►
From YouTube: Citizen Police Review Commission - 11/4/2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening,
everyone
is
we,
it
seems
as
though
we
have
a
quorum
here
on
november
4th
2020
wednesday
for
the
citizen
police
review
commission.
If
I
can
have
a
motion
to
to
start
the
meeting.
A
Second,
thank
you
race
for
rick
for
motioning.
Second,
second,
thank
you
shawna
for
seconding
that
I'll
all
agree
say:
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
having
an
oppose.
We,
the
citizen
police
review
commission,
will
will
commence
on
november
4th
2020..
A
Before
we
begin.
Of
course,
I
will
read.
C
A
Perfect
all
right!
Well,
so
we
called
to
order
already.
So
if
we
can
have
an
approval,
if
we
can
have
someone
to
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
october
7th
2020,
which
was
our
last
meeting.
E
A
Thank
you
jamal
for
a
second
I'll
all
agree.
Please
say.
B
A
Having
no
opposition
october,
the
approval
of
the
october
7
2020
meetings
will
be
well,
it
will
be
approved
and
answered
all
right.
Moving
on
to
our
next
item
on
our
agenda,
we
have
public
comment.
I
was
informed
that
we
actually
do
have
public
public
comment
today.
I'm
so
sorry
guys
so
I'll
open
the
floor.
F
So
I
guess
that's
me,
I'm
jenny,
karlovitz
and
my
my
comment
is
because
I
listened
to
the
human
services
meeting
last
night
and
they
were
speaking
about
two
things.
Police
related,
so
one
was
that
the
response
of
the
police
was
violent
in
response
to
the
other
person,
and
so
my
concern
is
just
that
the
police
should
be
de-escalating
violence,
not
if
they're
violent,
it's
okay
for
us
to
be
violent.
I
I
want
everybody
to
be
safe,
but
I
want.
F
I
want
violence,
honored
and
I,
the
the
the
de-escalation
to
me,
also
applies
with
the
police
and
particularly
the
the
brought
in
police
for
saturday
night's
demonstrations,
and
I'm
just
I'm
concerned
about
violence
being
escalated
by
the
police
yeah,
and
I
felt
like
I
needed
to
say
something.
So
thank
you
for
listening.
A
Okay,
so
we
will
continue
on
our
agenda,
that's
down
to
four
and
we're
going
to
talk
about
new
business,
so
we
have
three
complaints
that
we've
reviewed
this
past
month
that
we
will
like
open
up
for
discussion
tonight.
So
if
I
can
have
someone
to
motion
to
discuss
department,
departmental
inquiry,
number
20-07.
B
H
We
are
because
the
commission
was
not
formed.
It
should
have
been
formed
january
1st.
However,
for
whatever
reason
it
was
not
so
a
lot
of
these
complaints
were
backlogged.
They
were
completed.
The
investigations
were
done,
everything
was
handled
on
our
end,
but
we
didn't
have.
They
didn't
go
to
hsc.
H
Some
of
the
complaints
were
going
to
hsc
when
hsc
was
actually
meeting,
but
due
to
covid
and
everything
going
on
hsc
wasn't
meeting
very
often
so
there
was
only
like,
I
think,
prior
to
you
guys
being
formed,
maybe
two
or
three
hsc
meetings
for
the
entire
year.
So
these
complaints
were
not
getting
seen
by
hsc
and
then
at
a
certain
point.
We
decided
to
hold
them
for
you
guys
once
you
were
trained,
so
you
could
review
them
so
that
way
they
went
through
the
process
since
their
2020
cases.
B
So
the
recommendations
from
the
deputy
commissioner
or
whoever
finalized
this
are
those
already
done.
H
No
so
once
they
come
to
through
there,
it
goes
to
to
you
all,
and
then
you
guys
will
provide
your
recommendations
and
then
once
we
get
the
recommendations.
So,
like
the
cases
from
last
time,
we
did
a
report
on.
I
have
not
presented
those
cases
back
to
the
chief
for
his
final
determination
because
we
just
have
that
approved.
H
H
H
H
So
it's
out
of
out
of
my
hands,
I
mean
ultimately,
I'm
just
just
the
pastor
of
information.
So
but
at
least
different
people
are
going
to
review
it
different
supervisors
and
then
we'll
come
back
with
it
and
then
real
quick
too.
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
commander
ryan
glue,
he's
the
new
commander
for
office
of
professional
standards.
A
Welcome
commander
glenn.
