Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee Sep 8, 2026

Before you can insult me back, I've restarted the recording. I was about to go grab another seltzer, so I will get that in a second. But hello everybody. Um, happy Tuesday. It's September 8th, and this is the meeting of the Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee. I'm going to go ahead and call us to order at 6:30 p.m. And I will check with each member of the committee to make sure that they can hear and we can hear you. Let's start with Lynn Griezmer, >> present. Thank you. Councelor Caner Martin >> present. >> Excellent. Councelor Lord >> present. >> Excellent. And councelor Ryan >> present. >> All right, that's everybody. Um, so we are going to begin our Oh my god, the number of windows, y'all. The number of windows. We're going to begin our conversation today with public comment. Um, so we do have it looks like five attendees currently. If you would like to make public comment, you can go ahead and raise your hand in Zoom and we will recognize you. Um, we're going to allow public comments up to three minutes in length. Um, and we will not respond directly to public comments, uh, as is the practice of the council. So, um, go ahead and raise your hand on Zoom if you'd like to make public comment and speak to the committee about an issue that is within our purview. We're going to start with Erica. Athena, do you want to handle this or do would you like me to? Um, I got it, but I will make you call us while we >> Thank you. And Erica, I am listening to you. I'm just going to grab my seltzer, which is just out of frame, but you can go ahead and you got three minutes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I'd like to respond to the rob the town already committed to. More than four years ago, the community safety working groups part report laid out a specific detailed template for this board. It called for one, a board of at least five members for BIPO, two African-American descent, a real operational budget, training for board members, full investigative authority, the power to hire an independent investigator, subpoena witnesses, compel sworn testimony, and access the documents needed to actually resolve a complaint. The last piece, investigative power, is an optional. It is not an optional add-on language. The working group was explicit that oversight only works for police and residents alike if it has teeth. It builds trust, protects civil rights, and directly addresses the bias and distrust that exists between the police and the community. Sorry, I just need to continue with my um especially the Amherst BIPO community. And this isn't a hypothetical or untested. This is absolutely not hypothetical. in Springfield, Cambridge, and Boston all already operate civilian oversight boards with exactly this kind of authority. Amish would not be the first city in Massachusetts to do this. It'll be catching up to what other communities have already proven works. So, the key takeaway that I want to state is the design work is done. The CSWG report is the blueprint. The question isn't what should the Rob look like. It's will the council adopt what's already been recommended. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go on to Martha. You've got three minutes and whenever you unmute, go ahead. >> Thank you. Martha Hanner, District 5. Speaking as an individual, we need credible data. I am very troubled by the lack of trust dividing our community with regard to police interactions. Effective policing requires mutual trust and cooperation. Repeated surveys yield the same result. Many Ammerst residents of color fear the police. They fear they are singled out for traffic stops, treated with disrespect, and assumed guilty in any interaction. With all due respect to our police chief and officers, they do not seem to recognize this fear or acknowledge that harassment incidents uh are occurring in Ammerst. The best way to address this mistrust is to establish a local independent investigative resident oversight board with the goal of documenting claimed harassment interactions so that we can all see how frequent are these interactions, what are this nature, what are the patterns, i.e. we need real credible data in order to move forward. Clearly, this board will need to have full investigative authority, but it must not be punitive. The post commission is designed to investigate any serious complaints that could lead to disciplinary action. Such an event would be very rare here in Ammerst. We want to address the quote minor incidents below the post threshold. Indeed, we want to avoid having people submit minor complaints to post because it would just make Ammers look bad. So the council has made repeated resolutions since 2021 committing to establish trust. So it is the job of go to take seriously your role of building trust contrary to the statement made at your last meeting. I recommend that you do not approve the versions of the bylaw in exactly the language submitted to you in October 2025. Instead, please give priority to revising the independent investigative rob option so that it does not conflict with post. It must have the authority to gather credible data that we need to build trust, but it should not have punitive language. What we need is, you know, good data. The go is an important council committee. From the meetings I've listened to in the past year, I'm impressed with your thoughtful discussions. You really are the best committee to revise the draft bylaw. We do not need another year's postponement. So, I do hope you'll give priority to u polishing it up, revising it so that it it meets the current situation. Thank you. >> Thank you. And um next we have Deb Ferrer. Deborah, excuse me. >> Can you hear me? >> We can go ahead. >> Hello. Hi, Deborah Fer, resident of Ammerst um community safety and social justice um co-chair. Uh and I'm here to really talk about the resident oversight board. And I'm kind of confused as to why um the go is not talking about the two models that the consultants brought forward and instead are are talking about why uh Rob should even be in existence when that was not the charge that the town council gave to them. And as Martha stated um the the those two models, we want the investigatory model and really an empowered Rob that has subpoena powers. But I'm going to talk more about your June 23rd goo committee meeting where the KP law attorneys Wendy Austin raised several objections to a rob with real power. We want to answer each one directly in public. First argument she made was post makes a local board unnecessary. Not so Springfield, Cambridge, and Boston all built their oversight boards before the state's post system existed. None of them has disbanded its board since. Statewide certification and local community rooted oversight do different jobs. Amoris residents deserve both. Second argument she made. Post already handles credible complaints. The regulation requires action on a credible report, but it doesn't specify who decides what counts as credible. Right now, that determination can sit with the very department the complaint is against. We know of at least one Ammeris resident who filed directly with Post and was told that Post would not handle it after 2 years. That's exactly the gap local oversight is meant to fill. The post handles very high level police misconduct. That is what the post does and therefore there is no double de jeopardy and rob is needed. Third argument, a rob can't legally get subpoena power. This is directly contradicted by existing law. Springfield's community police hearing board already has the authority to subpoena witnesses, compel testimony under oath, and require production of evidence. Cambridge granted its board the same powers by municipal ordinance. If they could write it into law, so can we. Fourth argument, how would members be trained? This has already been answered by Nackle, the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Publishers established training standards in across the country, Amoris wouldn't be starting from zero. And finally, her last argument, when council members asked how a rob could be structured, no answer came back. What we heard repeatedly was a case but for why not to build one at all. This is distract. This is delay. It has been four years. This is not okay. This is a disrespect to the community especially to BIPAC community residents and it's a slap in the face if you all do not put in place an imped. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. All right. Um looks like everyone with their hands up has made a comment. Oh, sorry. One more. Um, Pat O, I don't know the last name, but Pat, go ahead and unmute and make your comments. >> Good. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Can people hear me? >> Yes. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Can you hear us? >> Oh, okay. Yes, I can hear you. >> Great. >> So, my name is Pat Ananbu. MS resident. Um, as a former member of CSWG and CSSJC, um, I am really, one word I want to describe how how I'm feeling tonight is exhaustion. I'm exhausted by what the white powerful people do in this town. The resident oversight board should be an entity that's supposed to protect people of color in this town and I've lived here for more than 40 years. when an when an issue is not a priority or important to majority of white folks in this town. There are so many strategies and delays. Keep responding. It's been more than 4 years since we've been talking about resident oversight board. There's nothing I'm going to say tonight that will change some of you people's mind because you've already made up your mind. I come from a family of police people, different last names, okay? And I don't hate police, but police is not for people that look like me. Period. If you're not going to be recommending the investigatory um uh uh board that my group recommended and the town council accepted it, don't even bother your yourself. This is not a priority to the town manager. It's not a priority to the uh chief of police even though he's a a person of color. is not a priority to the town council as a board. You all are smart people. You know what you're doing. Stop pretending and wasting tax dollars money getting an attorney to, you know, to to pay the law firm more money to answer your questions. You know exactly what you're doing. This is racism and this is unacceptable. You are disempowering my community. do the right thing. Thank you, Councelor Lord, and thank you, Councelor Amber. Good night. >> Thank you. All right. Um, I'm seeing everyone in the audience has had a chance to speak who has their hand raised. So, thank you all so much for joining us. Um we are going to move on to the first item on our agenda which is uh the town of Amoris proclamation recognizing the seriousness of myotonic distrophe and expressing and expressing support for the designation of September 15th 2026 as international myotonic distrophe awareness day. I will put it up on the screen. Um, and if folks have edits, um, we please feel free to point those out. Otherwise, we will declare this clear, consistent, and actionable. Excuse me. All right. So, um, let's do anything. Any issues in the title or sponsors? I think I spelled my name correctly. >> Can you blow it up a bit? >> Of course, I can. >> I don't have a copy in front of me. I'm sorry. No problem. >> That's good. Thank you. >> All right. I'll have us go through the first whereas, second, and third, and let me know if you have any concerns. All right. next three and I'll share as the sponsor of this um I pulled much of this language from the federal uh the federal proclamation that is on the same topic. So I did not fully write this myself as is true for many of our proclamations. Okay, I'm going to keep scrolling. everyone. Okay. If I'm continuing to go And whenever we are ready, I will take a motion to find the town of Emerst proclamation declaring September 15th, 2026 as International Meotonic Distrophy Awareness Day. clear, consistent, and actionable. