Today is Tuesday, February 8th. It is 5.40 p.m. This is the Public Safety Committee and we have an agenda as we continue on with the CNA report and reviewing the recommendations of the report. That's the basic gist of our meeting. The first item on the agenda is the, actually the first item on the agenda as per board docs is a little bit off. It should be a motion to approve and adopt the agenda. So if one of the committee members could make that motion. So moved. Thank you. And there's a second. All those in favor of the agenda as presented, please say aye. Opposed? We have an agenda. So you'll just note that for the record that item 1.01 should be just a motion to adopt. Jane, because we wanted to make sure that you were able to vote on the minutes, we sort of went over, we decided not to approve the minutes of the 25th. And then of course there's the minutes of the first of February. So if we can, perhaps we can try to approve both of those this evening. Have both of you had a chance. And if you haven't, that's fine. We're meeting weekly, so there's no rush. So if I, so I wasn't at the last meeting. So I wasn't included on those minutes. So I wouldn't want to vote on the one of February 1st. Have you had a chance to look at the 25th of January? I looked at both, yes. Okay. All right, Zariah, you're okay. All right, so for the item 2.01, I apologize if it looks like I'm looking, I've got two computer screens in front of me, one in back and one in front. Item 2.01 is the approval of the Public Safety Committee Minutes for January 25th. That was the one that all three of us were at. So if there's a motion to approve those, please. To approve. And a second. Great. All those in favor of the motion to approve the minutes, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We have those approved. Thanks so much, Jared, for such a quick turnaround. And then for the minutes of the first, did you have a chance? Move to approve. Go ahead. Move to approve. All right, I'll second. So all those in favor. Aye. And we'll just note that Jane has chosen, it's not voting because she was not present. So then the next item is the public forum. I did not look to see if there are members. I did receive an email from Grace and she is here and wishes to make a comment. Sure. Grace, would you like to speak now? I just gave her permission. So hopefully. Okay. Grace, would you like to speak now? Hey, sorry. Yeah, I think if it's possible, I'd like to wait and just hear a little bit about what you all are discussing. If that makes sense, I'm happy to speak now or if there's a point, a good stopping point that you come to or it would be appropriate for me to speak. That's great. Sure. I mean, Grace, we try with committee meetings as you know to be as informal as we can and still get our work done. If you want to just raise your hand and as long as one of us notices, we're more than happy to let you speak during the meeting, if you'd like. Great, thanks, Karen. Sure. All right, so and there are a few other members of the public that are here. I don't know if either one of, there's a couple if either wishes to speak or, Cheryl, did you wish to speak at this time? Or Pat? No, I'm passing. I'm here to witness your discussion. Thanks very much. Sure, sure. I'm a reporter, so I'm just watching right now. Okay, all right, great. Well, thanks for coming. All right, so it looks like we don't have other members of the, oh, wait a minute. I see that Grace has your hand up. Do you want to speak now, Grace? Yes, sorry. I just, I'm sorry for a long day. I just realized I do have a meeting. I have to go to it. Okay. I'm trying to speak for this whole meeting. But yeah, if I can speak now, that would be great. Okay, sure. The floor is yours. Thank you. Yeah, hi everyone. I just, I just thanks for having me. And I think I just really wanted to say that I appreciate this tedious, tedious work that you all are doing with this report. I had a chance to read the recommendations when this report came out initially. And I felt, you know, I didn't read the whole report. I did read all of the recommendations. And I came away from that feeling disheartened. I think for me, the main takeaway from the report is that there needs to be more training, right? And more clear policies in place. There is no evidence that anti-bias training changes police officers behavior. And there is a whole very profitable industry that is built around these trainings, right? And these types of trainings have been held in police departments since the 1960s. So for the past 60 years, there's this pattern, right? Every time there is a, you know, a big uprising, right? There's an outcry against police brutality. More training has been the recommendation. And, you know, people in the city have always known that this was an issue, right? People have always known that black residents in the city have been targeted by the police. That's always been folks experience. And now the city has identified that, that that is a problem, right? Through data, through this study that we paid a lot of money to have done. And I just feel like if you decide to pursue more trainings and if the department even is amenable to that, right? Because I feel like there is a significant amount of pushback in even having more trainings and even providing what the content of the training is. I feel like there needs to be accountability. If the ultimate goal, right? The overall goal is to reduce the amount of violent encounters that people are having with police officers. If you choose to pursue more trainings, I feel like there needs to be accountability measures in place to say, we have tried this. Is this helping us to achieve our goal? And I know you're not in the actions stage yet. Like we're still just trying to digest this report. And I'll come back in March and I'll bring this up again. But I think ultimately if the goal is to reduce the amount of violent encounters that BPD is having with people of color in this city, with children, as we just saw, right? We just saw an article that came out recently about Kathy and her child who was experiencing a mental health crisis, right? I just, I want to invite you to explore the other pathways that we have to get there. I think public safety can encompass a lot more things in our community besides just police officers. I think that can include support for single parents. That can include more support for folks experiencing mental health crises. That can include more support for folks who are experiencing addiction and substance use issues, right? Police officers are not meant to be social workers. They're not meant to help people who are dealing with substance use and addiction, right? And this is what we've heard from the police department is we feel overburdened by the amount of things that we're supposed to be responsible for. So I just wanted to put that out there for you all. And I really appreciate the time here from the public. Thank you so much. Sure, Grace, thanks so much. With that, I think we'll close the public forum if there are people that wish to come and wish to speak to specific items, we'll try to accommodate them. The next item is number four and that is the discussion of the CNA report. So just so others are aware who might not have been at the last meeting and just to bring you up to speed, Jane, as well. Zariah added a couple of columns to the spreadsheet where there is a timeline and conclusion which is next to her in green. And that was incredibly valuable work because while we were discussing these, we didn't have to stop and figure out what we had said because Zariah was writing it down. So that's what those columns are for. The rest of it is there's all of the columns that we've received so far in terms of input that we got from the various members of the working group. So I think we are on, gosh, are we online? Are we on, I don't know, Zariah, are we online 18 or 19 or 20? Sorry, I'm making sure that I'm opening the most recent version that's on board docs. Sorry. I feel like you had stuff in here for the timeline under item 20 and maybe that's as far, I can't remember exactly how far we got. Yeah, I feel, yeah, I put timeline for line 19 and 20 but I didn't seem to put notes because. I remember that we were talking about the mission statement and I believe the chief was talking about the fact that, you know, that that would be, that could, that he wanted to start with a review of that and then bring that to the commission. And I can't remember if that was the last thing. I don't remember now in the minutes. I haven't, I haven't, I feel like maybe we're on number, maybe we're online 19 at item 1.161. I feel like we were going to try to do those. At the very end, I thought that those would be relatively straightforward because they were directive reviews. But I remember the conversation that we had about directive DD 40 was one that the chief had said was much more than just a couple of word changes that there was, that I believe, I don't know. Chief Murat, are you able to refresh our memories about that? Sure, commissioner, counselor. Yeah, my belief is that based on the number of things that refer back to DD 40, that's a whole directive change. And in fact, I believe that it's at minimum two directives. That directive needs to be split into two. There was a period in the agency's history where we went from a very large number of directives divided among administrative directives and operational directives that were all components of this agency's effort to get CALEA certification. I can't remember exactly what CALEA stands for right now but it's something to do with the council of sort of, it's an authorizing body for law enforcement. And I believe it was Chief Ennis. So we're going back a long time there who got CALEA certification and in doing so had a very wide body of directives. During subsequent chiefs that was consolidated, the agency history, which may or may not be entirely accurate is that it was largely done under Chief Shirling. The agency apocrypha says that Chief Shirling retired to his house for a week and came back with all the directives all consolidated which is obviously not possible or real but nevertheless that happened during his tenure. This is one of those directives I think that is a couple of directives that got smashed together and frankly it should be at least two and that's a full body rewrite on this and there are enough recommendations that touch on it to support that decision I believe. So what would be your, what would be your estimate? I'm sorry, councilor, I lost all that. I didn't know that. What have you already given other demands on your time on what you feel about the timeline for DD 40 and I know Jabu also had something also to add as well if you want to, either one of you, if you want to bring me up to, if there's more that we should know. Yeah, I'll jump in right now. I believe last week I said that Sharina was looking into this policy but then her and Susie were actually working on, working on different directives that took more importance over this one at the time. I have one volunteer from the question that's going to look into this and I have a conversation directly after this meeting with another commissioner and hopefully they'll say yes and then I'll stand up so you're going to work on looking at this directive. Did you want to add anything? Okay. Sure, I'd like to, I mean, as I look at the very helpful column H that, excuse me, not column H, column J that was included by councilor Hightower. I guess part of my question is, are these marching orders now or are we waiting to accomplish these things until this group has reviewed all of it? Well, I mean, our charge was to review these recommendations and come up with a plan. We haven't, obviously we haven't completed that. I mean, are you saying that these are things that you feel you can jump right into right now and you're saying is that okay? I mean, is that what you're, is that what you're saying? