of, we have a long tradition. I know this issue has turned controversial but tuning or maybe that's the wrong word but you know what I mean. And I think we have a long tradition of asking staff for input regarding basically any motion we take, any memo and certainly any RFP. I don't see this, your input be, I don't think you'd be tainting our judgment. You just be giving staff, you know, staff's input. So I, sorry, you can answer that if you want but I do really appreciate Chief Murat taking the opportunity to give the department's priorities. I think that is certainly sufficient especially considering that we have seven police commissioners who interact with the police department on a pretty regular basis. That said, Chief Murat, if you wanna answer, go ahead. I very much appreciate Councilor Polino's statement and desire for that input. I don't feel entirely comfortable giving it in part because I think that our needs can speak for themselves and I think that I don't wanna be in a position of giving either undue benefit to a candidate or for that matter for having my appreciation for a candidate actually be taken against that candidate. And that's a concern. Thanks. Also, Franklin, I'm gonna take that as a yes. And Kyle, did you have thoughts? Sorry, I said thank you. Great, thanks, Franklin. Thanks, Zariah. Just a quick note to applaud you, Zariah. I thought you're opening, really set a tone for this meeting. I think the quality of the conversation is really solid. Someone else observing texted me to that effect. So this one of the best discussions they've seen, I would agree. So kudos to you for setting things off on a good footing. I think the Chief caught a lot of it. I really appreciate being part of the process. I respect everyone on this call. All of you really at this level, offer what I offer. Hopefully a thoughtful, considered approach. I don't vote. So like the Chief, I did read them. I had access. I have some thoughts, much of what I might have to add has been stated. If pressed, I could give my thoughts, but I'm not so sure that those specifics matter. I would caution, I think to have a little bit of conversation to be careful not to want this process to give us things or do for us things which it cannot or it should not appropriately, right? The assessment should be reasonably objective. It's just say, here are some things we learned and then where we had would be, I think based on how we use what's learned rather than the whoever we contract with actually directing us saying, you need to concentrate on this or you need to be better at this. I'm not so sure we want them to tell us that. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but I'm just saying that's a caution that I might think about. I think that the Chief was right. We probably in most of the conversations I'm involved in, the disparities is the issue that comes up. And I'm not certain either in my research, I think that they're perhaps separate. The social worker or CSL or however that resource is defined, I think can be a thing that really enhances and improves policing in and of itself. I don't know that it deals with the disparities. So some sort of focus and something that hopefully whoever we choose has learned from working with others. I would hope that there are best practices and things from assessing other police departments of ways of getting in between spaces and getting underneath things and getting a sense of what's happening in a particular community around these disparities, around the interaction with folks who suffer from mental health issues, BIPOC folk, other vulnerable folks, certain parts of town. We're not unique, I don't think, in the sense that we have those dynamics. And part of the value of this process is the expertise of some group of professionals who've delved into that scene, gotten some perspective by virtue of looking at multiple communities and hopefully give us insights around that. I was thinking in general, I appreciates the chief deferral, but if anything, if there was an expertise, I mean, a lot of these proposals do speak to functional and technical things that I might argue just as someone who does the work day in and day out, the chief might be best positioned to weigh in on those functional and technical details. So I had been thinking that before he spoke, but those are my thoughts really, just a little bit of perspective, but I've appreciated, I think, this has been a thoughtful process. There was a lot of information there, a lot of proposals and some of them were really deep and you all spent some time putting this together. So once again, hats off to you and thanks and those are my thoughts. Does anyone have additional questions for, well, you all are panelists, so feel free to chime in again at any point while we're going through our discussion. Chair, hi, Tower. Yes, Shannon. I just wanted to let you know just in case you can't see that I have Joy is on the call with y'all now. Great, thank you. Joy, we just have a few questions for