I
Hi,
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
being
here,
I'm
probably
not
going
to
say
much
unless
asked
a
question
because
I'm
new
to
the
process,
but
I
have
been
talking
to
aaron
and
he's
brought
me
up
to
speed
with
where
you
guys
are
at
what
your
needs
are
going
in
the
future
and
over
the
course.
The
next
couple
months
into
2021
we'll
be
looking
to
make
this
efficient
and
as
smooth
as
possible
and
get
caught
up
with
a
backlog.
I
So
just
know
that
whatever
bumps
we
have
in
the
road
right
now
and
inefficiencies
aaron-
and
I
have
already
talked
about
it-
we'll
be
looking
to
evolve
the
process
and
make
the
most
of
everybody's
time
and
make
transparency
oversight
as
effective
as
possible.
H
Great
welcome
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
thing
kimberly
had
asked
that
we
do
a
list
of
cases
that
are
pending,
so
that
has
been
added
for
you
all
to
our
our
google
drive.
So
you
can
go
in
there
and
see
what
cases
are
pending
and
kind
of
where,
where
they're
at
in
the
scheduling
of
when
you
guys,
will
review
them
and
then,
when
they'll
go
to
hsc
just
so,
you
can
kind
of
see
where
our
mindsets
at
and
if,
if
it's
too
much
work
or
not
enough
work,
we
can
those
numbers
are.
A
So
to
rick's
point
I
I
did
have
a
question,
but
I
think
I
will
ask
it
after
we
are
done
with
the
review
of
the
complaints.
That's
current!
That's
before
us
right
tonight.
B
A
C
Last
thing
to
add,
I
know
that
we
are
going
to
make
a
determination
of
how
many
cases
is
the
next
set
of
cases
for
the
next
month,
which
will
include,
I
believe,
the
previous
review
of
the
previous
case
we
saw
last
month,
so
we
in
addition
to
because,
since
we're
talking
about
process,
I
think
we
should
just
get
out
the
way
in
addition
to
that,
the
report
that
we
create
for
you
all
to
review
that
goes
along
with
the
the
case
files
that
you
see
is
done
by
one
staff,
member
and
they're
also
doing
the
redaction
of
the
video.
C
So
what
we
aaron-
and
I
were
discussing
with
that
individual-
is
like
how
much
time
do
they
need
to
be
able
to
prepare
for
this
meeting
so
that
you
all
have
everything
you
need
and
the
question
around
the
body
body.
Cam
footage
was
come
to
question
like
do.
C
We
need
to
redact
everyone
considering
that
only
two
of
them
so
far
you
all
have
decided
to
review
and
so
we're
looking
at
a
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
you
all
to
have
a
chance
to
do
a
first
look
at
the
cases
to
then
identify
to
us
which
cases
we
should
start
preparing
for
so
that
at
the
next
meeting
or
before
then
we'll
have
them
ready
to
go
because
to
try
to
redact
all
the
cases.
C
If
we
are
because
if
our
case
load
does
increase,
that
would
mean
that
will
require
those
all
body
cams
to
the
videos
to
all
be
reviewed
and
redacted,
so
that
they'll
be
prepared
for
your
meeting.
So
we're
thinking
about
seven
days
after
we.
The
cases
are
sent
to
you
all
for
review
to
send
an
email.
C
Just
saying
have
you
have
you
had
a
chance
to
review
and
were
there
any
cases
that
you
would
like
for
us
to
begin
the
process
of
redaction,
since
it
does
take
quite
a
few
days
for
her
to
do
that
job,
in
addition
to
the
other
work
that
she's
doing
to
prepare
for
this
meeting?
For
you
all
so
again,
that's
just
something
for
you
to
think
about,
and
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
you
can
give
us
your
your.
A
Direction
go
ahead.
You
have
something
else
to
say
kimberly.
Oh
no,
I
was
gonna
put
myself
on
you,
sorry,
okay,
all
right!
So
having
discussed
that
and
haven't
already
well
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
remember
if
we
if
we
took
a
vote
on
actually
discussing.
A
So
let's
do
that.
All
in
agreement
to
discuss
di
number
20-07
say
aye
hi
any
oppose
having
no
opposition.
We
will
be
begin
discussion,
aaron.
H
Sure
so
di2007
kurt
the
incident
occurred
on
march
17
2020
the
complainant
had
called
because
911
saw
a
neighbor
who
he
knew
was
mentally
unstable,
being
harassed
by
some
teens.
He
didn't
know
the
whole
story
and
he
just
wanted
to
report
to
the
police
that
this
was
occurring.