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Excellent. I'm going to stop sharing and call the votes. Let's start with councelor Kenna Martin. >> Yes. >> Uh, councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Uh, councelor Lord. >> I. >> Excellent. And I am an I as well. Thank you all very much. This will go to the council. >> Lyn Griemer is an I. >> Oh god. Sorry. Um, >> thanks Lyn. If you second it, you don't get a vote. So, >> no, that is not how it works. Um, >> I'm sorry. >> Don't change. It's It's Robert's rules, not Ryan's rules. All right. So, >> um, thank you all very much. I I know Jane will be happy to see this go to the council. Um, we're right under the wire in terms of the day, but I will send this on to Mandy for uh, council hopefully approval on the 14th. >> All right. Um, next up on our agenda is continued discussion on the resident oversight board. And I want to structure I think I I'm feeling a little bit like a broken record. I will I will full just kind of be blunt uh blunt with kindness I think is what I'm going to go with today. We have been talking ourselves in circles. Um, and so we are at a point where I as chair am struggling to figure out what what moves our conversation forward. Um, and unless someone is willing to put a motion on the table for us to vote on, we need to I I I'm hoping that folks are feeling some fire underneath their feet here, some um feeling some pressure to move this. Um, we've been talking through the different options and I would like us to be a bit more concrete. So what I'm going to ask for today are for people's concrete yes or nos on different parts of this proposal. Um and by this proposal I recognize that we are looking at two proposals. So, one of the one of the topics, one of the options that we had discussed is are we at a point, and this is what I'd like to straw poll, not a vote, but are we at a point where we feel this is larger than what go tasked with and that it needs to go back to council to determine how to move forward? Are we at the point where we would, that's one option. I'm not advocating for or against it. Are we at the point where we are anyone is ready to make a motion that is concrete and that we are able to discuss uh the merits of each one and edit as needed? Um or is there another point that I'm missing? I have never felt that this committee was going to make a recommendation to do away entirely with the with the concept. Um and if that was stated as a committee opinion, I'd like to be clear that that is not something that we had come to a conclusion on. um or really actually discussed at length in my recollection. So, this is where this is where I'm at. Um I'm we got to move. I can't uh we can't keep debating the same things. One of the other topics that has come up is different counselors had requested different groups uh come to join us to hear questions. I had initially um I had initially said I would prefer questions to be sent in writing. Um, counselor Lord, I see you. Give me one second and then I will go to you if that's okay. Um, I had initially requested that questions be sent to me in writing so that I could send them to the respective groups. Part of why I asked for that is that we are at a disadvantage in that we don't have the initial body that created this proposal able to meet with us. Right? That group is no longer in existence. So the entities that folks have suggested are community entities. um be it our Ammeris Police Department, be it the the CSSJC, who certainly have valuable things to share with us and neither of which are the recommending body of the proposals in front of us. So, we need to I think think ahead in terms of what we're asking them to give to us, what we're what we're hoping they can provide um so that we don't waste anybody's time. Right? This is my little lecture. Um I had put a bunch of materials in SharePoint. I think initially when I sent the email, I thought we were meeting on the 15th, not the 8th. So, I think the packet had initially been titled that. Um, so if you didn't read them, because they were titled the 15th, uh, I've got really good reading for you. And, um, if you did read them, I I thank you for figuring out my confusion. And, um, I'm happy to discuss what was in there, those items as well. There were several uh, many documents from Nicole, which is I can't remember the exact acronym right now. Um, and then several documents from Cambridge and Springfield on their origin and organization as well. I'm gonna pause there and then counselor Lord, I'd love to hear your thoughts. You had your hand raised earlier. >> Um, thank you. And I have been a part of a few of these conversations and I I feel like I did miss a meeting um or two and I feel like it just dawned on me that somewhere we got lost in the sauce maybe because as a go it's our job to see is it clear, actionable and concise or something. >> No, sorry. >> Oh. Oh, cuz I was like wait I now I'm like oh we could have just done that for both of those and sent it back. So, you're saying we do have the power to say which one? Oh, >> lost in the sauce. Right now, I'm lost in the sauce. >> It's okay. So, what was referred to us was the entire proposal which included both options. And what was referred to us was that proposal to make a recommendation to the council. It isn't even necessarily one or the other. It's truly uh take this and then tell us what what you think we should do. >> Okay. So, >> thank you for that clarity. >> No problem. No problem. Councelor Kenno Martin. >> Um yeah, I mean I think that um I appreciate um the you know the um attorney's opinion and the time that she spent with us on the on the 23rd. Um I learned you know a lot about the post commission that I didn't necessarily know. Um, but I I think that, you know, we have to go back to what we were originally tasked with doing, which was looking at the proposals that were in front of us, um, you know, that were created by consultants who are experts in the matter. We had a stakeholder, you know, group that helped put that together. Um, and so I, you know, I don't I don't want to see us, you know, rehashing and rehashing either because I think that we already have invested four years. We've invested a lot of resources. Um and you know there was a commitment to this um you know based on the work that the um the CSWG did and you know they don't exist anymore but I'm going to just quote from the the report um for a moment and this is something that the CSSJC letter quoted from the CSWG report said resident oversight is beneficial to the police because it streng strengthens the relationship between a police department and its community and creates greater trust in the police. Oversight is beneficial to the community because it protects the civil rights of all members of the community, holds police accountable, ensures that community voices are heard and taken seriously, ensures that complaints will be heard and investigated fairly, and increases safety for all members of our community. In Ammerst, resident oversight will also specifically address issues of bias, distrust, and fear that are currently present in the relationship between the APD and local BIPO communities. And that's the CSWG report part B and then page 12. And then the resident oversights board mission shall be to provide accountability and consultation so that equitable and effective public safety services are provided by the APD and that these services are provided in a way that contributes to eliminating systemic racism and white domination in Ammerst. And that's the same report. Um so I think that that's that's kind of our northstar. That's what has to guide us in this process. Um, and I I think that I would like to see us recommend one of the two models back to council um for a vote. Um, I I think that we really have stalled this process too long. Um, there's already been a really damaging incident in our community that we never really got to fully heal from because there was nothing like this in place. Um, and so every day that we don't do this, I think we're making the situation worse. And you can hear that in in, you know, some of the public comments that we've heard tonight. So, um, I do, like I said, I do appreciate the legal opinion. I think it's lawyers jobs to be careful, and I appreciate that they do that, but when you have these functioning boards in Boston, Cambridge, and Springfield, it's hard to say, "Hey, I don't think you can have subpoena power when there's boards that have it and are doing it." So, I I don't think that we should let that stop us from doing something um that is a commitment to our community and it's clearly something that is going to be good for our community. So, that's my piece. I think we should vote and I think we should move it back to the council for a vote. Thank you. And I I do want to clarify one thing. When I said the group is no longer in existence, I was not talking about the CWS or CSWG. I was talking about the RO working group um and their report. >> The group that put together >> now there's a third group. And now I'm really confused. No, you're right. You're right. Um >> yeah, the initial report that we with the two options um that made the proposal to us or to the council, that's the the that body is the one I'm talking about. >> I mean, that's the one that you would like to be able to talk to. I mean, yeah, cuz I have a lot of questions for them about like, why didn't you talk to an attorney? Why didn't you know, like those types of things? Um, because I think that would have been really helpful to have that information going into this. Um, but that group is no longer uh in existence. Um, councelor Ryan. >> So, first of all, um, let's be clear that this committee is not stalling. Um we were given um a task by the council and the working group handed us two very different models. And in addition, we were also sent a two-page memo from our attorneys that raised a host of objections to both models. And so we have a lot to work our way through. It's not as if there's something right in front of us that's obvious and we just need to go, okay, let's do this, let's do that. Whichever model, assuming we choose one of these two models. Whichever model we proceed on, we're still going to have to go through it line by line um to make sure that it says what we think it says. We have a lot of work to do. Um and it's not our fault that the working group was not able to come to consensus. Um, some of the comments we're hearing seems to imply that the working group came up with a single model and then sent it to us for our approval. In fact, the working group was deeply divided and we may see some of those divisions here tonight. But let's be clear, there's no stalling here. This is a serious commitment. We will proceed, but we have a host of questions that still aren't answered. I was hoping some would be answered tonight. Um, we have a lot of work to do. I want to just list what I think are the four what I understand to be the four reasons that we need an RO. And I would like people to add to that because I think it would help if we were in agreement that these are the this is why we're doing this. And the first has been stated a number of times is the idea of improving community trust in the police department. So trust is one of the major goals of this project is to improve trust between the police and the community. Second is transparency that in the process that involves complaints and disciplinary actions there be some level of transparency that people will know what has happened. They'll know what the disposition was. Third is accountability. That people would be held accountable for their actions whether it be members of the police department or members of crest. There would be a level of accountability, a level of transparency, an improvement of trust. And finally, I'm not sure about this one, but there seems to be a desire to protect anonymity. This in some communities, I think Boston, for instance, does allow anonymous complaints. I believe Cambridge does not. And so this may not be one of the major goals. I don't know. But I believe that I've heard on a number of occasions that some people are afraid to submit complaints to the police department because they don't want their names revealed because they fear retaliation. So those are the four that I've been able to identify. Um three of which at least maybe the fourth as well seem certainly legitimate reasons to create something like an RO. So I guess my question to my colleagues is what am I missing? What else could be added to this? And does that reflect our general consensus