you. Thank you for joining. Sorry about that, I know it's a holiday week. The first question was, so I messed up at the beginning and I showed the proposal numbers and the costs. So I don't know if that's something that Shannon can edit out later and I guess how important that is. No, that's fine, you'll be okay. Okay, and then the, yeah, I guess this is, just as we're discussing, I had a question about, well, one, I guess one question that I have is for Kyle, which is that the last time we did this process, one of the commissioners was kind enough to be the one to contact references and I'm wondering if you would be willing to take that on this time if that is the commissioner's desire. Absolutely, I'd be happy to do that. I would request that. I don't know exactly what the procedure is, but if you give me sort of what the will of the commission is in terms of a set of questions or a particular sort of procedure that people would like me to follow and how I should be assessing the feedback. So it's just not my subjective sense of how the conversation goes, but something I'll be looking for in the conversation, but the actual doing of it, I'd be happy to do it. Great, and I don't know if that is, that was just something that I wanted to throw out to the commission as an object. And then Joy, I had a specific question, which is one of the proposals, and I don't, this may not even matter, so, but I'd rather have a question now than try to ping you at later on. If we do decide to kind of do like a top process, does the city do things like best and final offers or do you generally just do a selection? Do you like give people a chance to revise proposals both technically and the cost? And we generally just do a selection. I think there always is the option to negotiate with a contractor if that's something you're looking to do. You also don't have to pick anyone and can put out additional guidelines if you want to change cost parameters, things like that, so. Okay, great. Thanks, that's helpful to me. Does anybody have any other questions for Joy while we have her? Also, hi, Tower. Yes, go ahead Franklin. I think that's a good point though. The cost seems to be a big stumbling block to myself, to some folks have mentioned it. It might be worth to pick two and ask them to resubmit. We don't have to take their costs. We can negotiate. The city has a history of negotiating with vendors typically one-on-one. So if we narrow it down for staff maybe they can go back to that. It's just a thought anyway. I don't have a strong position on it. Thank you, Franklin. Karen, I see your hand up as well. Hi, thanks. Yeah, given that and also given, my hand was up because I did reference checks last time. It's just something that I can do very quickly and have a lot of experience with and listening to Director Dodson. I'm wondering if I shouldn't just, no offense, but he would have to have specifics and it's not a process. We've never done it before. It can be very time consuming if you're not someone who can like stay on those calls and really get people to circle back to you. And then the other thing was given what we might do in terms of negotiations. I also have quite a bit of experience with that. So if that's part of the reference check process and talking to vendors, then I would volunteer my services again to be voted on or whatever, but I think it would just be expeditious. Thanks, Karen. And I didn't mean to remove you. I just wouldn't make sure that you didn't have to do it again because it wasn't something that you wanted to talk about. And I was really getting excited about Kyle doing that. And then I think it will be more complicated than going back to, you know, we really need this to be timely. So not that you can't do it, Kyle. I'm sure you are very technically savvy, but I'll just put that out there. Great. There's no, please. Go ahead, Kyle. That's gonna say no offense whatsoever. Just the way you talked about it sounds like it should be your job.  Great. Do you have any questions for Joy in particular? Otherwise, I might let her go again. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, Joy. Happy holidays, Dolly. So moving back to the substantive discussion, we have four proposals on the table that we've kind of talked through. Do people want to discuss further? Do they want to take a straw poll? Where are we at? You've had, do you want a little bit more time? Do we want to take a 10-minute recess to reflect on what we heard everybody say, including the chief and the director? Go ahead, Randall. And I'm happy to just go ahead and take a straw poll and see where we're at right now. I don't think we need a break. At least I'll speak for myself. I do not need a break. I'm happy to keep pushing through this, but that's me. I think that's maybe a personal because I can't both use the bathroom and share the meeting. But yeah, we can take a straw poll. So we don't have actual polls, otherwise I might do it on a thing. So I think instead I'll call out the numbers and