CRC Members Present: Héctor López (Chair), Denise Stone (Vice Chair), Robert Ueland (Recorder), Hank Miggins, Ric Alexander, TJ Browning, Mia Butzbaugh, Doug Montgomery
City Staff Present: Gary Blackmer (City Auditor), Richard Rosenthal (IPR Director)
Brainstormed list of items working well under the current structure
Brainstormed list of items not working well under the current structure
In-depth discussion/brainstorming about several of the identified problems (listed in order of collective ranking in importance)
I. Size of CRC
II. What recourse if IPR or IAD rejects CRC’s decisions?
III. Review of officer-involved shootings and deaths in custody
IV. CRC’s ability to act
V. Is the ordinance and process tilted in favor of the police? Is there too much emphasis on maintaining relationship with and involvement of PPB?
VI. Should the CRC have accountable staff support?
VII. Are the process too legalistic?
VIII. Is the CRC getting message about its role to the community? (PPB, City Council, citizens)
IX. Lawsuits’ interference with CRC hearings
X. Agenda management
XI. Nomination form and process for appointment to CRC
It was recognized that there was an impasse between the CRC and the Auditor/IPR on the selection process. Chair López recommended that if the intent is to eliminate the CRC from the selection process, the Auditor should draw up a revision of the ordinance reflecting this and present it to the City Council.
Mia Butzbaugh moved that the CRC accept proposed changes to the protocol that would reflect the current ordinance granting the CRC the power to nominate new members. TJ Browning seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3.
XIII. Mia Butzbaugh led a discussion procedure for presentation to the Bonneau appeal to City Council.
Bob Ueland made a motion to request City Council to delay the hearing. Doug Montgomery seconded the motion. It was suggested that one month delay would be needed. Director Rosenthal pointed out that it is not necessary to request a delay from Council. All the CRC needs to do is request that the Director give them more time, and they will be given more time, but he believes that one month is excessive.
Bob Ueland amended his motion to inform the IPR Director that the CRC needs one month to prepare for the hearing. Director Rosenthal agreed without a vote to delay the hearing for one month from the date of this meeting.
Mia Butzbaugh requested that Director Rosenthal provide a copy of the IPR hearing report to the CRC member who was drafting the CRC presentation. Mr. Rosenthal agreed to consider this request and get back to CRC with his response.
(Héctor López left at this point.)
XIV. Hank Miggins led a discussion of the appeal declination protocol.
Director Rosenthal suggested that rather than having just two members review IPR appeal declinations, that all the CRC members review the case and vote on whether or not they concur with the declination. He proposed that the CRC members could be given a specific amount of time (e.g., two weeks) to come in and review the case and that if a certain number of members (e.g., three members) voted to hold a hearing, the hearing would be held.
Another option suggested by Director Rosenthal was to not have any declinations.
A third option suggested by Director Rosenthal was that he give the CRC a summary of the case and they then vote on whether or not to decline the appeal.
Director Rosenthal agreed to draft protocol language and bring it to the CRC at the next meeting.
TJ Browning led the discussion of the protocol regarding the conduct of hearings.
Hank Miggins made a motion and it was seconded that any CRC member may make a motion to change a CRC decision after a conference committee meeting. The motion failed by a vote of 2-5.
Yes: Miggins, Ueland
No: Browning, Stone, Butzbaugh, Montgomery, Alexander
Mia Butzbaugh made a motion to redraft this protocol and that the conference committee be omitted from the amended protocol. The motion was seconded and carried by a vote of 4-3.
Yes: Browning, Stone, Butzbaugh, Montgomery
No: Alexander, Miggins, Ueland
No other changes to this protocol were made.
With the exception of a few minor changes that were submitted in writing with regard to other protocols, no further changes were suggested.