that this is something we want to proceed with? The next step it seems that once we get through that would be okay. Which of the two models that we've been presented with uh do we want to look at? >> Thank you Lynn. Oh, you're muted. >> You're okay. >> Sorry, my phone rang. Um, George, I just want to go back. You listed trust, transparency, and protect um, you know, people's privacy or non anonymity. What was the fourth one? >> Accountability, trust, transparency, and anonymity are the four that I've been able to identify so far. I'm sure I'm missing some, but I'd like to. Yeah, that's what I said. >> Okay. Um, I believe that we can move this forward. I also want to go back and um refer people to the memo that we got as a council um from Paul Bachaman uh that summarized and gave actually draft bylaws and draft charges. Okay, it was the October 31st memo and in it both models are discussed at length and they gave us um example bylaws and example um committee charges. And it seems to me that one of our jobs is to come back to the council with a recommendation of whether it's one or the other or some amalgamation that you know takes into account other things we've heard but that we need to just dive in and begin the process. in that memo when looked at looked at it was actually first combined so that it you could actually go back and forth and look at the two different bylaws and look at the two charges. So again, it's our job to come back and say to the council, this is what we are recommending uh to you. And so it seems to me that that's the place to start. I think we have had enough debate. We've had an opportunity to look at what other um uh three other municipalities in Massachusetts are doing. We've had an opportunity to look at the national association. We've had an opportunity to talk to our lawyer. We've had an opportunity to um look at a little bit of background about Cambridge and and Springfield as well as Boston. um and uh mo and importantly the post commission which did not really exist at the time that this started emerging as a recommendation. So >> thank you. >> I think what you're hearing Anna is that we need to move forward. >> I'm in uh let's let's do it. Uh councelor Ryan. So, in the spirit of wanting us to move forward, I'm willing to make a motion and my motion would be as follows. That TSO, excuse me, been a long, it's been a long day. That to recommend the town council adopt the review model that was proposed or presented to this committee in the October 31st memo from the town manager. >> Is there a second? I'll take a second and then we'll have discussion if there if there is a second. >> I will second with the understanding that I have amendments I would make. >> Um George, I want to make sure I captured your motion. You said you moved that G recommend the review model of the resident oversight ward as presented in the town manager's memo. >> Yes, as presented to us in the working document that we are currently working under. Um and We will have to go through it and I think there will be amendments and there will be discussion and maybe in the end we'll decide whether the committee endorses it or not. >> I'm not going to write all that second part but I think I got the motion for the for the record. >> Thank you. >> No problem. So um all right let's go to discussion. Councelor Kenna Martin. >> Um I just have a clarifying question um before I give my opinion. So, if we pass this motion, does that mean that we then go into editing mode of that version together? And then does each edit have to be voted on and agreed to by the committee by our committee? >> Um, so we won't vote it until after edits. So, we're now in discussion mode. Um, and this would be the time where where edits would be made. Um, I think that it would be uh technically I think we would need votes on edits. Um, Athena, I'll defer to you as to what level of vote kind of uh which which intensity of vote we need for each edit. Um, but but really what councelor Ran proposed wasn't a specific document. It was the concept. So, I think that what what I would pitch we do next is put I I'll try to do it really quick. I'll try to copy over that draft charge, Council Ryan, if that's what you were envisioning um for the committee to review and discuss. Does that sound like what you'd like to do? Or do you just want to recommend the concept? Uh council, you're muted. Sorry. Sorry, I'm fighting with my computer. >> No, you're fine. >> Um, yes, I think we need to have the draft document up before us. And what I'm referring to or trying to refer to through my motion is document one. >> Yeah. >> Is um I'm still confused. So, sorry. The the memo that we got included a draft bylaw and a committee charge. So, is that are we going to edit all of that in its entirety? Yep. >> Yes. >> Um, thank you. So, I would oppose this motion because I would like us to start with the starting point of the investigatory model um, which is the model that that I support um, for reasons I think that I've stated before. So, um, it will be um, my intention to vote no, not because I don't want to get into this and start editing, but because I would like us to edit on the basis of the investigatory model. Councelor Ryan. Councelor Ryan, did you have your hand up? >> No, I took my hand down. >> Okay. Um, so councelor kind of Martin, I understand that thought. I mean, you're also welcome to um make edits to this that kind of or propose edits to this that would get it to a point that you would like it to be. I think that's what um I guess one one way or the other we need to discuss something. So I don't know um which one folks if if what we want to start with not that it doesn't matter because I understand the inclination to want like the one that the model you prefer to be the first one on the table to discuss but I I I'm not sure yeah sorry I'm struggling to to respond. I guess I would uh I I kind of wish we had a neutral version to then go with, but um cuz what is in front of us that's recommended isn't ready either. Um so I we're certainly not ready to to vote that either. Lynn, >> if you go to the town manager's memo from October 31st, >> and you first of all, um, on page two, it says the council would adopt a general bylaw that creates a resident oversight board. The general bylaw would provide authority and detail the jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the board and the council would approve a charge. Based on that, I believe that we have to do a g we have to do a review of a general bylaw and a review of the charge. And then if you go to page seven of that memo and um the reality is that it actually takes you through the entire thing with both options in the same place. So the document one is a bylaw but also has a section where each of the different ones are discussed. the different two models are discussed and then in addition to that on the charge which starts on page 11 the same thing happens. You have a charge that basically includes options for what would you do for um the investigatory model and what would you do for the um uh review model. So it seems to me that the best place for us to start is in fact with document one on page seven and that we would go through establishment and purpose and then continue on and where we have disagreements we obviously have disagreements and we at some point have to take votes. So I am working on getting this up on the board so that we can discuss and edit uh a document actually in front of us. Um and then we will go from we can go from there. Councelor Lord. >> Um thank you and please forgive me if this has been stated and restated and there's just a little confusion for me. I also will not if this is the the version we're going forward with with review um I will not be voting for it but I think I heard you chair president say that it will still be valuable to edit it or like can you help because yes if you look at the actual May I may I go ahead if you look at the document >> yes go ahead >> if you look at the document starting on page seven that uh Anna is working to bring up. It goes through a variety of things like establishment and purpose, composition and appointment uh powers and responsibilities and then G option one review board G option two investigatory board. So it basically lays out what each of the options would be and it's to me that's where we would be focusing our discussion. So, real quick before we go back to Council Ryan, um I want to first preface this by saying we need to also tonight talk about the town manager evaluation process. Um that was also on our agenda. So, I am going to we're going to continue this conversation and hopefully come to a vote. Um but we will need to wrap this conversation up around 7:45 7:50 tonight so that we can talk about the town manager evaluation uh process because that kicks off very soon. Um, what I think we need to do is I think that before we get into all of this other all of the all of the stuff that right now is the same for both models, we need to vote essentially to pick one of these options on this section right here. Um, this this is the piece uh I will zoom in. Sorry. This is the piece where it differs. Um, but I think this is where we need to start. Uh, I will I I have several questions still, um, logistical questions about this and um some serious concerns. I'm not sure that I have the answers I need yet. Um, and I know that that's infuriating given that I just stood up here and was like, we have to make a decision. Um, so hopefully folks can be uh can be I don't know, not convince me, but hopefully I can get to that resolution. I don't know if others are feeling the same, but I think that what councelor Ryan is proposing is he's saying go with this option and keep this text in the charge or in the document and then remove this text. Right. Um >> I'm wondering Yeah, I'm actually wondering about that. Um >> Okay. because I think that I share this the concern that I think uh Amber and Olive have raised that that I've already sort of said I prefer one option over the other. I think maybe what we really are going to be doing is at each point we're going to have to make a decision. Um and the very first point is right here that comes up on page seven and we're going to have to talk it out. Then we're going to have to have a vote. Um but so and I don't know how the vote will go. I don't know where anyone else stands and I think uh you Anna have said that there are questions that you may still need to have answers to before you can actually make a vote. But we need to get some clarity and the way to do that is work our way through this document. Um and uh the very first place in which there is a potential for disagreement and I think it's real is option one under G. And I will just point out that option G1 under option G or under G option one review board number one that sentence is incoherent. So even though I support or I said I support the review board, that sentence makes no sense to me. So we're going to have to sort sort that out. Um maybe somebody can explain it to me, but I don't think it stands as a coherent sentence. Um and but at that at whatever point we finally get through that set of two items, um we have to make a vote, I guess, and say, well, do you prefer this or do you want do you need to have other questions answered before you can make a decision? Um or do you want us to look at the other model and do you prefer that? Um but I I see it as a this is the only way I think we can get through this is going through point by point. Um, and it starts right at G. Though I think we should look at the language before that. Um, as well. I mean, we really are obligated to look at every single sentence in this document. And, um, but maybe we start with this one first just to get started, but we will have to go back at some point, look at all the language. >> Absolutely. I I um, we will and I we will we will absolutely will do that. Um, but I agree that if we can start by looking at let's start with these four items, um, and and kind of decide which of these four are we keeping in or which of these four are we taking out, George, that might mean a a revision of your motion in some way. Um, I'm not I'm not sure how to frame that better, but I >> I agree. Yeah, I agree. I think the motion is just I just we need to get started. Um, and maybe when