if people can either give a yes or no on hire. It's not a hard yes or no, but like if that would be in your top two maybe, say it that way. Well, council, that's what I was gonna suggest. If we have four, right? So it doesn't make sense for people to pick two and then or at least three, pick the top three. And in order for me to keep track of it, unless somebody else is offering to, if instead we went through them and you said if that is in your top two or not, but then I don't have to figure out later. I can just do my marks, but so yes, but I think if everybody can pick their top two mentally and then I will call on the proposals and you can say if it's a yes or no in your top two. And just to be clear, I'm sorry, just be clear. We are factoring in price in this little straw poll. Is that correct? I think yes with the understanding that it sounds like we can go back and ask people to scale down. Could you give me further instructions on how to interpret that? Yes, but with a margin of error in terms of how much the price could potentially change, which I would say is probably not, it's not gonna be half, but it's not necessarily what it is. That's enough, thank you. And the top two, Councilor Hightower, should they be the first number being the first choice and then the second number being? You're not giving me your top two. I'm calling out the proposals and you're telling me yes or no if it is in your top two. 10-4. So we have proposals two, three, six, and 11. And I'm gonna need just a minute to do my own thinking. Actually, if you don't mind, I am gonna ask for a five minute recess. Can we come back at 740? Everyone. And Zara, I can keep track of tout. Well, sis. Perfect. I forgot your, thanks, Andrew. Good thing. Thanks everyone for taking that break. If folks can come back, we're gonna take a vote on our top four proposals, which again is two, three, six, and 11. And everyone should have picked two of the proposals and we will take a straw poll to see if two of them, two or three of them naturally kind of rise to the top. And I will call on people and Audrey will record. And so you all don't move again. I'm just gonna write down the names. Okay. So four proposal number two. Karen. So I just, if it's not in my top two, I say no, right? Correct. No. Okay. And just making sure, Audrey, you're ready, right? Thanks. Okay. Karen, Shereen. No. Randall. Yes. Perry. No. Jabu. Yes. Franklin. Yes. Milo. Yes. Stephanie. Yes. Did I miss anyone? Zariah, which is a no. Did we get Franklin? Yes. Oh, sorry. For proposal number three, Karen. No. Shereen. No. Randall. No. Perry. Yes. Jabu. No. Franklin. No. Milo. No. Stephanie. No. Zariah, no. For number six, Karen. Yes. Shereen. Yes. Randall. Yes. Perry. No. Jabu. Yes. Franklin. Yes. Milo. My apologies. What number? We are on proposal number six. Yes. Stephanie. Yes. Zariah, yes. And then the last one, 11. Karen. Yes. Shereen. Yes. Randall. No. Perry. Yes. Jabu. No. Franklin. No. Milo. No. Stephanie. No. Zariah, yes. So that gives you all number three, received one vote. Number 11 received four votes. Number two received five votes. Number six received eight votes. One. Can I ask that? Go ahead. I just wanted to ask a question. And this goes back to cost. 11 was the most expensive, that was the most cost prohibitive. And I just want to check in because we, there's been a lot of discussion. You know, was that a factor for folks or we're just feeling like 11 just isn't what we want. My cost was substantial. So I just want to make sure we're deliberating and discussing and making sure did cost play a role in your decision is the question. Oh, sorry. I have hands up. I have both Randall and Milo. Go ahead. I'm not sure who was going up as I will go. The answer is in my case, yes, because I was instructed to make price factor in. How much would the price have to be different in order for that book to change? I don't know, but it was certainly a factor. I also, when I was reviewing the agreements, I was looking at cost, but even if their costs were more in line with my top two, I still rank my top two higher than I would have ranked 11. Great. When I was originally scoring all these, I tried not to look at the price just to kind of like not bias, not to have that bias and two and six were my top from the get go. So that's why I didn't vote for 11. Great. Thank you. Great. Other thoughts on the results? I guess my feeling is is I feel comfortable removing three and would also not feel uncomfortable moving forward with six, but don't want folks who didn't vote for that to not have the option to pursue two or 11 if we want to keep them on the table. Shereen. I'm confused. I think that 11 got the second lowest number. So I would think we'd be talking about removing three and 11. So I don't know what I just said, but I meant definitely removing three because it just got the one vote. And then two and 11 got five and four, which feels kind of close to me. Whereas six got eight, which is higher. So, right, Audrey? Yeah. So I feel like six is kind of out ahead in first. And then there's... Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. I misunderstood you on that. That makes more sense. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. It's a lot of numbers. Six and eight and five and two and one and four. So do we want to discuss six a little bit more to see if we can get on board with that? I would think it'd be appropriate to ask the people who did not have it as one of their top two, whether they're comfortable moving forward with a selection of six from the committee. I think that's fair. There are one of you. And I didn't even know who you are. It's just me. Yes. Oh, sorry. I wasn't counting very well. Yeah. I mean, that's fine. If I'm in the minority in terms of votes, that's fine. If the majority wants to move forward with a different proposal, that's of the committee. That's that's fine. That's is that the question that's being asked if I. Would you like a motion? Me. Chair Hightower? Not me. Please don't make me make a motion. No. No, I would not ask you to make a motion. Masking chair Hightower whether she would like someone to propose a motion regarding the committee moving forward. I mean, and I don't even understand how it should be phrased because this might be conditional on references and might be conditional on the information that we're getting. So I don't know whether we want a motion at this point or whether we just want to leave it the way we have it right now. Yeah, happy to take a motion or we can talk through what we want that motion to be. So I move that the joint committee accepts the RFP from entity number six conditional on there being no red flags in the references when they are checked by, I can't remember whether it's Christian Durfee or Kyle Dawson, but whomever is checking. I'm happy to, you know, conditional on the reference just being checked. Sorry, I'll rephrase the motion. The motion is that the joint committee accepts the RFP from entity number six, conditional on the references being checked. Christian, I'm sorry, conditional on there being no red flags in the references. I second. Discussion. That's my number one pick. Jabir. I do plan on voting for this. I guess I have a one question. Should we maybe possibly check references on both six and two? Having six being the one that was the highest pick of the bunch and just kind of making sure in case that there are red flags, maybe on six that we also have a backup that gets vetted at the same time. Yeah, I might actually think that if there are red flags for two or two references don't come back towards satisfaction, it might be at that point worth having a more extensive discussion about the merit compared to merits of two and 11 since they were close and since some people expressed that price was a factor and since there might be a possibility of asking them to resubmit a bid, I think it might be worth reinvestigating at that point, not wanting to delay this process any further. I think that that'll be my preference on that. So I wouldn't want to just check both six and two. I don't want to check six and then do it again. I agree with that. That makes sense to me as well. Yes, I would check everybody's reference. Great, so we have a motion. Any further discussion? Then all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, all those opposed? I'm opposed. Great. I'm opposed. So we call the roll. Yeah, we'll call the roll. Did we want to have a further discussion on Milo? Did you have it? Did you want to comment at all? I guess for me, a proposal to just really spoke to me. And I know I keep coming back to that word holistic, but it just covered for me all the bases of concern, you know, doing an evaluation of the department deep diving their calls, taking a look at what they're doing, taking a look at where some of the things that they're doing, where can it be moved? And then also, you know, having taking a look at the time at the same time, the disparities and just their they were the most detailed in terms of their approach with the community as part of this process. And time and time again, I just see that we talk a lot about how certain community engagement should be there, isn't there, but we don't we're not moving forward and we're not necessarily the police department isn't being proactive in that area. And I just feel that if that can be included with that process, that's just a plus. And I just felt to spoke to that. Thank you. Great.  I just want to ask a quick follow up question for Commissioner granted, that's OK. So, you know, am I understanding correctly that at this point, there is only one proposal that you're prepared to vote in favor of? Yeah, I mean, if we're are we now deciding which is the one that's going to move forward as a finalist, which is what my understanding of the motion was. That's correct. Then I would, after we vote on this motion, I would do a motion for consideration of number two. OK, understood. Great. So we have. Oh, sorry, calling the roll, Karen. Sorry, it was my phone. I am voting in favor of moving ahead with number six. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. My vote, yes. Sure. Yes. Randall. Yes. Perry. No. Jabu. Well, I do like six very much. But number two, I'm going to say no. Franklin. Yes. Was that a yes? Yes. Milo. No. Stephanie. Yes. Zariah. Yes. Audrey, did you by any chance do that as well? Oh, sorry, I did not. I got I got Karen. Yes. Jareen. Yes. Randall. Yes. Perry. No. Jabu. No. Franklin. Yes. Milo. No. Stephanie. Yes. Zariah. Yes. Which is one, two, three, four, five. Yeses one, two, three and three. No. So that motion passes. Do we have another motion? I would like to make a motion to move number two forward as a finalist. Is there a second? I apologize for pausing. You said five to three. There are nine members on the present. Three, six to three. Six. Yes. Sorry. Six yeses. Three noes. All right. I apologize. Commissioner Grant. No, thank you for that clarification, Randall. Commissioner Grant has made a motion. Is there a second? So I guess I repeat the motion. My apologies. I got Trent thought Carlos was a random. No problem. I was just moving that number two be considered for the as a finalist. I'll second that motion. Motion made by Commissioner Grant, seconded by Commissioner Gommash. Discussion. I just need to. This is Karen. Derpy without her video on. And I'm really trying to pay attention. Sorry. So this would vote to move. Two forward as a finalist as opposed to six. Or are we saying if there's red flags move to forward? I'm not sure. I'm not. I don't know if I understand what's happening. Good point. Thanks, Milo. Can you clarify? Well, I guess that is a good point. I am, I don't know if this motion passes. Does that mean we do a direct vote for two and six? So we have passed six. So six is a five six is past six is a finalist. So I would like to have two considered as a finalist. And if that passes, we maybe do the reference checks on both and then come back for a final vote. I mean, depending if the references bring up any red flags.  To my short grant. So it would be different from the way the first one was posed. So I think I mean, I is it a revision versus a clarification? I think maybe we can just clarify that the intent is not to have it be a second like if other red flags, but to have it be a just a second contender. And we do checks on both of them. And and hear back. Was that correct, Milo? Yes, I mean, I definitely want it to be a finalist. I do, I believe that is the best for Burlington. So that is my motion to have it be considered as a finalist. But if we do the reference checks and something comes back, I mean, and I also thought it was kind of interesting as it was brought up before, one of the documents that six had was actually written by the lead in two. Any is does that help you clarify, Karen? Yeah, I just. Great, I just we voted on a finalist. So I just didn't want to be the same. And then but yeah, I'm clear on that. Great. Other discussion. Go ahead, Stephanie. Just in terms of comparison, I actually think that number two was my first choice until Zariah's comment about the call analysis and the quantitative skills. And then listening to Chief Murad, that's really the only reason that I sort of switched to number six is my preference. But that I just want to put that out there is that was my concern. But I agree with everything else that Commissioner Grant has said about the focus of two, which I liked a lot. But I felt that piece missing was problematic. And for that reason, I'll be voting no on this. I wasn't a huge fan of two. Any other discussion? Great. Then I will go to a vote. Audrey, if you can help me just to make sure that I have the same thing. Sure thing. Karen? No. Shireen? No. Randall? No. Perry? No. Jibu? Yes. Franklin? No. Milo? Yes. Stephanie? Yes. Zariah? No. So I have three yeses and sixes. I also have that. So that motion fails. I'm just going to shut it up. So Karen, we're just having you do for at least as it stands right now, unless there's another motion. So far, you're just doing reference checks on six. And can I just one clarification? Because I have all this paperwork in my computer. Is this a? No, this will not be negotiated for a price. OK, got it. Anything else on item number three? Well, thanks, everyone. I think this was a much less chaotic process than the first time. I would almost say that I'm sad that we're not doing an RFP, another RFP since we're getting better at it. But I would be lying. I'm glad that's it. Great. So the other thing is we're moving on to agenda item number four, which is other business. I want to quickly flag. I don't think this needs to be in joint committee. But at yesterday's council meeting, we talked about something. I had a mental note, but now I'm forgetting what it is that they wanted to make sure it went to the police commission before. Oh, staffing. Yes, the staffing presentation. So I just want to make sure that the police commission is aware of that and that you all have a plan