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I mean, essentially I mentioned that there are a handful of these that are doable almost immediately. They really just need to be sort of the verbiage has to be come up with and then presented to the commission and the commission can then look at them. I also take from chair Gamash's remarks that his intention is for the commissioners to rewrite some of these and that's certainly, it's not something we've done before, but it can be done. So I don't wanna do that. I don't want to rewrite them if the commissioners are. I didn't mean to say I don't want to do that in a way of saying that I was objecting to it. I'm saying I don't want to rewrite something that the commissioners are gonna rewrite. Well, I mean, Jabu, it sounds to me or like for either you or for Milo since you're very familiar with this is that you were talking about Directive 40. You weren't talking about others or are you talking about others? So we have before this ad hoc committee started, we were starting the process of reviewing a fair amount of department directives and DD 40 was on that list of the directors to review and to upgrade more sorry, revise. And so with that being said, I mean, we're still planning on doing that, but any information or any guidance we can get in here, I'll be sure to include that in. Okay, Milo, I know you had had your hands up before. Did you wanna add to that? Basically, Jabu covered it that we as a commission are reviewing some of the directors, but I look at it as more of a collaborative process with the chief that the commission has some input, as we've reviewed various incidents, things have come up with the directives and it's been agreed upon that for lack of a better word, they need a refresh or review. So I anticipate we'll be working with the chief about the recommended changes that we'd like to see in the directives. Okay, thank you, that's very helpful. I mean, I don't, so for Jane and for Zariah, it sounds as if the first question is based on, and Jane, at the last meeting, there were a number of items that were very early on that were items that the chief told us were really very straightforward. They were not complicated. They were a matter of adding a few lines to one directive or another. He said that was something that could literally go back to the commission at their next meeting, if not the meeting after. So it would seem as though, if those are simple, that it would be fair to say that it between the three of us, it's our collective opinion, that if those things are easy and we've already agreed that they are important, that it's fine to do them now, is that fair? Yeah, I would definitely say so. And one of the conversations we left off on the meeting prior to the one I missed was, if things are even, if we deem them as a little less important, but still doable, we would still probably do those things just to get that going. And that's incorporated in this as far as I can see. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So yeah. Yeah, I was just gonna say, there were a number of ones that, I mean, I started calling them easy fixes, but they're what the chief referred to as quick wins. Sure, sure. If they're pretty straightforward, we certainly don't need to wait. I think that the bigger issue, and I'm not really sure how to, I mean, I guess we really need to go through them, but it appears as though a lot of these are directive reviews that it appears as though for those who completed the spreadsheet, the vast majority of them we agreed with. So when we go through these, if the police commission is either already starting to work on these, or if there is already an iterative process between the police commission and the staff or in the chief, please let us know that because we don't need to spend in an order amount of time on things like that. There are other things that are going to probably take up more of our time that we need to really talk about stuff that's already being sort of underway. So if you can let us know that, that would be helpful. So I think like for example, the 1.16.1, there was fairly universal agreement that that is a priority we put on their year two. If that is something that's with DD01, that is that something that can be done fairly quickly? Or is that not something that can be done fairly quickly chief? This is line 19 of the spreadsheet. 19. Line 19, yes. Line 19. So that's something that, how quickly? I mean, I'd have to go through and find IACP ethics and sort of or other codes and put them together and figure out which ones we like or how we could merge them and combine them in ways that work for folks. But that's something that, if a timeline is given, I'll do my best to meet that timeline. Well, I mean, we had originally bet the timeline under column J was year two. Because, and I think a lot of us took to heart what you had said a few meetings ago, which is that if we prioritize everything then it will be hard to get a lot done because everything will be the same level of priority. So, I mean, I'm comfortable with year two. I imagine that when Soraya and I, when we talked about that at the last meeting that we were all in agreement and perhaps others were in agreement as well. So, I think probably Soraya, when it comes to column K that that particular item, we could just simply say that that is important. We did make that a one priority. However, amongst many other things, are we comfortable with that being done in year two, meaning next year? So just one, I'm still with you on the rows, but because I didn't want individual people's notes to come before the committee is I'd actually moved the column. So those don't mean it won't be anymore. So if you could just say the name of the column that I'll know for sure. But on the, yeah, committee conclusions, I'm fine with it saying year two and saying this was ranked important, but as something that could take a little while longer. Okay. I think the same thing could probably be said of the other one, DD 40, it sounds like is already according, it sounds like from both from the chief and from Djibout that that is something that the commission is and as well as from Milo that that is something that the committee, the commission is actively working on are these directives. So we probably could note that and maybe say that that would be something that we would hope to get an update as a council by the fourth quarter of 2022. Would that be reasonable for the police commissioners? Is that reasonable? Yes, for clarification, what is the fourth quarter? The fourth quarter, fourth quarter of would be October, November, December of 2022. Oh yeah, absolutely. Okay, that's too much. Am I, I don't want to, I don't, we don't, we don't want to, we don't want to not give you enough time. Is that too much time? Or is this something not even more, more trying to get this done by the middle of the year? I think, I'm sorry, Jibu, I didn't mean to, I think that would be enough time. These are, this is a higher priority. There's a great need for clarity and updating of this process. So I think that's very reasonable. You think Q4 is reasonable? Yes, it's not before. Okay, all right. And the same thing would be, let's see. So that also is a part of item 1.17.1 and 1.18.1. 1.17.1 and 1.18.1. That would bring us to probably the, what will, that will bring us to 1.18.2, which is the recommendation that BPD should consider instituting a citizen review board to review internal and external investigations rather than having the chief serve as the final authority on facts and discipline. And there were a number of us who responded to that. I think that would be, that will warrant some level of discussion here. One of the things that, and by all means, if others have questions would welcome that input. My only question, and that would be for, probably for the BPOA is if you would be able to explain to us if there is an opportunity, if you're able to explain to us what your response was on to this item. Is there someone, Orrin, I don't know if you're in a, if you're in a position where you could speak to this or- Yeah, I'm here. That would be great if you could. Thanks for being here, by the way. Yeah, I, yeah, we're, we're not against like, obviously we're not against any sort of oversight or review. It's just the oversight and review. And our opinion needs to be negotiated. And as long as the oversight and review is going to be like reasonable, logical, and like most importantly, like predictable, I, we're, we're definitely open to the conversation. We just have to be invited to the table to have the conversation. Okay. And then there was also, I can't remember. I know that you did not include any, who or what could address the recommendation or next steps to the chief. I don't know if given the, given the comments, given Orrin's comments, if they, if they're, if you are of the same opinion that you are not opposed, but that it would be something that would warrant further study. Is that for me, Councillor, sorry? I'm sorry. No, actually that was for the chief. I'm sorry. Thank you. Are you asking whether or not I, I mean, whether or not I think that the body should study this more or if I'm not sure? Well, I guess what I'm asking just so that we can, you know, to sort of get us to a point where we sort of wonder the, those of us who did respond on it did not, did not