we're finally through I don't know. Yes. >> Yeah. Athena, do you have any thoughts on this? Well, and then I'll go to council Martin. >> It it I'm not hearing that there is um a full agreement amongst the committee members in one model or another. So, I feel like an initial first step that might be helpful is just to vote on which model you're talking about and then get into editing and making recommendations on the bylaw and the charge. So at least you have an initial decision point made and then you can begin working on drafts of the the bylaw and the charge. That's my suggestion. >> So you're saying not which you said which model we're discussing first. Do you mean which one we prefer? >> So the motion that's on the floor at the moment is to adopt the review model. So the committee could take that as the initial indication of which direction it wants to go. um a vote on that. And then once you have that initial direction, then you can start your edits on the bylaw and the charge so that you're not making these decisions over and over again as you're editing these documents. Um, so I would focus your discussion on whether people feel ready to vote yes, you want to adopt the review model or no, you want to pursue the investigatory model. And then you know which model you're working with and you can craft. We could come back at the next meeting with drafts, cleaner drafts of the uh bylaw and charge that the committee would then be ready to start digging into with edits. Okay, I think I understand and I think my addendum to that would be the question I would ask of folks is regard like we'll we'll start with one or the other, but what I'd like people to think about is what would need to be changed in in either model in order for you to fully support it. Um, I know I'll speak for myself, I'm not comfortable with either model the way that they are written. there are changes I would make to each one differently. Obviously, different changes to each one. Um, and I I think that that option is still on the table. We don't need to accept it as written. Um, and so let's take let's take an initial vote as to like which one is closer to to the end product that you want and then we will discuss based on that. Does that make sense? Maybe hypothetically. So, Council Ryan, can I ask you if you would be interested in withdrawing and restating your motion or withdrawing and having someone else make a motion that is clearer that Oh my god, I don't know why this is so hard. That is basically saying which one we are going to prioritize discussion on. Well, my motion essentially is that I would like to begin discussion with a review model. Okay. >> As a way of getting us started, >> I don't know where it's going to end. Um there have been suggestions made by some that perhaps some kind of hybrid is possible. There might be a possibility for investigation in one area whereas review would be the dominant for most. Um I does that have legs? I don't know. But it's certainly something at some point that we might want to discuss. I don't mean my motion to preclude that kind of discussion. Um, and I don't mean it to think that this is the only way to do things. Um, but I think we need to get started. So, if we work our way through just the review model first and come up with, you know, the appropriate um, amendments and revisions that meet the satisfaction of at least three members, then we have the review model. Then it sounds like we would have a second motion to look at the investigatory model and do the same for that. Is that minor? In other words, is that what we're planning to do? We're going to look at one first, then the other, and then we're going to have to make a decision as a committee. And maybe in that process, we might come up with a hybrid. Um, all of that is okay by me. Um, I think there's a lot of discussion that we haven't had yet that we need to have and I just need we need to get it started and I think everybody's agreed on that. Councelor Caner Martin. >> Yeah, I guess I'm I'm just concerned that Anna, you said that you still had some questions before you could, you know, sort of figure out which way you're leaning. So, I was just wondering like what are the things that you feel like are unresolved and and are you leaning one way or the other? Because I feel like I Yeah, we haven't really heard you've been facilitating wonderfully, but I'm not where you're landing. So, >> um, yeah, I mean, I guess it's it's questions maybe isn't the right term as as concerns I still would like to see addressed. I don't my current opinion is somewhere in the middle of the two. I don't feel like a review model does enough of what we would need an RO to do. And I feel that the investigatory model, the way it's framed, is immediately going to be hit with sudden with intense and deep legal challenges, including on union contracts. Um, especially I also my concerns, I guess if if folks want me to jump on my what what I found from my research here, a lot of my concerns stem from while other cities do have things like subpoena power, we've seen again and again in Boston, first off, they didn't use it until this year. And then second, when they did, two out of their three police unions said, "We're not going to abide by that." And haven't shown up. Uh, and it seems uninforceable. That subpoena seems uninforceable. Um, and the other ones are are participating. So, I have concerns about how uh how I don't want to set our community up for failure, right? I don't want to put something out there and say, "This is a resource for you and we have subpoena power. We'll get answers. We'll we'll support. We'll move through." and then that not have any actual ground to stand on. Right? I want us to put something forward that is actually going to address these needs. And I I'm worried that while some of the items that we're talking about look good on paper or look helpful for especially our community of color on paper, we can't back it up. Um or it will be immediately challenged in court and then we're going to be t stuck for years in a legal battle and potentially still not be able to back it up. So for me, something in the middle would be a a medium or or a better option. I really appreciated. We received a public comment from Ronnie Parker that I really appreciated because it felt like it was trying to find that middle ground of the types of complaints that an RO could support, which are the ones that post can't deal with and yet how do we ensure that our RO is trusted, right? because we already know that we want to build like the one of the purposes here is to help build trust between the police and the community, but also we need to make sure that we're building an RO that's going to be be trusted by our community. And how how we're doing that is really important. One red flag and then I'll stop talking. Um cuz I hopefully this kind of gave you an idea of where I'm sitting uh and why I'm struggling so much with both of these motions. Um, one of the other huge concerns I have is if you looked at the budget for I think it was Cambridge and the documents I provided, one of their budgets outlined how much the RO was allocated in an annual in in any given year and it was extremely high um, compared to what we have room for in our budget. And to be honest with you, if it comes down to being able to give the schools more money or building uh trainings out for an RO, I'm feeling real torn here and I'm going to lean towards providing that to the schools versus creating a new department, essentially creating the budget that of a new department. So I these concerns are all things that can be responded to and I would like to have dialogue around. I'm sharing these with you not as final thoughts but very much as like what has been going through my head and doing that research. Um, and and you know, candidly, it's it's stressful to share your thoughts on this type of topic because things get pulled apart. Uh, single sentences of people mulling things out or brainstorming get pulled. And so, I'm saying this in the hopes that uh you all will help me to to think through these things and we can all work through kind of what other questions are remaining. That's my that's my where I'm at. And I uh appreciate you mentioning that I had been facilitating but not sharing a lot of my own thoughts as we go. Not a problem to share my thoughts. C uh councelor Ryan. >> Sorry. >> Oh no problem. So we are still at the same point of uh oh sorry couns uh Lynn >> um as much as I hear what Athena is suggesting and that is we land one way or the other I actually believe that there are many things in this document that starts on page seven that we all agree with and it might be useful for us to at least come to some consensus on those areas. is in which we agree or we may have some ideas about some changes we would want because there are very similar structures to these. Okay. And you know I have I have some concerns and as we go along I would voice those concerns. Um but um the document itself is set up so that we could actually discuss A, discuss B and then you know say you know we're going to put C aside for the moment and then go to D and then the composition etc. And maybe in that we have some of the issues that people are wrestling with. Anna, you've mentioned some that I've been wrestling with um and I have others. Okay. So, oh my god. So, if we go through and we treat each of these four items, right now it says option one, option two. If we treat them each as individual aspects of an RO, oh my god, sorry. Uh, individual aspects of an RO. What does the committee think of each one? not because I don't think that they necessarily always contradict each other, but if we were to discuss each of these individually, not thinking about this in the the black and white of a review versus investigatory of these items, do you want an RO to be able to do this or not? Assess fairness, thoroughess, and adhere to community standards of respectful interactions and departmental policies. I'm just going to start. I'm gonna I'm gonna break this out one at a time. So, is this a is this a a yay or a nay? >> Anna, it's not a coherent sentence. I mean, someone needs to translate this in English for me. I assume what the RO will do under this model is review completed investigations involving either police or crest responders. I don't know what it means to assess fairness, thoroughess, and adherence to community standards of respectful interactions. I have no idea what that means. I don't know who wrote this. I have no idea what it means. Um I think what it's supposed to be saying is that it will u review uh completed investigations with an eye to in order to assess the fairness, thoroughess, and adherence to community standards and departmental policies. I think that's what it's supposed to say, but it doesn't say that. So, as it's written, it is incoherent unless somebody can tell me what it's saying that I'm missing. But I don't I think I'm cable to read pretty standard English, and this makes no sense to me at all. So, um there's the first problem right away. I think the review board model is the way to go, but this particular statement of it is is doesn't make any sense. So this is saying when you have an investigation of community complaint conducted by the office of professional standards, the RO will look at that complaint and assess the fairness of it, the thoroughess of it and did the did the uh >> right >> police officer adhere to community standards of respectful interaction and departmental policies >> and follow departmental policy. So if you could re re take the one from that and put at the beginning, it might actually be comprehensible. >> All right. So let me try to rewrite it just for the sake of of understanding it by this committee. >> Well, I'm I'm asking my colleagues. I mean, maybe I'm the only one here who's not getting it. Maybe u I just need to read the last part first, but I don't think as it stands, this is a clear statement of what the review board option actually is supposed to do. probably regarding complaints involving because complaints aren't conducted but involving AP >> but this is but I think that's the difference right it's not >> it's not reviewing the uh well question is it intended to be reviewing the uh it's the complaint itself or the >> the report >> the report by the >> exactly supposed to review the report complaints. >> Yeah. >> And the use of the word investigations is not appropriate because it should be because we're going to get totally tied up. We're trying to keep those two words separate. Um, these are essentially reviews of reports submitted by the community standards, office professional standards regarding complaints concerning their officers or uh by HR because crest I believe is handled by HR. So the reports could come either from the professional standards of the APD or from HR and they would get those reports and then they would review them um with an eye to these characteristics that they're fair, thorough, they adhere to community standards and departmental policies. >> Right. And the when it says community complaints that means that the RO would receive the complaint from the community or is it that already the office of professional standards has received the complaint and have dealt with it and we're just we're going to look through all of them. That's I guess that's my question. >> That's a good question. My understanding or my thought is that the complaints could come either to the RO where anonymity would be protected to the degree that it'd be possible. I don't know that we could protect it ultimately, but they could people could submit them to RO or they could submit them to the APD. They could we could I mean again under procedures I mean the the third document which involves how this body will actually operate. But what I would encourage we put into the at least the original draft is that complaints certainly could be submitted directly to RO. They could also go to APD. Uh they could go to HR. Um but however they're submitted um eventually they get reviewed by um the relevant body whether it's the professional standards with police or by HR. >> Right. So if a if a complaint comes in to APD it automatically also gets forwarded to RO. >> That is correct. Yes, that's what I would expect. I'm going to say of all community complaints to kind of clarify that >> and some of this may be spelled out in more detail below in the other documents but I think you're absolutely this has to be part of what is involved in this process >> right and to give us clarity on what we're talking about >> but don't we want to say the RO somehow or another we need to be clear that people can complain directly to the RO >> that can come I think elsewhere in the document I don't think it has to be here, but that's just my initial thought right now. Just sort of laying out the basics of what this body is supposed to do. It doesn't get into all the details of how it's going to be done, but we will get into all the details. And we want to make sure that one of those details is that residents have and they know they have the ability or the right to submit a complaint directly to RO. And that means they'll have to have a form of something, you know, where people can fill it out if they want to do it online or if they do it in person. Um, >> that's actually covered under letter B. Um, I answered my own question. >> That's right. Let her be aware. I'm sorry. >> Letter, if you scroll up, Anna, it's up. >> It's up there. Okay. Thank you. >> So, that explains that the RO can receive the complaints. >> Sorry. >> It's all right. There's Yeah, there's a lot here. There's a lot. >> My Zoom window got too big. I lost. Um, Amber, where did you want me to scroll to? Apologize. >> Um, I I can't see it here. >> Yeah, that So, letter B is saying um Nope, sorry, wrong. section section three and then letter B. >> Okay, thank you. >> And so that's where it's saying it will it will definitely receive no matter what option we choose. And then it's review or investigate. >> Right. >> So that actually leads me, Lynn, to to what you just said because I if if the RO reviews or investigates every single complaint, what would someone making a complaint directly to the RO look like under under the hypothetical of an investigatory model because the ROB would have already reviewed it, right? >> I don't understand your question. Could you repeat it? >> Yeah. So, so Lynn Lynn asked, "Is there still the option for people to complain directly to the RO?" And my question is, do you mean complain directly to the RO without filing a complaint with APD or HR? or because if they did already file the complaint with APD and HR, the RO would have already reviewed that if they're reviewing every single complaint, >> right? And if they're not satisfied by your I guess your question is if they're not satisfied by what they got from HR andor from uh the uh the police review body, they you'd think they still could come to RO for further further uh what further? >> I guess why would they do that? because the RO already reviews everything based on the way this is written. >> Well, >> can I Yeah, I'm gonna go to Lyn, George, while you mull back. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Go ahead, Lyn. >> I think what we're initially saying is that complaints can be brought in any number of ways. They can be brought in through the police department. They can be brought in through the RO. The difference between the two models is either the police department or human resources investigates and reports back to RO in the review model. In the com in the investigatory model, the RO themselves does the investigation. >> Yep. Under the in under the review model though, you said your question was should the RO still receive complaints? I don't understand why or what that would do different from the RO investig or reviewing everything. >> The biggest concern is that is retaliation. Okay. And and some people don't even want to begin a complaint process if they feel it will lead to retaliation. >> Right? >> So what we're trying to do is at least give people the ability to lodge a complaint that is not directly to the police. And I think that is critically important in whatever model we do. >> How would you do that under a review board model? Well, Anna, they get the the complaint and then the complaint is sent uh by the chair whatever you know of the of the of the uh RO is sent to the relevant APD or to the HR said we've received the following complaint. I think one of the questions that will have to be wrestled with I don't have the answer to this. I don't know if it can be answered but you might be red it might be redacted. you might send it with, you know, the following complaint has been submitted with the names, uh, you know, but I don't know how much anonymity uh, practically either model can genuinely provide, but at least this is a way for people to make a complaint without having to go directly to the police department um, where they either have to go in person or if they have to whatever it is. So I think that's the the idea as Lynn said is just to provide another way uh that some could make issue or file a complaint. Whether it will protect their anonymity um protect them against retaliation um I don't know you know how far that can go but you could imagine that RO sends it on without the names. So, >> but I don't know. But that's the the idea is that they would just they would send it on and say here's a rep complaint and then it goes into their they have to address it within a certain number of days and come back with a resolution and then RO reviews it. They review the the documentary file. They can ask further questions. They can ask for clarification and if they feel that the ultimate dispensation was not adequate or or um they could issue a report saying so or they also could issue a report saying the dispensation was fine but we recommend in the future that the police do X Y or Z. >> All right. So basically what you're saying is that in receiving complaints they're not actually doing anything with them other than forwarding them to APD or HR. >> Right. uh except you're you also said that it's possible that the RO would be responsible for uh um taking out any identifiable information or is it just that the RO is able to accept anonymous complaints? >> Yeah, that's something they're going to have to decide. I don't I know I don't have a view one way or the other, but I've heard in various venues that people are some people are concerned about retaliation and I know that at least Boston allows anonymous complaints. >> Yeah. >> I don't know how they work it out. eventually if it ever got serious. I think you probably have to have names because you can't really but um but the point is that what the review body does ultimately it does a lot of things but it's its primary function or one of its functions is to look at completed investigations by either of the two bodies and uh getting all the relevant information they can asking all the questions they need to ask and from the point of view is this thorough? Is it fair? Does it meet community standards? Does it meet police policy standards? And they also might ask, is there a pattern here? Are we seeing any similar complaints, similar officers, whatever? Um, that's the kind of thing they'll look at. Um, but they don't conduct the investigation. >> Okay. Um, other comments on this first part? Sorry, I'm I'll raise my hand because it's a little bit of a disjoint. Oh, I'm sorry, Amber. Did you have a >> No, I just when I when I heard it explained that way, I was just like, see, this is why I don't support this model because it's just a board that's like telling the police to investigate itself. You know, like it's just it it feels like, okay, we're sending it right back to the same entity. So, why do we have the board? >> It's a model that's followed by the majority of towns and cities that have review boards that have bodies like this. Um it's not it's not you know it's like 45% or 50% do it exactly this way and one of the reasons they do it this way is that they feel that it the trust is a two-way street. Certainly we want to increase trust with the community but it will not work if it doesn't also we don't get buyin from the police and if the police feel like they are completely cut out of this process as we've seen in Boston now as as Anna mentioned earlier um with subpoenas um they will simply they'll just say no they'll just back away what they want to do that's not the kind of police department we have but it seems like trust at the moment is just a one-way street here so one of the reasons I like the review model and perhaps also we could suggest a three-year trial period. Let's just see what happens for 3 years and if we find that reports are not adequate. If we refine that they're not doing what they're expected to do, we have other options that can be can be taken. But at this stage, um I would I like the idea of giving them some degree of of agency and also respect um and then see that they live up to the standards that they say in fact that they do live up to. Thank you, councelor Lord. >> Um, yes, thank you. I just wanted to add that if the sorry, resident oversight board is only allowed to review in investigations that have already the APD has already conducted. I just am saying like what meaningful independent function are we adding? And I know um council Ryan you mentioned trust and one way but I think because there's already been a history of trust broken it might feel like it's one way but it's actually just coming in my the way I see it is we're trying to bring back a balance. I don't it's not like attack the police thing. It's like how do we bring back a balance? Because historically, if we even go back to when how police were started and what that function was for, it was never to protect black folks. It was to hunt them down and bring them back into enslavement. So, I understand the concern about, oh, we have to take care of the police or the the the trust, but I'm just saying we're coming from such a deficit in trust and so much harm that to me it doesn't feel like um a oneway street. And so, that's why I'm really the review thing is just it just feels like what's the point like not to be like that, but also it feels performative. It feels like look, we're actually doing something. And I know you said a lot of towns are doing it, but that doesn't mean it's being done right. Right. Or maybe it doesn't mean that it'll work here. Um, so I just wanted to add a few thoughts. Thanks. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, I I I'm trying to raise my hand without while still sharing my screen is hard. I think ultimately at the end of the day when I when counselor kind of Martin asked me earlier kind of where I was standing I struggled to articulate the vision for what I would like to see and and counselor Lord that was really helpful um to kind of help frame it for me too in terms of what is the point and what I would like to see is an RO that is focused on not oneoffs of complaints in the sense of what in the in the sense of like recommending discipline or recommending consequence for a specific action. What I would really like to see and what I think gets at more of the organizational level change that we'd like to see or I guess that I would like to see broadly is an RO that looks at the process that looks at individual cases and what was what transpired and determine if how the APD investigation or the HR investigation went makes sense. So, I'd like them to say uh to to not have the ability to recommend, you know, punitive discipline, but instead to recommend, hey, this is the the conclusion APD came to. You didn't consider XYZ. We'd really love for you to think about this type of education for for the officers involved or something like that. Um, I would like for an RO to be able to hear from the parties involved because I do think that it is different for for folks to speak to an RB who would like to be involved. I want to also be very clear. I'm not comfortable with an RO demanding to hear from residents uh who do not want to speak to them. So I'd like to an RO to be able to hear from the parties involved directly about the process. They're not necessarily investigating the exact thing that happened, but they are looking at what APD recommended in terms of action and looking at the review process to say, hey, you know, this type of incident has occurred and this is what you've been recommending as as a result of it, we think that generally speaking, when this type of incident occurs, you need to do XYZ to to shift the approach around it or something like that, right? So, it's it's kind of softening the touch a little bit from the investigatory model. um to saying they are going to hear this complaint and they're going to talk to APD about the process that they went through and um they're not necessarily saying this must be the the consequence but they're saying what are some developmental or or change focused actions um versus punitive I don't know what the framing is but like punitive career actions that's sort of what I'm leaning for here uh or leaning towards here I don't I'm not comfortable with an RO kind of determining a a disciplinary action for an individual officer that I'm I'm not comfortable with. Sorry, there's some very loud motorcycle parade going by my office right now. Um a bit distracted. Councelor Ka Martin. >> Yeah, I just I two two quick things hopefully quick. Um, so I wasn't clear that um within the investigatory model that there was specifically subpoena power, but I'm going to have to reread it again because the the memo is extremely long. Um, so that's one thing. And then just the other thing to to what to counselor Ryan's point about being a two-way street. I think even under the investigatory model, we do have the internal, you know, police department um department that looks at internal affairs is also still doing its investigation. So it's not that one gets to do an investigation and the other doesn't. I think it's like, you know, hey, like you did your investigation. This person didn't feel like they were, you know, received justice and so now they're bringing it to the RO. in the RO is like, you know, to um to Anna's point, like, yeah, like this needs to be relooked at and if it I'm going to relook at it, I might need to talk to some of the people involved, you know, like that just feels logical to me that they're going to have to review some stuff. And um you know, I if that's the in between point, like that, you know, could be something that I'm on board with. Like I think that if you're going to like review what happened, but you can't like talk to anybody involved and you know like you're just looking at some documents, it's you know I think it's it's hard to really understand what happened. So anyway, >> thank you Lynn. Yeah, I want to um bring up something that I think we maybe have overlooked. Uh and that is that in fact the town of Ammerst already has a complaint mechanism. Um in fact, Heather um Hala, you're um liaison to that committee. It's the HRC, human rights commission. And in fact in this last year they investigated 42 complaints. The names of those people are never revealed. The investigations unless it is determined that there needs to be an outside investigator is um the head of the DEI department who which is like human resources. And in many instances or in some instances at least they actually may feel that it's necessary to refer the case to a state agency. Um now have they ever gotten any police complaints? To be honest, I haven't read their report yet this year. Uh I have worked with them in the past over complaints where we needed an outside investigator for uh reasons that I can't discuss. Uh but um the reality is that um in this case it's it's it is a it's an employee of the town and I think there needs to be some restrictions about who that person can investigate meaning uh supervisors or peers but it actually is done in a way that protects the individual. Now what doesn't happen in that case is the human rights commission itself the members of the commission don't get involved in the cases they look at the trends and stuff like that and I think what I'm hearing from people and is that we want some ability for the committee whatever this RO is um to be able to go into executive session as long as all parties agree because if one party says no, I want it in public, then it's in public. Um, and the reality is that um that right now that's not what happens. The other thing that doesn't happen with uh human rights commi commission from my understanding is they don't necessarily um have as much interaction with the individual over time and I think we are looking for a way in which there is interaction with the individual. there is a sense that the individual has had an opportunity to truly express their complaint without fear of retaliation and in fact even over time there may be a way in which some healing takes place. So I somehow or another in all of this I mean if I had a complaint about the police right now I could go to the human rights commission and make my complaint and it's different for public officials but um uh if I was just you know very cute public I could do that and they would have to investigate it. >> Thank you, Councelor Ryan. >> So, first thought is we can't have two investigations of the same incident um just for double jeopardy reasons. But perhaps what I'm hearing is that after a investigation has been completed, the review board can look at that investigation and um offer its own thoughts on it, making recommendations, suggestions, etc. But I guess I'm struggling to understand those who support an investigatory model, are they imagining that every incident that every complaint that is made to the APD or to Crest about those folks, the RO investigates? Or are they saying that, well, there's certain things we'd like them to investigate, but not everything? Are they saying that look um the police standards board have a better understanding of what is the right way to proceed in these cases and we let them do their job? Then we will look and see what they did. And um we're looking for patterns. We're looking for um whether this meets the kinds of standards that we expect in our community. We want to make sure that it meets the standards the police themselves set for themselves. Um they're looking at it from a higher level. The investigatory model is at the very ground level and it raises a host of questions about due process about how you people do have rights, right? Even police officers have rights, right? Um, and so how do you have an investigative model that protects and respects the rights of all parties involved? What many communities do is they find that the review model allows them to take a much closer look at how their police actually operate, how they follow the rules or don't follow them. and they're looking for patterns and they are not afraid to speak up when appropriate to say we don't think that this was handled correctly or are you suggesting a model where that is all done by the RO they do the investigation they do the interviews they do all of it and then they recommend to the chief what they think the action should be the chief is free to do whatever he or she wishes So, I need to understand which is it a hybrid you're looking for? Is it is it a strictly investigatory model right from the get-go? Every single complaint that comes in the door gets investigated by the RO and the police department has nothing to do with it. Their professional standards has nothing to do with it. Um the it's all done by RO. Then when the the final decision is made, it's just a recommendation. They have no disciplinary powers. They have no power to hire or fire. All they can do is we recommend the chief do X, Y, or Z or we recommend that that you adopt this policy or that policy. >> Thank you, George. Councelor Lord. >> Um, thank you. I just wanted to clarify I'm I'm not a lawyer but um double jeopardy um applies to the the court case not an investigation. Um and you have seen cases I know when my brother was murdered they first criminally charged with firstdegree that didn't work so then they went back and did seconddegree murder. Um and then you see people who are acquitted but then civically there's a civil case. So, I just wanted to say that double jeopardy does not apply to a reinvestigation, another set of lies looking at um something. So, I just wanted to clarify that little piece. Thank you. >> But is that an investigation, Holla, or a review? That's my question. >> And um double jeopardy if they're being I >> Let's leave double jeopardy aside of it. I'm not a lawyer either. Is it are you asking them to do an investigation which has a whole host of other bells and whistles or are they simply reviewing something that already has been decided in order to offer their input? So in the investigatory model, while they are reviewing it, they notice something, then they hire an investigator to come in and say, "Can you look a little further?" because I know there was some incidents this summer that the police department knows about and because of who it was, they're they're attending to it differently, but we still have issues with the APD and and how can we help support them in deconstructing some of what's just like in the air like racism and classism and xenophobia. All of that is like woven in. So, I'm not even like I'm just like I don't know. I don't think I answered the question. I'm about to go on another tangent, but I'm just still So, we review and then investigate if we need to, I guess. >> Okay. So, the thought is that not every incident will result in a full-blown investigation, but every incident comes to RO to be potentially investigated or dismissed or whatever. It never comes to the police department. >> No, it does. it does go to the sorry to interrupt but I my reading this is that >> and in and looking at the Springfield model as well um you know my understanding has come to be that if there is a complaint that it will be investigated by the police department itself and then the person if they're not happy with the then they can raise it to the level of the RO which can then investigate further the case if we're in the investigative model so that That's my understanding of of how that process goes. So, it's not they're not taking over the investigation that the department does. The department still does their investigation, but then if the person who complained is not happy with the results of that, it can go to the RO in the investigatory model and they can do their own investigation. >> Um, >> what Okay, so help me understand what you think that means, their own investigation. For instance, they would summon the police officer and the police officer would have to come and give testimony again, etc., etc. would he have a lawyer present? Um, what you know, it just