to do that in police commission, or if you prefer to have it in joint committee. I feel like that's you all's decision at this point. I just want to be able to report back to the council that. Well, I watched a lot of this is Milo Grant. I watched a lot of that conversation. I guess what exactly is the question that you have of us? I'm not a hundred percent sure. My understanding is, is that Chief Mirad and or Kyle Dawson. That's a high tower. Maybe John can chime in. But I heard that they are presenting to the police commission already on their next meeting. The staffing presentation, I'm going to defer to the chair of the police commission for discussion with the chair of this committee. I think that's appropriate. So what's being asked of us? That's my question. There is a proposal that has not been finalized, but will be made. And there was a question at council, whether that would go to the joint committee or to the police commission. And I said, we didn't have any dates beyond tomorrow and we wouldn't deal with it tomorrow. And so it was up to you all when you would look at it. So not something we need to discuss today, if you all don't want to. I can just connect with you. That sounds great. Let's do that. Great. Then the other thing is. Sorry, may I ask while we're still on that? Just a quick question. This doesn't need to be long discussion. But I get I only I positive didn't see the meeting yesterday. I only read a recap of it. But I get a little bit confused, I guess, as to what sorts of police related business gets sent to the police commission from city council. What sorts of police related business gets handled in city council directly either public safety or the council's whole. Can you give me just some understanding as you might have it of why this particular thing was sent to the police commission rather than handled by city council? I think you've asked me this before. And you definitely have a better understanding of what historically is sent to the police commission versus not as you've been here longer than I have. I think this I think specifically by my understanding it's actually been your maybe even you individually your desire to have more of these decisions go to the police commission and a recognition that that's a better process to follow that this is that I think more things are being sent to the police commission to review before the city council makes decisions on that are relevant to policing. So that is my understanding of where it's coming from. But I that is a guess as much as fact. So I think we go ahead Franklin discuss that last night. And I think the best characterization I can say is that there's no hard and fast rule and the decision was made sounds like either at staff or the level or at the mayor's office to go through council first given everything that we were already doing and then to go to the police commission and come back to the council with a recommendation. Wait, but it has come to council yet. It was just a work session. We haven't had a there's no formal proposal yet. Correct. So the same right, correct. It was a to be like a preview of the staff's proposal that will be first presented in final format at the police commission to then go to council. OK, are there any more questions on this? Or are we good to move on? So gosh, I guess I'm not sure that that answers the question. So looking for our input, but it won't really matter anyway because it'll be a vote in the council. Correct. I do not know what form this proposal will take as this proposal does not exist yet. I don't know. I assume that it will be a vote in front of the council. And I assume that the police commission's role will be advisory. But I do not know any of those things nor am I nor is this like my proposal to tell you about, if that makes sense. OK, so the proposal is going to be done first.  Chief Miran, John, do you have any? This is your proposal. Yes, it is my proposal. As I said last night, I'm not entirely versed in the process of making such a proposal something official that goes to the council or to anybody. And so far as discussing it with the police commission, I frankly, I think that it would have been great to have a vote last night on the issue. I think that every moment we delay making a determination about these staffing needs is a moment that we get closer to having services cut. Those services are going to be truncated no matter what. We cannot prevent that from happening in the short term. And by short term, I mean six or more months. But every moment that we delay is lengthening the time in which we can address it and try to get the ball rolling that is going to address it. Addressing is going to take, depending on which sort of proposal is adopted, anywhere from seven and a half months to well over a year. And the later we start that, the longer it is that we have services that don't meet the historic understanding of our citizens of what services we provide. Insofar as what we're doing now, I think that it is, I believe