The
officer
I
came
to
the
scene.
H
He
spoke
with
the
teens
and
he
spoke
with
the
gentleman
that
the
complainant
had
called
about
the
complainant.
Just
was
not
too
happy
with
the
way
that
he
was
approached.
He
had
his
arms
crossed
and
the
officer
was
asking
him
if
he
was
armed.
If,
if
you
know
he
had
any
weapons
on
him,
anything
like
that
the
complainant
did
invite
him
to
pat
him
down,
which
the
accused
officer
did
not
do.
The
accused
officer
did
interview
the
complainant
regarding
what
he
witnessed.
H
And
essentially,
obviously
reading
this,
he
did
not
have
the
the
full
story
and
he
didn't
claim
to
his
his
take,
though,
was
that
just
the
way
he
was
approached.
He
was
not
pleased,
so
it
was
rule
1,
2
18,
which
is
the
disrespectful
behavior
and
then
rule
20,
which
is
the
failure
to
provide
prompt,
correct
or
courteous
service
and
then
also
listed
was
alexa
pull
policy
for
report
preparation
because
it
did
not
contain
his
report
did
not
contain
the
complainant
side
of
the
story,
which
was
part
of
the
incident
that
occurred.
H
Did
violate
rule
1
and
the
report,
preparation,
lexical
policy
and
thought
that
there
should
be
shift
level
counseling
for
the
accused
officer.
The
patrol
commander
concurred,
as
did
the
deputy
chief
as
well.
So
that's
where
it's
at
shift
level
counseling
for
the
report.
Preparation.
A
So
I
read
this
report.
I
tend
to
agree
with
it
to
a
certain
point.
One
of
my
concerns
in
this
is
that
the
complainant
is
the
one
who
called
called
the
police
to
the
incident.
A
It
concerns
me
to
the
fact
that
one
of
the
first
one
of
the
first
things
that
the
officer
asked
to
complain
if,
if
he
had
a
gun,
I
don't
know
why
that
assumption
was
made.
A
It
doesn't
say
why
he
made
that
assumption
or
anything
like
that,
but
to
for
that
to
be
one
of
the
first
questions
that
that's
asked
of
a
complainant
or
anyone
where
an
officer
is
responding
to
a
call
unless
it
was
because
of
a
of
a
weapon
I
mean
I
saw
somewhere
in
here
that
and
again
I
haven't
heard
the
call
that
someone
told
them
that
there's
a
firearm
there,
but
I
don't
know
how
you
know
if
that
was
substantiated
or
not.
So
that's
my
only
concern
other
than
that.
A
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
the
recommendations.
Anyone
else.
G
To
address
your
concerns,
junior
because
I
started
reading
it
the
same
way
and
then
I
reread
it
at
time
stamp
1152
the
officer
responding,
speaks
to
the
one
of
the
teenage,
the
male
witnesses,
and
he
says
the
complainant
had
a
gun,
pulled
it
out
and
said:
I'm
not
going
to
do
this
with
you
today
and
then
it
wasn't
until
timestamp
2012.
G
So
eight
minutes
later
after
the
officer
was
told
by
a
teenage
witness
that
that
the
complainant
had
a
gun,
did
the
officer
actually
ask
him
if
he
did
so
I
mean
originally,
when
I
was
kind
of
reading
it?
I
read
it
the
same
way
you
did
where
it
seemed
like
an
overreaction
to
ask
somebody
if
they
have
a
gun
first
off,
but
it
seems
like
he
really
used
a
lot
of
restraint
in
waiting
to
see
like
what
the
tenor
was
and
of
this
particular
complainant.
G
G
But
I
agree
with
the
internal
affairs
that
you
know
the
only
the
only
mistake
that
this
officer
made
was
a
you
know
that
policy
323
in
his
report
preparation,
but
otherwise
this
this
is
really
textbook.
I
think
very
good
police
work
just
because
you
there
was
information
that
that
there
was
a
gun
on
the
scene
so
for
officer
safety
and
safety
of
of
the
teens
involved
in
safety
of
the
the
gentleman
who
was
in
involuntarily
committed.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Does
anyone
else
have
any
discussion
on
this
particular
complaint.
B
D
G
I
move
to
move
di2007
to
hsc.
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
I'll
all
agree,
say:
aye,
aye,
aye,
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
having
no
opposition
department
inquiry
number
20-07
will
be
recommended
to
move
forward
to
hsc
for
further
review
all
right.