disagree with the recommendation there were certainly comments about it, but did not disagree with it. And if it sounds like the BPOA's response is that they are not opposed to that either. Now, obviously under, and you know, this is, this would warrant a further discussion in your, in your case, you had said that you disagreed with it. And I'm wondering if that is something you still feel or if in view of the fact that the BPOA is open to it, that you might also be. So with regard to the idea of reviewing internal and internal investigations, I don't disagree with that part. I think that given if there are contract changes put in place to allow that review, which currently is not allowed or at least is allowed with certain kinds of restrictions, I don't disagree with that. And in fact, we're already doing it. There are instances in which the, that is what the current, the police commission is an advisory and appellate body and it has served as an appellate body. And in doing so, it has reviewed and looked at internal investigations, including everything except for statements given by subject officers, which is prohibited by contract. But in its appellate role, it absolutely has reviewed that. And I think that is important. And in that respect here too, the chief is not the final authority on facts and discipline because in fact, the police commission is the appellate body should there be an agreement about facts and discipline. But in so far as having a civilian body looking over, making determinations about discipline, that is the portion to which I object. And my rationale is this, there are several members of this group here who have done a lot of really admirable work at understanding police operations. Councilor Paul, commissioner Grant, have both done ride-alongs. Commissioner Grant has done several now. There are folks on this call and body who have, I believe commissioner Gamash has also done ride-alongs. There are folks who have taken 10 hours of Naples training and that too is really admirable and great and it's good training. I'm sorry. Oh. If everyone could just mute if you're speaking, if you're not speaking, that would be great. And that's great. I have a recruit right now in the police academy. He's a college graduate. He was a street outreach worker, has in him the ethos of being a social worker and taking that kind of view of how to help the public and work with the public and wants to be a police officer. And he was a good street outreach worker for the Howard Center too. They don't like that we stole him. When he finishes the police academy at the end of this month, he will have been through something along the lines of 850 hours of police training. He will then not be a police officer. He will have to come out and do another several hundred hours of field training with an officer who will guide him through a number of different stages. And when he's done with that, he will be a police officer. He'll be solo, but he'll be behind the ears. I would never in a million years put that officer in charge of my discipline. And I have reasons for that. And that is also the issue that I have with putting others in charge of discipline. There are rules, there are the intersection of training, the intersection of the law, the intersection of policy and all these things are very complicated. And that's my rationale, but with regard to review, again, that is something we already do. And with regard to input and advice, that is something we already do. All right, so thank you. So I think at this point, for those members of the working group that have some insight to offer here by all means, I think we did try with the council resolution to talk about police oversight. It appears as though they're, at least from those who have filled out the spreadsheet that there is some level of amenability to instead of being a citizen review board to putting that authority with the police commission. And so if we could, if there are others who have an opinion here other than what's on the Excel spreadsheet, the floor is open for that. Sure, go ahead, Jabu. All right, I'll be really quick with this. And this might open the can of worms, but I'll try to be quick with it. I see moving forward, whether it's expanded police commission powers, do we need to review a board? I think either way, the bus is gonna stop with a union contract. From my understanding, I'm not a contract lawyer by any means. It seems like the language and the contract controls the flow of information. And I feel like, so depending on whichever body gets this, I feel like those people have to be renegotiated before powers are expanded for the police commission or a completely separate community review board. I know there's been some discussion at other places, whether that's the case or not. Just based on some of the case work that I've seen, it seems like that is an issue moving forward. Okay, thank you, Jeff. Yeah, I mean, I have some concerns about this. I just see a new show a week or so ago that they actually, I think it might have been disconnected in New York or somewhere they had a police chief and somebody from their review committee, I think they're doing it somewhere and they all talked like it was working very well. So that kind of changed my thinking. But I think it all, what I also want to know is the police commission, would that body take this role on or not, is that not advisable? That was one question I had. And I guess the concern I would have is what's the makeup of this commission? How would the folks be appointed? Is there enough balance? Is there enough, do people know enough about policing when they get on this committee? Those would be my concerns. Okay, thanks. I mean, for myself, I mean, just for the public and for anyone else who's watching and others that weren't at the first couple of meetings was, when we filled out the Excel spreadsheet, none of us were working off each other's ideas. We all did this independently. And I have to say, I thought, Zariah, that your response, your note was a really good one that we should be doing this as soon as possible either in the police commission. I mean, personally, I'm so impressed with all the work the police commission has done over the past couple of years that I've come around to feeling that that is a place where we could do this work with some changes. I mean, there probably would have to be some changes and it has to be, you know, as you had said that that would be added to the BPOA negotiations. I mean, I personally would be comfortable with that being our recommendation. I don't know how others would feel. I also came around to being the police commission, although I was initially preferred the two body and I think to some extent there's still reasons to do that but I think for the same reason that it's hard for the chief to do it all, it's hard for one body to do policies and oversight, but I still think that the citizen body having it is better than just the chief having it. So I think that rather than trying to get 13 citizens who are disinformed on police policies, it's probably more realistic to have one. Jane, do you have a, you know, to try to come up with a committee conclusion? How do you feel about this? I am fully supportive of that. I think that that is a very accurate read on that. And yeah, I'm obviously a big, big advocate for citizen oversight. And I do think that there's a lot of value having police commissioners be involved with that. But I also think in some ways moving forward, we do need to continue the conversation of how to mitigate that, like even that pressure and the capacity of the police commission because sometimes a lot of things can happen at once and hit at once. And these are people doing us a great service. So I think that's just something, maybe a conversation for another time, but I think it's important to name that. Yeah, I would agree with you. I mean, I think that, you know, there are just, just like there are city counselors who probably have a lot going on. There's police commissioners that are working on directives, working on oversight, working on review of all sorts of things and still doing the basic work of a commission, which is pretty significant. So I don't know what that means. If that means we need more police commissioners or I'm not sure what that means, but I agree with you that could be part of a future conversation. Are you okay with the idea of effectively taking your, taking the sales ride that you have for your notes and basically adapting that to put that into the committee's conclusion? Yeah, so what I have right now is acting chief disagrees with recommendation BPA once we're part of that conversation on oversight and this needs to be polluted in the negotiations. Agree on moving forward quickly. I largely feel comfortable with moving forward with police commission as the body, if that is simpler. All right, is there anyone who doesn't agree with that? Just, okay, go ahead, Jeff. Just the, so in the event that there's oversight or there's a transgression that needs to be reviewed and action taken against an officer, who has the final say? Are we onto that topic or that coming later? I just, Well, that we hadn't, that wasn't really the directive. I mean, that isn't the recommendation in terms of, well, it is and it isn't, I guess. It would be, there was a proposal that the police commission, that the chief would give a recommendation on whatever the, whatever, if there was a case of police officer discipline and that that would go to the police commission. This was one recommendation that it would go to the police commission and that by a super majority, the police commission could overrule that decision. And, but again, it's a lot more complicated than that, Jeff. I mean, obviously a lot of this is charter and some of this is union. It's not a simple, it's not simple. I think that bigger issue is just simply what, is the conclusion that you, that Soraya sort of just gave us. The question would be, I mean, if we wanna add something more to that, we could. I don't know that we need to at this point because there's an awful lot more that has to go into this. Understood, okay, thanks. So in terms of timeline, we know that the BPOA contract is under negotiation right now. It expires in June of 2022. I guess in terms of timeline, we could put, you know, third quarter of, we're in the first quarter of 22. This would be the third quarter of 22. Does that seem reasonable? Sorry, so that was pretty good, Karen. What I was saying is that the, you know, we're in the first quarter of 22, we would be looking at this, given the BPOA contract expiring in the summer, that this would hopefully be able to