there is an opportunity for us to, I'm trying to find some thoughts that were about it. Just a moment, please. A sense of that I know that I believe that I need to create a memo for the city council. And I believe that that memo is going to include things that we discussed last night, a language about the targeted staffing level, some budget comparisons. They'd be back at the envelope, but some budget comparisons about what we're looking at with regard to past staffing, current staffing, projected future staffing, and what that staffing would look like if the proposal I offered were to be adopted. And also some timelines. All of that was included in the presentation that was offered last night. That is a presentation that I hope to have put up on board docs. I sent it around to the city council. I don't know if it's been placed on board docs yet. I will send it to the police commission as well. It's public and can go on board docs. I don't know how to do that. And it is something that is going to be, there's not a lot different. Whatever the memo that comes out is essentially that proposal from last night. That said, I believe that part of the idea of bringing it to the police commission, and you've seen some of these ideas, and I've presented aspects of this to you, I think that is just one last opportunity to make certain that our representatives of the city, because you, police commission, are the representatives of the people of the city, and you do it incredibly well. And you put in the time and the effort to make those changes. And I am always, always grateful for the guidance and input that you give to allow you to do that on this before we make that memo. I think that's the valid rationale for having delayed it from last night. Great. So just, I don't want us to get too off track on this. I think it's just, and this is, but I think that there was a conversation last night with a PowerPoint that is, in fact, on board docs and sounds like will be sent to the police commission as well. There is some desire to hear from the police commission on this proposal before the city council works on it, votes on it, whatever it is. So it is really to the police commissioners how you all want to handle it. I'm happy to have it be part of another joint committee meeting. I'm happy to have it be just in police commission.  I just meant to make it a small note as opposed to discussion that this is something that is coming more than a longer discussion. So Perry, is this specific to it being to the next, to other business? It's specific to this topic. Go ahead. I just, I guess if the police commission wants to add it to their agenda, that makes sense. But I do think, doesn't it make sense for it to come to the joint committee? Or is that does that not resonate with other people? And then just to answer the question around the authority and the powers of the police commission. Under the charter, there's, you do not have the, the police commission does not have the authority to authorize policy. It's not written into the charter. So it's a purely advisory capacity or power. That being said, I mean, that's also completely valid. And I think if the police commission wants to independently take this up, that makes sense. But I guess I would just be confused process-wise why it wouldn't come to the joint committee. But I guess, yeah, I don't know. I'm curious to hear your thoughts, or I don't know if you have thoughts on that. I think either way would make sense. I think that it's helpful for us too. I cannot usually make it to point joint police commission meetings because I tend to have other meetings. So it's just helpful to hear in terms of what the commissioners thoughts are. I really feel like this is a decision that's up to the police commission now. Like wherever you want to have this discussion, I think it's fine to have it in. John, I do want to move off of this topic because I feel like we're having other discussions. But I just want to offer a point of information and clarification, which is that we do not have any policies that are not approved by the police commission. Our directives are all approved by the police commission and have to be in order to be turned into directives. Thank you, John. Great. So that was with that context. First thing, just want to set a few dates for our next meetings. Joy is still working through some contract hiccups with our first RFP in terms of clauses that do or don't apply. But I assume they will, I hope they will iron that out this week. And so do you want to get some kind of work session on the calendar for us to work through that community facilitator RFP? I think I'll have my staff, specifically Audrey, start to look at the list that we generated and try to get contact information. We'll probably also send that out to you all in case you have contact information. But that's at least one of the things that I want to schedule for the New Year and have on our agenda. And then Shareen, I know we're still waiting. So if you have anything