A
Our
second
complaint
that
we
have
is
departmental
inquiry
number
20-08.
This
was
a
july
15
incident.
If
I
can
have
someone
to
motion
it
to
start
to
begin
discussion
on.
E
A
Having
no
opposition,
we
will
begin
our
discussion
on
di
number
20-08.
H
So
28-08
is
a
complaint
where
the
complainant
said
the
accused
sergeant
stopped
her
for
using
a
cell
phone,
but
she
was
given
a
ticket
for
failure
to
wear
her
seat
belt.
She
said
that
the
accused
sergeant
either
made
a
mistake
or
intentionally
stopped
her
to
give
her
a
false
ticket.
Falsely
accuse
her
of
not
wearing
her
seatbelt,
I'm
sorry
to
her
phone.
She
said
she
was
not
on
the
phone
and
she
was
not
driving.
H
H
Was
so
she
so
the
the
city
code
in
evanston
is,
if
you
even
have
it
in
your
hand,
you
don't
have
to
be
utilizing
it
like.
If
it's
an
ipod,
you
can
have
an
ipod
which
is
oddly
enough,
but
you
can't
have
your
phone,
even
if
you're
putting
on
music,
so
anything
you're
doing
with
your
phone.
It's
got
to
be
hands-free,
so
I
he
pulled
up
next
to
her
and
said
something
to
her
about
not
being
on
the
phone
she
claimed
that
he
exhibited
aggressive
behavior
during
the
stop,
so
the
the
sergeant.
H
He
was
not
aware
that
he
wrote
a
wrong
ticket.
He
actually
made
a
note
on
the
ticket
and
I
don't
know
if,
if
you
guys
saw
that
in
the
packet,
there
was
a
note
on
there
stating
about
the
screen
or
where
she
she
was
holding
it.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we
knew
that
it
was
probably
a
clerical
error.
H
H
H
But
if
it
was
a
clerical
mistake,
it
was
an
honest
mistake
and
the
fact
that
he
didn't
make
a
note
on
the
ticket
for
the
phone
rather
than
the
seatbelt.
I
she
recommended
no
discipline,
so
there's
no
other
supervisor,
since
it
was
at
sergeant
level
with
no
commander.
So
it's
just
a
deputy
chief
that
reviewed
it.
H
H
B
H
I
mean
that
that's
what
the
city
ordinance
states
and
I
I
believe,
I'd
have
to
read
the
the
state
laws,
the
statute
on
it,
but
it's
it's
hands-free.
So,
even
if
you
have
it
in
your
hand
and
you're,
not
even
using
it,
you
can
be
written
a
ticket.
H
I
know
it's.
This
is
very
black
and
white.
There's
no
gray
area
with
with
this
there
was
there's
discretion,
but
the
the
accused
sergeant.
I
did
not
utilize
his
description.
His
discretion
was
to
write
a
citation
which
he
did.
Someone
else
may
have
given
that
person
a
break
or
may
not
have
even
may
have
just
been
like
put
your
phone
down.
I
can't
speak
to
that
because
I
wasn't
there,
but
yes,
we
all
a
lot
of
people
do
do
that.
But
technically
it
is
a
violation
of
the
law.
A
So
my
question
on
this:
I
read
this
and
I
understand
it
was:
was
she
notified
by
this
officer
because
I
don't
know
if
this
was
a
and
appear
to
court
or
if
it
was
a
just
kind
of
like
a
pay?
The
fine?
I
I
don't
remember.
H
She
was
by
the
sergeant
that
did
the
investigation,
but.
H
I
I
believe,
because
I
was
present
during
the
phone
call-
and
I
don't
see
it
documented
in
here,
but
I
am
pretty
sure
because
of
this
the
right
hand
looking
down.
I
was
on
the
passenger
side
on
on
motor.
I
do
recall
him,
but
it
wasn't
documented
in
here,
but
I
do
recall
him
having
a
conversation
with
her
about
the
ticket
being
written
as
an
error,
and
that
would
have
been
in
court
too.
That
would
have.
He
would
have
to
amend
that
in
court.
A
So
that
would
have
been
my
only
concern
with
the
even
if
it
was
a
cleric
error
it
could
like.
I
don't
know,
you
know
unless
she
was
notified
of
that
something
internal
would
not
have.
D
D
H
This
is
going
back
to
july,
so
you
have
to
pardon
my
memory
on
this.