be in terms of the timeline that we probably could do something, at least by the third quarter of 2022. I would argue for the second quarter, just so that we can help make sure that it's included in those negotiations. Okay, good idea. Jane, how do you feel about that? Good? That's good, yeah. All right, so the next item is sort of related. Part of it is to do with Directive 40. The other is at the very bottom, the department should establish the citizen review board to review cases which require separate policy to ensure confidentiality and, you know, and so, and it goes on. That was something that she partially agreed with, meaning that he does agree with the need to incorporate an internal review board into the Directive 40, trying to go and see if there's any other comments that are in here. Unfortunately, this spreadsheet is no longer, it's no longer possible to look at all of this in one screen, which is good. That means lots of people have given their input. Don't really know where to go with on this one because we've got, I don't know if maybe the thing to do with this one would just be to say that we're, we understand that the commission and chief are working on these directives and agree. There seems to be universal agreement that we need an internal review board or incorporating. We need to incorporate that and that the issue of the citizen review board was sort of addressed in the last recommendation. Is that reasonable as a way of moving on with this one? Yes, I think so. Are there any others that anyone else who might have, who has any feeling about this? I don't know that this is in light of taking my own advice on keeping things simple, but I feel like there does need to be some discussion had on internal versus external and the roles between them and what that looks like, but I can let that go for now because I think that's a deeper discussion. Yeah, Zariah is absolutely right. There are so many layers to this one and the previous item and it's going to be interesting because as it was just mentioned, there's the charter, there's the contract, not everything can be looked at at the same time. So it is definitely a more involved process for sure. I mean, one of the things that I'm sort of struggling with and would love any input is that we're trying to get, we're trying to get through the report, but at the same time don't want us to get so overwhelmed by getting through the report that we're not giving, and we're not doing justice to some of the more challenging issues that are in here. I mean, I don't know if I, I mean, are we striking a good enough balance that we're giving time to these or is this something that we should be giving more time to? And we all know that this is an issue that is not simple, but I feel like we are coming to a place where there is some level of consensus that provided that there is input from all parties that this is not something that is impossible. That is correct. That is correct. That is correct. It's not impossible. It's something that we definitely need. We just have to come to a consensus of what form it would take and what responsibilities it would have. And I think with these two last items, we would want to say because it's different parts, like clearly establish, so for example, the charter, there's been all these attempts to do these charter changes. I don't even know where we're at with the current version of who's working on the aspects of the charter change. So a part of this is to identify where each segment is exactly. Is it in process and who is it with? There's been work done by the city council, there's been work done by external community groups from the city council and from the commission. So I have found at times that on the commission, we're just plowing along with what we feel needs to be worked on while there are sometimes these, I don't want to say conflicting, but these other groups working on something. And I think that no one's really seeing what the big picture is. And I think that has been a problem. Thank you. Jane, did you want to say something? Yeah, I was just wondering that if we're, if we kind of come up to issues like this that have this like very multi-layered factor in them, I think that if there is some way to come to consensus around like how to move forward from this, the spot that it's at now just for time being, but if we can add it to like, I don't want to say another document. I think we have a lot of documents going, but in a way like a bucket of like, these are things that are ongoing that are deeper that should come up once we're done with this preliminary portion of the report, like actually digging back in and dealing with them on more of a deeper level and maybe bringing more, more folks into the conversation too might be good. So I don't know. I think that. I think that everything is like, we can't figure it all out in the limited time we have tonight. I guess is what I'm trying to say. Like, even if you wanted to open up just this one issue, like I just don't know. I mean, happy to try, but I just don't know if that's like, like Milo. And yeah, that's what I said, like it is multi-layered. And yeah, I just, I do want to do things justice. And I think that there are things that we should always be coming back to and checking on too. And those things are also intertwined with a lot of the other issues that folks have seen. So that's just my instinct on this, but happy to hear from others. Yeah, we are to it. We are to some degree in a, in a very, very opportune time, which is we are talking about union negotiations on, we have a couple of elections that will be coming up in the fall. And then next year regarding when we can, when we could do a, you know, a charter change on. And at least what I have gathered from Nicole training is that. And I think that, you know, I think that police oversight is absolutely doable provided that you get buy-in. And it seems to me right now that we may very well be in a place where we might be able to find that middle ground. It won't be, it won't be one extreme or the other, but it could be a major step forward. That's sort of my take. If I can jump in. I agree with what's been said. I think. I can start to create a second tab that says things, police commissions that they would follow things. From LinkedIn police departments that they would follow up on. And things. I don't know what have I said, public safety commissioner, police commission, but I didn't say what it said they would follow up on. I do think that. I'm at least highlighting some of the things that have BPO a significant impact on the city attorney's office. And I think that that's a big part of that. I think that's a big part of that. Implications so that hopefully Karen can take that to the mayors and cities attorney's office. Just to flag that, although I'm sure they're aware of some of these things, just. Making sure things don't go through the loop. And then I think, yeah, putting a pin in this. Then if we get back. I think that we may be putting a pin in this and prioritize. Some of these things. So maybe under the committee conclusions, maybe we can use yet another color. And those would be items that would be priorities going into collective bargaining. Or and or charter. You know, we've already got them up. We've already got those on the timeline. In terms of when that would be that would be second quarter of. 22. So, you know, I don't know. I mean, unless others want to want to want to discuss this further, I feel like maybe we're at least for now in a, in a pretty good place. With, with those. If everyone is okay. I think. I have a very small. Quick question. Do we know who's going to be in the room? So let's say we get our list together of like things we want to be at the table. Do we know who's in the room? Who's getting that list? On the city side or the BOA. On the city side. Actually, that's a good question. Jared, who, who is that? Who is the, who is the team that works on that? I don't know. I am not completely pervaded who is someone from our office, whether that's the city attorney, Dan Richardson, or I believe Justin St. James is the deputy. I know that two of them are working on. I mean, it's not just BPOA. There's a couple union contracts that are going to be negotiated this year. But I'm not fully pervy of the entire team, but I know that those members at least. Will be. Engaging in it.  I mean the council is updated in executive session. On, you know, on any negotiations on any collective bargaining on, and you know, when we are asked for direction on that, these priorities will also be a part of that conversation. So it will go to the administration. It will go to the people that are doing the bargaining, and it will go to the council who will also be doing that, giving, offering their insight and direction. And I mean, obviously, these will all be priorities. It will be up to probably up to the council to some degree to determine what is more important than something else. Thank you. Oh, no, thank you. Okay. Sure. Anytime. I just wanted to follow up on what. Jabu is asking. I guess what we want to make sure is that once we. Oh, no, thank you. Okay, sure. Anytime. So right. Do you have your hand up? Okay. I don't know whichever one of you wanted to go first. I just wanted to follow up on what. Jabu is asking. Okay. So we. Itemize the. Looking at these recommendations and we itemize the ones that involve the contract negotiation. We need to be clear. Who owns that? Who owns. Getting that list. To the negotiators. I don't know who owns it. I don't know who owns it. I don't know who owns it. I don't know who owns it. BPOA would have to look at it. I mean, orange here, which is great. But I'm sure he has to share that information. With other people. And then there has to be a discussion. And then ideally. It would be good to at least have a member or two from the police commission, part of that discussion. So someone's going to need to own that process. And then it would be good to have a member or two from the police commission. So there's a lot of negotiations that have a related to contract negotiations. Somehow never get. To the people that are involved in that never get reviewed. It gets dropped. So there has to be very clear ownership. For these items. Thank you. Sure. Well, that is, that's the public safety committee. I think that's a good point. We, we own that. Okay. Thank you. Sure. All right. So why don't we, why don't we continue on? There's a number of items that are. There appear to be a significant agreement as well. Many of these are directive reviews and. This again goes back to DD 40. One of them is the chief has put on as a quick win. That's