with John by the New Year, that would be great. Other things that people want on the agenda, and then I'm going to at least propose that we look at the week of the fourth potentially for another meeting, Randall, yes. I don't know whether this is something that would need to be on the next agenda item or on the agenda for the next meeting or not. But it's just a response or question to Councillor Freeman. So of course, the charter does say that the police commission has those powers that the city council delegates to it. So since this is a joint committee of the police commission and public safety, it might be useful, I think, for a police version to know if city council intends for the police commission of no powers authority whatsoever with respect to the police department of useful for us to know and its current incarnation. I'm going to go ahead and say I appreciate the question, Randall. I don't think that either Perry and I can speak to the intent. As far as I know, there is no intent to change the current function of the police commission. So how you all have been operating and the directives and policies you haven't been advising and approving or whatever, I'm sure will continue to be the case. So I don't think that was meant to be a comment on changes to the council, nor do I think Perry and I can speak for the council or Franklin. Can I request that be on the next meeting so we can clarify that? I'm having difficulty squaring that with the comment that I just heard. Yeah, I wonder if, I mean, I'm happy to have that discussion. I just don't know. I wonder if it would be better to have a work session with the council and the police commission as opposed to the three of us as representatives of the council. Because I feel like there's been, so OK, let's dive into it. I feel like there is a deeper issue that I don't fully understand as a relatively new counciler in terms of how the police commission and the city council have been working. If that is something you would like to do, I think that might be a good issue to bring to the full council as opposed to this committee. I don't know if that's me saying that as a new counciler, I don't understand all those dynamics. But I think I don't think that it's because I think we, I feel like I have a good, I work with you all as much as some of the counselors. So I'm like, of course, we've got a good working relationship. I talk to them all of the time. So if there is a deeper question, I think I think that is something that that is worth proposing to the council in the new year to have that on a council agenda. I will take up with the chair of my committee. Does that seem, I'm happy to put it on our agenda, but I think it would be better served. It seems like what you're trying to do to put it on the council agenda. This is why I will withdraw the request to have it on this joint committee's next meeting. And I'll take up with the chair of my committee. Okay. Thank you, Randall. And if that doesn't work out, let me know, of course. Great. Okay. Can I propose a meeting for, do folks have availability of the fourth, the week of the fourth of January? And we have a council meeting on the fourth, so not that day. The fifth or sixth or seventh? Good for me. Great. So I switched, which day? I missed one. Will you do the fifth? The fifth, the sixth or the seventh? I heard Franklin request the fifth. All those days work for me. So let's y'all hash that out. I kind of like doing the back to back. Councilor, it's just because it kind of just gets out of the way and it's pretty tough. I know that that's tough. That works for me, because in retrospect, I just haven't put the SRO task force meetings on Wednesday yet, but I think that will still be happening. So. Are we doing 5.30 again? 30. Does 5.30 work for folks? Is there a request to change that? 5.30. Sorry, it does work for me. I do know that you all is generally not free till 6.30 on most weekdays. Okay. Can we tentatively set it to 5.30? And then if you all can confirm that they can make it at 6.30, we can change it before Shannon has to warn it. Sounds good. Can, it can, Jabu, can you confirm? Yeah. Can you do that? Yeah, I'll, sorry. I lost, sorry. Yes, I'll do that. Absolutely. Okay. So tentatively set for Tuesday 5, Tuesday the 5th of January for 5.30, potentially moving down to 6.30. Great. If folks have other thoughts on agenda items, Randall, if you do end up wanting to put that on there, let me know.  I see them on the. Yes, I will. Great. Okay. That at least is all that I have in terms of the agenda. So unless folks have other things we could do a motion to adjourn. I'll move to adjourn. Councilor Hightower. Thank you. As there a second. I'll second that. Moved by Councilor Polino, seconded by Commissioner Murphy. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Thank you all so much. It's been great to work with you these past few months and we'll see you in 2021. Absolutely. Happy holiday, everyone. Be safe. Happy holidays. Thank you, everyone. Holidays.