raises a whole host of legal objections. I know if I were a police officer and I'd already been through the the department's own disciplinary process with every decision they had made and then another body wanted to do it again, I simply would not participate. I would not cooperate. >> Well, that's so that's something we need to see that would be in this document and that's something that I think we decided. >> You would compel them. You would compel them to to participate. I mean, >> no, I said it's it's should be in the doc. If we want the answer to that question, we have to read the document that's in front of us because I I don't I think it's spelled out there already. >> Well, if it's spelled out Okay, sorry. >> Following it together. Um, it is 7:57 and I I know I know councelor can Martin, I'll be right to you. I promise. We're going to end this in about four minutes. My hand is up after councelor Kenna Martins. Um, and then we're going to talk about how to how to come back to this in our at our next meeting. Councelor Kenna Martin, go ahead. >> Yeah. No. And I I just want to say too like I think we need to just be careful about about how we're talking about this given what's happened in our community and how you know a bunch of youth of color were told that they had no rights. Um and I what I don't want to happen here is I don't want to make the situation worse because the RO is supposed to be part of the solution. And so if we can if we come in there with language saying well this or this person doesn't have rights. I think that, you know, it can be really triggering for people of color in their community and and frankly I'm triggered because I'm a mother of a young man of color in this community. And so I think we just need to be really careful when we talk about who has rights or who doesn't and who can be executed by the police in broad daylight with no with no accountability whatsoever. So I'm just asking please let's just be careful about how we talk about this. I wanted to address something counselor Ryan mentioned earlier and counselor Lord uh in conversation with each other. The concept of double jeopardy does apply in two different ways. There is the legal sense that you're talking about in terms of being charged with a crime, but uh the concept of double jeopardy exists in a labor and employment context as well and that is that if there is a disciplinary action handed down uh that the employer cannot hand down a second harsher disciplinary action. it's supposed like that is the that's the way that that um this is used in in labor and employment. Um and if folks want to look it up, there's a whole lot of information from a bunch of different labor unions talking about this. Um and and essentially saying like once you've been received a a disciplinary action um they can't then fire you, right? Like it can't be for that same action. Uh it has to be a different action. So So it does apply. I understand the phrase the exact phrasing is a little messy because it's more often used in I think the other context but I wanted to just note that um conceptually it is a term that is used within labor and employment and I think that was the context in which it was mentioned before um which is something I think we need to be very cautious of uh and and that that is in and of itself I think one of my biggest concerns with a uh investigatory model as presented is that if they are recommending um recommending disciplinary actions for specific employees based on a specific incident. I'm not comfortable. I again my my goal or my vision here what I think would be helpful in terms of meeting the needs that we've discussed for an RO is for them to uh review these cases and say hey look APD this is what you need to do differently in what we would like to see done differently in the policies and practices right because that's what's going to shift the the eventually over time that's what's going to shift that that culture hopefully she says optimistically um of like of of and and help to build trust is if we start engaging differently. Um repercussions without change in practice and policy, it isn't going to get us what we want. I think it it's got to be we've got to have that look at at um at the practices as well. Um it's 8:00. We have a half an hour left. This has been I think actually one of our more productive conversations. Um, and I'd like to thank you all for that. Where I would like us to come back, we still technically do have a motion on the floor. Um, but I think that going through these and parsing it out of like what would this look like? Um, is going to be helpful for them to act for then for us to actually understand a clear picture of what we're voting on. Um, I don't think that we would get a majority on either one as it was initially written right now. So I would like us to keep basically Frankensteining something together um but editing it to make it what what we are confident to recommend to the council. We will continue um this at our next meeting. Any final thoughts on this council Ryan? >> So when we meet again we will pick it up at this point in the document. >> Yes. Um, and I I will not raise it now, but I have at least one or two more edits to make with this paragraph that we've been working on. And again, I would try to make clear to the public as well as to my colleagues that this is a very complicated and difficult process and it's going to take time and it's not stalling. is trying to do this in such a way that it accurately reflects what we think is the best possible model and that involves some serious and difficult discussions between the five of us um with the hope that we can find some common ground um as we proceed through this um because that would be ideal. Um, but it's not going to go quickly and because it raises really tough questions. Um, and we've heard some of them tonight and they're not going to be any less tough two weeks from tonight. But my understanding on is that when we pick this up, we're going to proceed through this document particularly focusing on the sort of decision points or basically again just clarify for me. I'm sorry I'm dense, but we're basically going through this from the point of view of creating a review document. I think that that is um >> then when we're done we're going to go through it again and produce a um investigative only or investigative alternative model. >> I will share with you how I am hoping to facilitate this is that we end up with something in the middle. Um >> so in the process of doing this what we're doing with the sort of focusing sort of on the review model your hope is that that at certain points we might find some compromise the middle ground and that might evolve from this if it doesn't then we'll go some other direction but um it's we're not committing to this model um obviously we're not taking a vote tonight >> right >> but we are using it as a way to try and bring these issues to the four as we've done tonight. I think we've, you know, as we struggle to decide what's investigatory, what's review, what does it entail. Um, so we're hoping that this approach will allow us to get all of these things out in the open and allow us to debate them and to discuss them and maybe even refine the language and move on. What is clear to me in our discussion is and there's not a whole lot that's clear to me but what is clear to me is that this committee I believe would not get a good vote and I say good vote not meaning three but I'd like four at least we would not get a good vote on either model if we voted it as it was presented I believe that the what that what I've heard from this committee individual members on this committee is that the review model does not go far enough into building trust and actually making an impact uh on on the actions that are potentially harmful to our community and trying to repair those. And conversely, the investigatory model as written goes too far and possibly treads into uh union negotiation questions, legal issues, and cost burdens. Um, and so that's why I feel like there's got to be a way that this is we are we are five somewhat intelligent humans who can probably find some way to do this. Um, and and Athena who is a upper level being. >> So I think that there's >> when I say middle ground, I don't mean exactly right. I'm not talking about weakening. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about building something that gets rid of the concerns that we have or at least reduces the concerns we have and that still meets the need that we also are seeing from our community. That might sound idealistic. I think it's doable. Um I also know a camel is a horse designed by committee. So we might end up with something in the council we reiterate and re redis. But that's where I'd like us to get to. And your understanding is that we are not going to send this back unless something really terrible happens. We're not going to send this back to the council and say you figure out what to do. Um we have five, I think, fairly representative and thoughtful counselors and we're going to work our way through this one way or the other and at some point bring something to the council for them to then chew on. And we don't know what they'll do. They may go in another direction entirely, but my understanding, I think it's your understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong, and hopefully it's the understanding of our co my colleagues, is that this is our task to work this through and bring it to the council um with a recommendation. >> It seemed at the beginning of our conversation today that this body was not at a point where it wanted to say, "Council, give us something different." It seemed that this group wanted to try to muddle through it for all of the reasons you said. This being a group of five people who could seemingly work together uh and and solve it. If I am wrong, anyone is welcome at any point to make a motion saying I'm not making this motion, but they could move to refer this back to send this back to the council and say give us something different. Um no one made that motion. I'm not going to make that motion. Um so that that's why I'm reading into this group of five and uh it feels that they can create something new. If I am mistaken on that and people would like to send this back to council, you are welcome to make a motion at any time. Um but I personally think that we can create something um based on what we've been given and based on the knowledge we now have. Any last comments on this before we move to a different topic? >> Lynn, >> I want to be very clear. I'm not making a motion. >> Okay. >> I just want to make sure that people find the the um October 31 document. >> I'll put it in the packet >> and read it. Uh take the time to read 36 pages. uh and also read the legal opinion as part of our homework. Thank you. >> Yep. Um and I know I sent you a lot of or I gave you a lot of homework in terms of readings. Um I did find them particularly helpful to be honest with you. I thought that they were uh especially talking through I know that it had budget had been mentioned, training had been mentioned that was also addressed in those materials. um and and the materials talk about the legal challenges of things like subpoena power or or um uh other other elements of it. So, please if you didn't get a chance to read those, definitely read them. I will make sure that the the item we had on the screen, the memo from Paul is in um is in tonight's packet as well. Okay. Um, so the next item on our agenda, we've got about 20 minutes just to talk through the town manager evaluation process and timeline. This is coming up very quickly. Um, we I'm going to share my recollection and then I'll seek seek confirmation or disagreement. Um my recollection was that we had generally agreed on utilizing the same format that the council had used in years past for the evaluation component. So this was shifting it away from long narrative and into a liyker scale uh a liyker scale evaluation based on the goals that we set for the town manager as well as the duties of the town manager as outlined in the charter. don't have materials prepped for you on this and I apologize for that. Um, life is kicking my butt, but um, what I think we could do is if folks could review last year's town manager evaluation. I can