amending DD one. I think just getting to your, getting to the committee conclusion. Would it be fair to say that on the. I think it would be fair to say that. One point one nine point one. That is a VP, VPD is commander of internal investigations to report directly to the chief of police. That would have to go into the new DD 40. And I think we had put that down under. Is that something that, you know, I mean, I personally didn't prioritize that highly. Also because I couldn't prioritize everything highly. Does anyone have an opinion about that in terms of the timeline? I mean, I imagine all of DD 40 can be done at the same time. And I have, I'm not familiar enough to know how involved that is, but it sounds like it's pretty involved. Is that, is that fair to say either from the commission. Commission's point of view or from the chief. I believe that to be a very significant effort to rewrite that is going to take a fair amount of time and dedicated resources. Okay. All right. So maybe the best way to do that is to put that on the timeline as. Something that would hopefully be able to be started this year. But perhaps not. Completed until year two. Would that be fair? Wait with DD 40. Yeah. I thought. What did we say? Say, we're going to come to you for quarter four with that one. Okay. So that would, well, we can say for quarter four and, and it's very possible that that might. Be an update. It may not be done. But at least we could say that. Is that fair? Well, we want to get that done. That, that is kind of considered a high priority for us. Okay. All right. Great. Okay. Well, that would certainly make it a little bit easier. If it wasn't all put on the department on. On the other hand, I have a feeling you all have a fair amount to keep you busy on the police commission. So I guess that would, we could probably just cut him, you know, put that, that recommendation in the. On 1.20.1. Appears to be something that is fairly. Fairly straightforward. Is that correct? Chief. The number is one point. I'm sorry. One point. Okay. Yes. Okay. So that's, that's like one of the ones in the very beginning. Where you said it's really just a matter of. Making a couple of changes and that could go to the commission. Fairly soon. That's correct. I just need a, again, for me, it's a matter of giving me a specific timeline and saying, are my starting now? Am I starting when we're done with this review? I do. I somewhat recommend doing the review. I think there are a number of things in this that cascade into one another. And I think that there is a rationale for. Looking at the entirety of the recommendations before jumping into some of these. But, um, I died because I don't know which ones for sure. Interactive others. I have an idea of it. And sometimes I've been like, There's some of my notes in column either where it says specifically, look at this other recommendation, how would this interact with this one? But I don't know them all. And, uh, I do, uh, I think that it's possible that there are times where we'd be fixing something that we're about to radically overhaul. Um, Right.  Just something like make a little tweak to DD 40. If you're obviously going to be overhauling the whole thing. That. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless it was some sort of emergency. On. So maybe on these right here is a riot, maybe under the time under the timeline that we, uh, I don't know if it, it, would it be fair to, um, You know, it was sort of the question we had before. If something is an easy fix. Um, You know, is it something that the chief could just go ahead and just do now. Yes. I think all of us ranked this as a one. And, um, It's quick. So I feel like we just keep going. Um, I don't know if it would be fair to say just simply. You know, it was sort of the question we had before. If something is an easy fix. I feel like we just keep going. Like some of what we did on some of the older ones, looking back as say, you know, this could be done by April 1st, maybe for this, I'd put my first to give the chief in place commission a little bit more time. And then if we come to something else that includes DDO one where it says rewrite, then we can always go back and say, change this and see wherever we said rewrite DDO one. But I feel like for now, there's no point in. Not doing some of the quick wins. Unless like we, if yeah, not doing some of the quick wins. Okay. Um, the, uh, You all probably received. Or you all should have received a couple of, uh, this was a before the last meeting. Um, an email that had come from, uh, Um, I think it's, um, I think it's a great part. On the police commission that they are actively working on DD 13.3. Um, and third, 13. I can't remember now. I think 13.1. And 13.2. These all have to do with, um, Interacting with persons with diminished capacities. Um, Interfacing with persons with limited English proficiency, I believe. And then also persons with disabilities. Is that, is that correct, Shabu? You're already working on that. Uh, we're looking at 13.02 and 13.03. Okay. So not 13.1. Correct. Okay. So when it comes to the ones that are. Um, items 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2. Uh, 1.2, 1.3. And 1.2, 3, 1. Those all relate to those as well as. As well as 1.2, 3.2. All of those relate to those directives. So if those are being redrafted, which the chief has also noted, um, I think maybe just simply going in and asking for a report back from the commission by a certain time. Might be. Might be sufficient. What do you all think? Yeah, I'd be very happy to give them like, uh, I think that's a good idea. Okay. Um, the only one that isn't related to those is, um, Is line is in line 29. Um, and that would be the one for interacting with persons with limited English proficiency proficiency, which I did not understand that. I know like my role as a lawyer. My response was more related to the fact that the other ones were being worked on. And I think I got confused. Um, I know Milo would put that as an, as a, as a one, Jabu put that as a one. Um, As it's a Raya. Um, and Jeff. Um, So the question would be. I guess the first question would be, um, Is that a, um, Is that something that, you know, What is involved with doing with doing that? Um, I mean, this is a fairly extensive, um, Directive or what, what would you be your opinion on, on the complexity of, of, Of doing this recommendation? I will be honest. I'm actually not. All that familiar with 13.01. Um, So I actually honestly can't answer that question. I did have on my notes here that didn't make it to the spreadsheet. That that was, uh, That was a directive that I would, That once we got around to it, I would like to reach out to me, Like ALD and like other new American groups to get the input. On how to best craft that one. With help with like the BPD as well. All right. So if you're not, if you're not working on that one, that would be, That might be something that the chief would be working. Could work on. We all seem to be in agreement. I think we're just trying to find out what would be the, What would be a reasonable timeline for that? Do you have, do you have an opinion about that chief? I don't because I don't know what other things are being requested. Right. And this goes to my sort of sense of, of having a full picture of what we're being asked to do before we can start to say that these are, Are the things that we're looking for. Any one of these could be done with a certain amount of alacrity and, And handled if it were the only task. Even the review, for example, of DD 40. If the review of DD 40 were the priority, we could do that probably in time for maybe not the next police commission meeting in this month, but the police commission meeting in March. And have it ready for review and, and editing. And comment at that point. And then presumably we'd be able to have at least something very close to a final version by April. And at the very latest have a final version ready to be voted on by May. If not ready to go by April. But that's presuming that that's the only one that we're looking at. If we are also trying to redo DD 13. If we are not ready to go by April. If we are not ready to go by April. That's the only one that we're looking at. If we are also trying to redo DD 13. One with the very. Involved public comment that this recommendation requires. And going to various groups and holding meetings where we bring people in and they're not necessarily public meetings, but are they, you know, do they constitute review meetings. So this body can't attend in a quorum and, you know, all of that, that becomes much more complicated. And, and it really comes down to which one do you want done. So what it sounds like to me. And either Milo or Jabu can correct me if I'm wrong is that. When it comes to DD 40, that you as a commission want to take on and are taking on a review of that of DD 40. And, and want to do that, not only not by having the chief or staff do that work, but to do it with them. And, and doing so will take more time than, than somebody drafting and then the commission working to edit it with the chief. So is that fairly correct? Is that a, is that a good summary of what you're trying to do with 40. Yes. Okay. So when it comes to, so I guess that's the answer to that question as far as 13.1. That is something that has to involve community input. I mean, there's just no two ways around it. Right. Correct. I agree with that. So if that is the case with, that would be something that you would have to take on separately. In order to have those stakeholder meetings, what would be, if the commission wants to take that on. How, what would be your. I think it would be something similar where we could take it on. We could. What we've kind of been doing within the commission is we've been assigning like one or two people to do some additional work. So I think that would be something similar. For the commission. Yeah. I think it would be something similar where we could take it on. We could. You know, I think it would be something similar. I think it would be something like one or two people to do some additional work. Some initial work, excuse me. And then they come back to the commission as a whole and we remove the dot, we review the documents with the chief. I mean, this could be something where it gets assigned as a, like a sub project for someone to schedule the meetings with stakeholders. So I think it would be something similar. But we can certainly add it, you know, with the understanding that the other directives. Have a more immediate priority because of some things that have happened in the city. So. But it, for me, I put it one, because I actually in one of my ride alongs. Interacting with someone where English wasn't the first language. And. The need to use a minor as a translator. So, yeah, it's definitely something that we, we need to look at, but I think we could do it. By the fourth quarter. Jabu, what do you. How do you feel about that?  I'm sorry. Yeah, no, fourth quarter, I think it's fine. Yeah, sorry. I just have the gears in my head spinning right now. This is who I'm going to hand this off to. I can volunteer. All right, well, I'll leave, we'll, we'll, we'll leave that to the two of you to figure out. In the meantime, I guess we could put that on the timeline as fourth quarter. And I guess what, what will happen at the end is that we are going to have to come up with basically what we'll amount to a work plan. For the, for the commission, a work plan for the chief, a work plan for, you know, others, as well as then a group of grouping the recommendations that would be part of collective bargaining as well. So I think that's what we'll, we're probably going to end up with. And then there'll be some that will be done that we will be able to actually do as the quarters go by on. I think what we have done is. I think. That we have, I don't know, I maybe have gotten a little bit. A little bit. Confused here. It appears as though we are. Possibly on. Possibly on line. 32, which is 1.24.1. This is not necessarily. A recommendation, but just simply. A comment should continue DD 11's policy of responding to victims and witnesses in a respectful way. I mean, that is. I don't think that anyone really filled that out. I did. It's simply saying that that would be something that could be updated. But it's really not a recommendation. Not sure that we really need to spend a whole lot of time on that. Is there any concern about that? Or is there something on the commission from the commission's commission? Okay. So why don't we continue on to 1.24.2? This is also a directive. And these appear to be also directives that would just simply be amending DD 11. So I think that's. These you did not classify as a quick win, which I assume means that there's more involved. Then then we might know. Could you explain that? Yes. I mean, I think. If we're talking, I mean, obviously my note that I don't believe that that 1.24.1 is a recommendation. I think it's right. I think it's right. I think that's right. I think it's right. I think it's right. I think it's right. I want to add to the other two. Specify that a safe and friendly location available for providing statements. We'll be physically separate. Those, those are relatively quick amendments. I just think that we're. We're actually doing most of those in operation. And my rationale for making those priority twos. Is simply that. Again, I'm prioritizing things based on what we really need to do.  You know, I don't believe those are, because they're things that I believe are already practiced. Amending the directive is not, there are other things that are more important. In directive review. Okay. So, for example, the pager thing. It's great to, I mean. I'll be frank. I think that the notion of sort of picking out the idea that pagers is in there. I mean, it's certainly a problem that it shows how the, it shows the age of the directive. Changing it in the directive doesn't change anything because it's not like we're using pagers. And so spending time to do that and taking it in front of the police commission and rewriting it and having the police commission vote on it. And maybe having them ask for something else to change in the midst of that rewrite and taking it back and then going back again. All of that seems to me not to be a good use of time when there are other things that should be changed more rapidly. Okay. Okay. Anybody else have an opinion about that in terms of prioritizing that or can we, could we maybe make that a fourth quarter item? They even be okay with quarter fives. Well, there's only four quarters. If we assume everything's getting done in one year. Which I don't think we are. All right. So let's, let's say quarter quarter quarter one 23. I agree with that rationale myself. I mean, I think we don't need to be spending time on worrying about pagers when we know that those aren't even being used. It's simply a matter of just changing that they're already doing that. That would move us to. Let's see 1.26.1. This is also related to. Didi 11. I know Milo you had said needing more need more info on current process. It doesn't appear as though any of us really prioritized this very highly. So, I don't think it's appropriate. Are, are, are people all okay with. This one says that the BPD should consider whether individuals who receive special training on next of kin notifications should be the individuals doing so. With non-trained individuals assisting as appropriate. I mean, I don't think it's appropriate. I mean, I don't think it's appropriate. I mean, I don't think it's appropriate chief because you feel that that's already being done. It's, it has to do with. I do think that I think that it's already done. I think that. There are a number of instances. I mean, this is, this is something that officers do learn how to do. In the course of doing it. I think that there's a, there's a special training for it. That is again, something worth considering, but if I'm ranking all the various things on which I'm trying to train officers and all the ways in which we. Have had, you know, issues around certain kinds of training or certain things that training is meant to address. This is not among them. I have not had a complaint about an officer being unkind or, not being unkind or unkind or unkind or unkind or unkind. But I'm not saying that this is not a, this is not an application like this. I don't know. I think this is one of those best practices that a consultant company knows is a best practice and inserts it in. So that they've got a hundred and 49 recommendations instead of a hundred and 48. Okay. Any other, any other input on this or should we, can we. Can we all feel comfortable ranking this as something that would be, that would happen next year. and this might be just kind of open-ended, but if we're gonna push it off, then it means that we still want it to be addressed. So why push it off if we want it to be addressed? Like I think even if just as like a preventative measure, like that's not really a bad thing to look into. Well, I think what the chief is saying is that in the realm of things that are concerns that there have been even citizen complaints about that this is not one of them. Now that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be trained. It sounds to me like people are trained on this and that apparently whatever training they are receiving now must be reasonably sufficient or they would be receiving complaints. Yes, and I would agree with that statement pretty strongly. We do not see complaints around notifications. But the other directives that we're saying we're placing a higher focus on, those are areas where we see complaints. Okay, so that would be something that maybe could just simply be, I mean, in terms of training, that was another thing we talked about at the last meeting, Jane, was that a lot of these recommendations do relate back to training. Sure. We can't do, we can't prioritize every training. We just can't. So I think this is one training that we don't need to prioritize. Okay. I think, I think, I mean, that's just my feeling. I don't know what others feel, but that if we're not getting complaints on it and there appears to be unanimity in terms of the chief, the police commission who would know where the complaints are coming from, then I'm not sure that this is where we wanna focus our energy. I would recommend just because we've taken this approach is that I write C 1.6.2 and that we again create, I feel like two conversations that we need to have that we keep saying refer back to, not keep saying refer back to, but one of them is the oversight thing where it's a little bit TBD. And the second one is this bucket of training and saying like, what are we doing? What's available? What are we prioritizing and having training be its own conversation once we get that from the PD? Okay. Okay, this right here where it goes back, the next item goes to one of the things that Milo had mentioned, which was the issue of a family member or even a child acting as an interpreter. And that is directive one point that, I'm sorry, that is recommendation on line 36, it's 1.27.1 adding language to DD03, specifying that family members and particularly children do not constitute professional interpreters. I would, I mean, it's my own, just my opinion, I don't, I think that is pretty obvious that children are not professional, it should not be put in the position of being in professional interpreters. I'm not sure that we necessarily need to spend a whole lot of time on that. Does anyone, especially the police commissioners, have you, is this a, is this a serious concern that we should add that into DD03? Or is that pretty, is that pretty straightforward? Or is it self-evident as CNA said? Well, it should be self-evident, but in practice and due to necessity of the moment in terms of what I witnessed, like for the interaction to be completed, that child was needed. I guess maybe I would have liked to follow up with an adult, like an adult translator talking to the adult parent. It's a much more complicated issue than it seems. So maybe- I'm just agreeing with Milo. I mean, in the moment, that might be your only option. So why take that away from the officer? Right, and I'm not saying to do that. I actually didn't say to do that. In the moment, it was needed. It was needed to complete that interaction, and I recognize that. But what I'm saying is afterwards, it might have been appropriate for an adult to talk to an adult. And it's hard because I can't go into the specifics of the incident. I don't think, Chief, can I do that even though I'm not mentioning names or anything? I don't know what incident you're discussing. I mean, I assume it's from a ride-along. I don't know- It's from a ride-along, yes. Yeah, I mean, I think it has to do with what the restrictions were on the ride-along paperwork. Yeah, so I guess I will err on the side of caution and say, unfortunately, I can't give more details, but I can say that I clearly understood that it was necessary at that time in that moment. I would have never expected the officer not to attempt to have some type of communication made, but I did have the concern that an adult needed to possibly follow up just to make sure, sometimes children don't fully understand the repercussions of things, right? Because they're not