share that uh, as a reminder if you haven't seen it, but it's also on the website. And um, familiarize yourself with the process. And the reason why I say that is it is very easy for this committee to come together and say I want us to have um you know long form responses to every single question on here. We need to be able to do like all this flexibility and at the end of the day we as counselors are able to share our individual opinions with Paul at any point privately or in a meeting. The purpose of this town manager evaluation is not to opine on our individual thoughts on the the successes and failings of of any one human as our town manager. The point of this is to objectively evaluate whether the town manager has met or made expected progress on the goals that we as a council voted for him. Um we've worked really hard so that the goals are not subjective. um that the goals are very factual and and uh address they're not really like arguable, right? There isn't a he met this but not the way I would have liked it, right? That's not that's not the type of evaluation we're doing. The question is did he meet it? Um that is I I encourage this committee to remember how much time this takes uh for individual counselors but also what comes out of it which is a document for the town manager to understand how he's doing at his job um and and that needs to be based on the goals that we have voted for him. Are there any questions about the process generally that and I I'm just speaking right now about the town council's portion what I will try to do um for our next meeting is to pull together proposals and I would welcome anyone else who has proposals um proposals for seeking the feedback we typically seek from community me or from chairs committee chairs as well as the feedback we seek from staff This has been an area that we have not succeeded in in my opinion as uh in terms of getting relevant feedback for counselors to utilize. Um we've kind of walked into a wanting to do a 360 evaluation where staff evaluate their leadership. Uh but we haven't facilitated it in a way that has made it productive. the questions that we ask are not uh the same as what the the council the questions we ask of staff are not the same questions that the council is is responding to. So counselors will receive the feedback from staff but don't really have a a clean way to incorporate it into our feedback. So um yeah and then the the questions that we that we've sought from committee chairs are really just provide any feedback that you have. Um, so I want us to hopefully not need to make major changes to the council portion and focus instead on what are the questions that we need to hear the answers to from staff and from the uh community specifically committee chairs. Um, >> yeah, >> in order to evaluate the town manager on his goals. >> Council Hannah Martin. >> Yeah. I just wondered if you could share where we could find the the formats that have been used in prior years. Um we can and you just want us to give some feedback on those. >> Yeah, some feedback on those. And really I want you to think about if if you Okay, so what I want you to do basically is play the game of like what does success look like? So you receive feedback from staff in town. What does it look like that means it's useful for you? Um, and same from committee chairs knowing that your job is to evaluate him based on goals and um the job description as it's written in the charter. It's not it's not technically a job description. Duties. There we go. Uh on the goals and duties of the town manager, what do you need to hear from them in order to evaluate that part thoroughly? >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. And then so just and this the other thing I wanted to share is that I've I've heard now from both community members and town staff that they don't feel like they have enough time because it's usually like they only have a week to fill it out. So if there's anything we could do to give folks more time that would be helpful. >> I think we could shorten it. Um I I think that I agree. I hear you. Um for community members I think that it's actually I think we give community members a really hard task because we give them such an open-ended question. Um, and so I think that structuring, giving a little bit more structure on exactly what we're asking them about would be helpful in terms of getting it done quicker. Um, and then same for staff. Right now, my understanding, and Athena, I'll I'll look to you to correct me on this. My understanding is that what we're sending to staff is the same form that they themselves are internally evaluated on on their own performance evaluations. Um, which is different from what we use for the talent manager because we function differently with him. uh and and that evaluation for staff >> should take time, right, when their supervisor is evaluating them, but it's a little bit harder for them to turn it around in the reverse for someone who may they may not report directly to. So, I I think that timing absolutely, let's let's look at that and let's look at how much time it's going to actually take them to give us something helpful. Um I think both will both be helpful in that instance. Um, okay. So, uh, just to recap this though, so what I'm going to find for you are the, um, blank forms for staff and the email sent to community members for evaluation. And then what else will be helpful for you all? Anything? Uh, Lynn or other comments is fine, too. you're muted. >> I can just dump or give you to dump into this file the entire package including >> Sure. That would be great. >> Okay. >> And that way people can see it and we can provide you with a link to the final product and um that's it. >> That would be great. Thank you so much. >> Um I >> just let me mention the entire packet includes everything from the contract with the town manager, all the amendments that have been made to that contract, his goals, etc. And then all of the different forms and examples of letters we've used. >> Perfect. If you could send that to me directly, that would be really helpful. And I'll put it in the packet. >> Yeah. Um and and I will also have for our next meeting a draft timeline um for this committee to recommend to the council. Are there other questions on >> when is our next meeting? >> Our next meeting is September 22nd. >> No, I won't be there. >> Okay. >> Because that is the night of the Hampshire College Cherret. >> Yeah, that's true. So, we need to figure out a different date then. Um, okay. Can Athena, am I allowed to poll for dates on without it being on an agenda item? >> Yes, that's fine. >> Thank you. Um, are people available on September 15th, the date that I imagined we had a meeting, but we don't. It is the t It's next Tuesday. >> I am. >> Um, what time? >> 6:30. We'll do the same time. 6:30 to 8:30. Uh, no, I'm not available. >> Okay. Um, councelor Lord, are you? >> That date is saying something to my head, but it I don't have it written in my calendar, so I would need a little more time to find out why meaningful. >> Um, councelor Ken Martin, is there a different time that day that you would be available? >> Um, and this is just to have an an extra meeting on the calendar. It would be because the 22 or it would be in place of our meeting on the 22nd because that's the day that the Hampshire College um >> okay um theoretically um it's it's hard to predict for me because I I don't know if another meeting will show up on my calendar. Right now I'm free from like 1 to 6 but >> okay meets from 1 to 3. >> I know I'm on that one. That's right. >> Um, okay. So, other dates that are option I hate doing this in a in like a live recorded meeting, but uh I'm going to put this out there and because I would need to schedule these tomorrow. Um, so other dates that folks could look for could include I'm not I I really don't want to do a Friday night to you. Um, so so we're looking at possibly Tuesday afternoon, it looks like maybe like a 3:30 to 5:30. Um, we're looking at a Wednesday, um, 6:30 to 8:30. Uh, those are the dates that I'm looking at. Nothing. >> I can do either of those. >> You could do either. Ryan, you shook your hand. Sir Lord is the one that and along with Amber that is working full time. >> I also do that >> yourself, right? >> What about the 29th? >> So yeah, 29th at the normal time. Is that what you're saying? >> Why not? >> Um the concern, George, is that we're pushing it later and later with the evaluation process. >> Ah, okay. >> I I could do the 16th. I don't know. Hala, are you free the 16th? Uh, that was 6:30 to 8:30. >> If we did 6:30 to 8:30 on the 16th, >> I have a conflict that night. >> You do? Okay. >> Yep. >> This is fun. >> Um, I have a conflict Thursday. All right. So, Counselor Lord, you said you can't do Tuesday 3:30 to 5:30. >> Oh, I did not say that. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Could you could you do Tuesday the 15th from 3:30 to 5:30? >> I currently have no clients scheduled during that time. So, I could hold it >> and counselor Canon Martin, I know that that's pushing you right up against another commitment, but would that hypothetically work for you? >> Yeah, I will attempt to hold it, but if there's a work meeting, I I can't get out of um >> so totally get it. >> Yeah, >> Lynn, I know this is miserable for us, but um still open for you. Yeah, I I just want to say I think that the nature of this discussion requires that we try to all be there and if we can't then we Yeah, >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Um councelor but so so as of right now if we schedule the meeting Athena, are you available? >> Um you you're asking Tuesday the 15th 3:30 to 5:30? >> Yep. >> Uh yeah, that's fine. Finance Committee meets right before but that's fine. >> Yep. Councelor Ryan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so let's put it on our calendars and Athena I will send you an agenda now or tomorrow morning if that's okay. Um and I will so I'll we'll hold 3:30 to 5:30 on Tuesday the 15th. Does that sound right? Okay. If something does come up on anyone's calendar, please email me as soon as you know because I agree with Lynn both the we'll be both discussing the town manager evaluation process and continued discussion on RO um because we want to keep these things moving. Uh and I agree that it is pretty critical that we all be here for both of those conversations. So uh I want to thank you all very much. I um I appreciate how the conversation moved today and I think that if we can really keep focused on a um what do we need in order to be at a yes for some iteration of an RO um then we'll continue to to move forward. I understand we may not get a perfect vote, but maybe we can make something. Remember, we are hypothetically representative of a larger council. So, we want to get something that uh would pass at a coun at the council level and and um and meet the needs of our community. So, let's keep keep that hat on as we as we move forward in this. But, thank you all for your participation and effort today. Um Lynn, you're going to send me town manager evaluation stuff. I will put it in a packet for the next meeting. Um, and I'll make sure that the memo that we were discussing goes in the packet from this meeting. Any last uh Oh, we have one more thing. Sorry. We have minutes to approve. Um, is there a motion to approve the minutes of I think it's August 11th. I saw >> so moved. >> Um, thank you. Is there a second? >> My second. >> All right. I'm going to call the vote. Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Councelor Kenner Martin. I >> Lynn Griezer >> I >> did I do councelor Ryan already? >> I >> going on with me today and I am an I as well. Um all right that will do it. I don't think that I don't think there were any other minutes. Yeah, that's it. Okay. Thank you all very much. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your evening. I will see you. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Someone someone I had >> I moved to ajourn or you seconded it. >> Thank you. Um, calling a vote on that one. Councelor Lord >> I. >> Councelor Ryan >> I. >> Councelor Hannah Martin >> I. >> Lynn >> I. >> And I am an I as well. We are adjourned. It is 6 8:24. Um, thank you all. Have a lovely evening. I appreciate you all very much. >> Night.