looking at it from an adult point of view. So that could affect how and what they're communicating. And if we can't fully understand what they're saying, we can't really know what they've communicated. Does that make sense? Yeah. I hope, yeah. Yeah, that does. So maybe it's something we put in with the other item. I'm sorry, I have to go back to my screen to see what that one is. And we tackle those two together and talk to community stakeholders. And our commissioner, our fellow commissioner, you all, he's also very familiar with New Americans who work with, there's a term for it, and I can't remember it at this time, but it's like an individual who works with like New American families, like someone who's a contact for the family and assist often in translating. So getting more information about that would be part of the process of reviewing this. Thank you. Hannah, did you want to add something here? We'd love to hear from you. I guess I just kind of have a question because I know from my experience working in healthcare in this area, because of the wide variety of first languages spoken in Burlington, I'm curious to know if there is barriers to getting translators. Like, are there enough translators for the need that's here? And if so, because I mean, that's a lot of the reason, at least from my experience with the work that I've done, that's why family members honestly can start to become the translators for the person that was like receiving care. I guess what would be the steps to possibly mitigate that? That's a very good question. I don't know if either Oren or if the chief feels that you can answer that question. When you're out in the field and you have got a situation, how is it, how hard is it or not hard is it to find or to be able to access a translator that might not be a member of the person's family? The supervisors do have access to a language line. I think that Detective Byrne would be in a better position than I to talk about how realistic it is always to be able to utilize that in the field. Oren, if you want to weigh in. Yeah, I'd say it's very hard to have significant barriers. Just, yeah, a supervisor will come out if the supervisor is available, who come out, but we don't always have a supervisor available, they'll come out to bring a phone. We have to call into a dispatch. We have to figure out what language somebody speaks. And if you don't speak that language, it's very hard. So, yeah, oftentimes we ask a child what language they speak and they'll tell us what language. If we're at the hospital, it's a bit easier because the technology is right there and available. Yeah, I would say barriers to communication is a significant part of that. We have to come across all the time. So if I may to be clear, for example, we would never allow a child to provide an official kind of interview ever. So if we were going to, for example, do interviews with on New Year's Eve, we had a family that did not speak English. They were subject to a member of their own family attempting to kill them and initial discussions were done with a high school-aged child and then adult children who could help translate for the parents in order to get initial statements. But the statements were taken from those who could speak English, not from the parents. The parents, those official interviews done by detectives after the fact were conducted with translators. And so there are times where we need public safety statements taken or other kinds of immediate response. And I think this echoes something of what Hannah is talking about, where you have this need and if there's a person there who can help you make that translation, that's what you do. But we know it's not the best practice and we never would use it for official materials that are ultimately gonna find their way to be the underpinnings of a case or a court work. But there are terrible instances. I remember being very affected by a story about a young boy who was actually asked to give his mother his own cancer diagnosis in a hospital. I don't even know how to process something like that, but we do what we can to avoid it. There are times where we're having youths work for their parents, translate for their parents is unavoidable, but it of course comes with the caveats that Commissioner Grant has already mentioned in that you have to understand that depending on the age of that youth, they're very different understandings of what they are coming through with or not. Okay. Just to ask a quick follow-up question, just out of curiosity kind of to help me better understand, can you state which interpreter service you use like when you do the call for them? I'm afraid I don't know the name for that or in May, but I don't know the title of, I don't know that the vendor that we're using. I believe it's Elsa, I think it's what is called. Where's my phone? I can have it up first. HR Director Karen Durfee has also got her hand up. I don't know if that's in response to this question or something else. It is, I heard and I think we're getting to that. My apologies to the group for being late, I was working, but Officer Oran had just said when he goes to the hospital, the technology is there. And so it's never perfect, but I'm just wondering if Officer, if you could expand on the technology that they use at the hospital for translation services? Yeah, they basically, they wheel in an iPad and they just start selecting buttons. I don't know what the technology is called, but there's an interpreter who shows up and it's like, you see his face, there's like kind of more than just verbal interaction. He sees his face, he sees the scene, what's going on. Yeah, it's a lot more effective than kind of like using the cell phones that we do. It's the services are obviously better. Like it's the wifi is 100% all the time. So there's very little interference. And yeah, when we have that kind of technology, the barriers are low, but in the field, it's definitely a significant challenge sometimes. Well, I do thank you for that. And what I was thinking about, and I think everybody knows, I'm going to talk about resources that we may or may not have, but that's something that given the seriousness and given our community, we should really look at investing. I mean, I know that other police departments have better resources, et cetera, but I've seen the iPad where it's a live person that comes on. And so that might be something that this group wants to really seriously consider or think about or even price or have a conversation about. I would say we should find out the name of that software program that they're using. And it should definitely be something that would be, should be priced because just from what Orin is saying, it clearly seems to be a much better experience for the officers and probably also for the person they're interacting with. And with the current way that you're doing this with the phone calls, how long does it take to get an interpreter on the phone and does it differ from language to language? Yeah, it depends on the language. In my experience, Spanish is very easy to get an interpreter on the phone who speaks Spanish. Sorry, when you're looking for somebody who speaks like my mic, that takes a bit longer. You can be in hold for a decent amount of time. Thank you. So maybe the way to approach this, I mean, I agree, obviously this would be a budgetary consideration would be to say that, we're obviously nothing, probably not gonna happen for FY23, but that this could be certainly in the queue for FY24, that would start next year. I don't know if other people feel this is more of a pressing priority that we should push forward on this. Remember, I mean, we haven't approved a budget. It's only February. Do people feel this is more of a priority than waiting for another year? I, you know, now that we've kind of discussed it, I would definitely feel it's something we should look at this year. I mean, there are, on my ride-alongs, I saw multiple interactions with people where English was not their first language. So if there's a better tool, better resource for our officers, I think it's something we should look at sooner rather than later because, you know, communication is key, it's so important. So I think that if we can, if Oren can help us out by getting the name of what that software program is, then I think it, the simple part would be to find out what it is and to get a price point on it, you know, get some kind of proposal for the department, and then it would have to go into the budgetary process. But I think it could be a quick turnaround to get just the basic information and pricing information on it to determine can it be put in the budget, and then if it's put in the budget, then getting it on the road. Thank you. I can find out what the software is. I'm not sure if I'm the most suitable person to find out how much it will cost, but I can definitely get the name of the software. Oren, you can send me that via email and I will look into it. Just use your city email. Also, one thing I will say for this group, there is a language access plan that has been worked, CEDO has worked very hard on, many long-time members have worked to really push that forward. So there might be some opportunity to liaise with them and get some ideas. So I certainly am happy to bring that forward. All right, so Zariah, maybe that would just simply be on the timeline, something that probably could potentially be done or at least be put in process relatively soon. As far as the committee conclusion would be that between Oren and HR, and perhaps even with some involvement from CEDO, because of the language access plan, that that might be something that might not be all that difficult. And that we would hope to get a report back on that within the next whatever month or so. Yeah, I'm happy to report back on that to this committee. Okay, thank you. So it is now 7.23, we're gonna, we'll finish, we'll wrap up at 7.30. We'll see if we can get maybe one or two of these done. They sort of relate the next items 1.28.1, 1.29.1, 1.30.1 and 1.31.1, as well as perhaps the next one, all relate to victim witness assistance and victims to advocate issues, victim witness, yeah. These are all related to DD-11. And I know for myself, I wasn't really sure I understood exactly what was being asked. So I wasn't really sure how to prioritize it myself. And it appears as though, Zariah, you may have felt the same way. I wasn't really sure where to go with these. And I see that the chief agreed with them. One of them was a victim's advocate position. So I'm not really sure. It may be as far as the ones that the chief agreed with, we all tended to agree with. And that would be a review of DD-11. Imagine that that is not as simple as some of the other directives and DD-21.01 as well. Not really sure if that is something that we all feel is a significant priority in view of all the other priorities that we have. And maybe we could take those five all at one time and just trying to figure out how to move forward on these items. I mean, obviously victim assistance is very important. But the question is whether or not in terms of all the other priorities, how important this is and what amount of staff time we want to devote to it? And when? And we're going to wrap it up after this. I mean, Karen, I think it's, I mean, it's very important, but in the light of everything else that we're asking the department to do, I think we should, if we're trying to come at time frames first quarter of next year, is that something like that? Would that be something chief that you think would be doable in terms of making that less of a priority and maybe dealing with that those directives into say the second quarter of next year? I mean, I'm happy to give that as a target. I think that a lot of these other things we're asking for are ultimately going to take a little bit longer than perhaps we think, but I'm absolutely happy to make that a target. I think the issue here is that this direct, this is about a directive and making it clear to the public what is offered because our victim's advocate, Mary McAllister, has been doing this for two and a half decades and she knows exactly what resources are there. And in fact, it is both her job description and the directive need to be updated. Her job description talks about things that relate to 1996 and organizations that are no longer extant and have rolled into other organizations. And I'm actually working on updating her job description and getting her, I think her job has become a lot more complicated because there's so many more organizations. That's great and that's important for how she's operating. The question of the directive is a question of sort of like, all right, we wanna say that these are there and are good or available. That becomes very important if we lose Mary, right? But it's not that important right now, which is why I ranked it where I put it. But if the decision is to say, yes, let's do this for first quarter next year, Q5 as Councillor Hightower said, or if it goes to Q6, sure, whatever the body decides, we'll put that in and figure out where it goes. I think that some of the things we're talking about right now are gonna end up getting reevaluated with regard to prioritization again, anyway, to be honest. Okay, so I don't know for the, is there any opinion one way or the other in terms of maybe, I actually am sort of getting used to this, Sarai. I like the Q5 idea, Q5, Q6, makes it sound like it's even further into the future. But I would think that, in terms of all the other priorities, it would seem as though, I mean, I would be comfortable putting it into the second quarter of next year. Does anybody have an opinion about that or is that okay? We can't prioritize everything. We have to sort of, and that's one of the challenges with this is trying to, I mean, as Jeff said, I mean, victims advocates are very important as are all of the other things that are in these recommendations. I'm kind of torn because I feel like it's very intertwined with a lot of other things like that level of support is really important, especially after certain incidences. But yeah, I mean, I do understand and recognize that yeah, there's a lot that we want to accomplish. So I mean, I'm happy to support what the majority of the body wants in this case because I am torn and I just don't know what the right decision is on this type of thing. I mean, like towards supporting, making this more of a priority, but I understand the limitations. If I may, it's not that the supports aren't happening. I agree with you, counselor. Those supports are tremendously important. What's being accomplished in what we call the CAPE team, the Crisis Assessment Intervention Program that includes the CSLs, it includes the Victims Advocate, the Domestic Violence Victims Advocate, includes the Domestic Violence Prevention Officer, it includes the Victims Advocate from CEDO. What's being done by that office is incredibly important. And I have routine emails from officers talking about how important it is to them already and the work that they feel that can be done. Just as an example, I have an email from a sergeant to the CSLs saying, all yesterday I saw a woman we know who was getting out of the ED after binge drinking for three days. She expressed that she wanted to get back her sobriety and I suggested that I would have someone reach out to her to help. She doesn't have a working phone. If someone could please give her a call on a different method that is a call on her, that would be greatly appreciated. That goes to our CSLs and our CSLs answer. And that goes too for the work that Mary McAllister does as the domestic violence advocate. We have cases where the road responds, they do what they can and they refer it to the DDPO and the domestic violence advocate together. So all those things that are being requested or discussed there are happening. They know the services they're using. Is it helpful for us to eventually outline them again just so that they really know it? So that it doesn't become rote that they say, oh, I'm just going straight to steps or I'm going straight to, but there's a list, oh right, those are there as well, absolutely. And that's important. But the fact of the matter is that for the most part, officers don't review directives on a daily basis when they're doing their work. They kind of know them by heart. And the directives are there as a backstop and that's very important. They're also there for accountability. That's very important. But I don't think that our services are being impinged right now by not having this. And that was my rationale for where I ranked it. Okay, so. Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's all right, that's all right. That's very, you know, you probably were thinking the same thing. That's very informative.   They know what the directives, you know, they know what the work is that they need to do. I mean, would it be fair to say that we could then under committee conclusion be able to say that, you know, based on our knowledge of this, that this work is being done. However, it is not necessarily in, it is not necessarily in exactly, you know, that the directives could be amended. But a view of the fact that the work is being done or to the best of our knowledge that we would not prioritize amending these particular directives on until next year. I'm, yeah, I'm amenable to that. I think that's fine. Jariah? Yeah. That would bring us to around, I believe line 41, which means that we've done a fair amount. We've done a fair amount this amount this evening. It would seem as though we will be able to finish section one at the next meeting. And if anyone wants to get a headstart and do the commenting for section two, that would be for the meeting on the 22nd, I believe. The meeting on the 22nd, I believe. So the next meeting would be on the 15th. I'm trying to remember, was there one meeting for the police commissioners? Was there, there was one meeting where we were going to change the time. Was that the one on the 15th? Or are we doing it on the 22nd? All right, so on the 22nd, to be able to give a little bit more time for the police commission, so they don't have to start at 730, we had agreed that we would start this meeting earlier. Is that right? Am I right about that? Is that what we'd agreed to? Yes, okay. All right, so the next meeting is February 15th. We had agreed to do these 530 to 730. And then the meeting on February 22nd, we will start at five and go only till 630, so that that way the commission can start their meeting immediately thereafter. Okay, is there anything? Let's see, I think that's all that's on our agenda. Was there anything else that anyone else want? Go ahead, Jeff. No, just at the town meeting day, just to move into March, what we're talking about dates, are we meeting that day? I'll be out of town, so. All right, so the next meeting after the 20, oh, that would be March 1, I say. Yeah, I don't know that we want. I don't know. I think there's gonna be limited availability across all boards. Yeah, I think you're sort of in the clear on that one. I don't think we'll be meeting. We'll plan on meeting on March, because March 1 is town meeting day, so that would be March 8th would be the next meeting. And we'll try to, if on the 15th we can finish section one, it's possible that we could get section two and then not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but section three and four are very short, particularly section three. So, and a lot of that work has been done because we have been working, we've been working on police oversight. So that should be a little bit more straightforward. On the 15th, we'll try to finish section one and on the 22nd, we'll try to make a lot of progress on section two, which will put us in pretty good shape for maybe being halfway through by mid-March. Was there anything anyone else wanted to add? One more thought. In thinking about the budget moving forward, we're adding a lot of responsibilities and tasks here and it's gonna eventually end up costing the department some funds and administrative costs and equipment costs and whatnot. So is somebody tracking all of this so that you're ready to have a budget in mind? Well, we are gonna have to keep that in mind. And as well as the fact that, we also have to keep in mind that while we're having this conversation, the BPOA is working on bargaining. So we will have to coordinate that, particularly with Karen to make sure that that list of priorities gets to the right place. I mean, that's why it's important that we just keep on moving forward as best we can. As far as budgeting goes, that would be something, I mean, I'll take that upon myself to have that conversation and be able to report back on that. Great, all right, thanks. 7.39, I think this seems to be like our hour. Yesterday at the last meeting, we were done at 7.39. If there isn't anything else, we can be adjourned and we can all get on with our evening. Many, many thanks to everyone. You know, this is incredibly, incredibly tedious work, but important nonetheless. So thank you all for your time. And if no one else has anything else to offer, we'll see all of you next Tuesday. All right, thank you, everyone. Have a good one. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Have a good night, everyone. Thank you, Karen. Bye.