I'm
pretty
sure
she
did
speak
with
the
chief
of
police
about
the
allegation
initially
when
she
came
in
to
drop
off
the
paperwork
and
I'm
not
100
sure
what
he
did
with
like
what
it
what
happened
at
court,
we
don't
follow
up
with
what
happens
at
court
on
this,
so
I
don't
know
if
this
was
something
that
she
paid
or
something
that
she
fought.
A
All
right
that
was
that
that
was
just.
That
was
my
only
thing
I
mean
like
I
get.
It
was
a
honest
mistake
in
a
clerical
era,
but
like
just
kind
of
like
rechecking,
your
paperwork
before
you
drive
off
from
a
person
could
save
a
lot
of
time
and
frustration,
of
course,
other
than
that.
I
don't
find
that
I
I
I
think
that
the
the
the
report
as
it
is
and
the
investigation
I
agree
with
it
is
anyone
else.
Has
it
have
any
discussion
on
di
20-08.
G
I
actually
nerded
out
and
looked
up
the
city
ordinance
and
the
state
law,
because
I
regularly
mess
with
my
phone
at
stoplights
and
I
also
have
a
teenage
driver
who
doug
trained
in
my
house.
So
this
is
in
accordance
with
the
law
and
the
city
ordinance,
and
I
will
never
touch
my
phone
again
in
the
car,
maybe
not
with.
G
Anywhere
near
me,
but
you
know
I
I
agree
with
this-
was
just
a
clerical
error,
but
sadly
in
accordance
with
the
law
and
will
change
my
personal
habits.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
one
to
us
aaron.
So
I
can
be
in
accordance
with
the
law.
G
Oh
doug,
actually
she
said
she
does
it
all
the
time
but
she's
going
to
stop
doing.
A
It
is
there
any
further
discussion
on
di2008.
H
Yeah,
because
the
ipod
is
not
a
cell
phone,
I
know
it's.
Yes,
you
could,
you
could
have
like
an
mp3
player,
you
cannot
have
an
iphone.
E
G
All
right:
well,
I
mean,
if
anybody's
got
one
of
these
things
on
too
you
can.
You
can
have
a
watch,
but
not
if
it's
hooked
up
to
cellular
only
if
it's
all.
G
But
you
can't
be
like
doing
this
on
your
eye
on
your
apple
watch,
if
it's
cellular,
but
if
it's
wi-fi
enabled
only
under
state
lot,
looks
like
it's.
Okay,.
A
A
Thank
you,
sean
if
I
can
have
a
second,
please
I
suck
in
that
motion.
Thank
you,
nika.
If
I
can
have
everyone
that
agrees,
please
say:
aye.
A
Having
no
opposition
is
our
recommendation
that
this
moves
forward
to
hsc
di
20
number
20-08
to
be
moved
forward
to
hse.
A
Thank
you
all
there.
Okay,
we
have
our
next
report
that
we
review
and
that
is
di
departmental
inquiry
number
20-09.
A
Thank
you
rick
all
in
agreement,
say
aye,
aye,
aye,
any
apollo,
say
nay,
having
no
opposition.
We
will
begin
our
discussion
on
departmental
inquiry.
Number
20-09.
H
So
this
complaint,
the
incident
occurred
on
july
12th
of
this
year.
The
accused
officer
observed
a
vehicle
speeding
or
going
at
a
high
rate
of
speed
on
dodge.
I
he
initiated
a
traffic
stop.
I
approached
the
vehicle
introduced
himself
explained
the
reason
for
the
stop,
which
was
39
miles
an
hour
in
a
25
that
he
had
clocked
on
his
in-car
radar.
H
H
She
was
written
the
tickets
and
the
sergeant
did
state
that
the
tent
appeared
to
be
illegal,
and
just
because
she
is
a
private
investigator
does
not
give
her
the
right
to
have
the
windshield
tinted
in
the
to
the
degree
that
it
was
tinted
and
all
the
other
windows
as
well.
H
So
the
traffic
sergeant.
So
I'm
sorry,
it
was
rule.
Two
was
the
rule
that
the
investigator
deemed
fit
and
the
traffic
sergeant
exonerated
the
officer.
The
deputy
chief
concurred
with
that
and
exonerated
the
officer
as
well,
and
there
is
no
commander
in
traffic.
So
that's
why
there's
only
the
two
supervisors
on
this.
A
So
when
I
read
this
case,
I
compared
it
to
a
previous
case
that
we
reviewed
in
that
the
complainant
requested
a
requested,
a
supervisor
to
come
to
the
scene
and
in
this
case
the
officer
complied
immediately
without
any
question
or
argument
with
it,
as
as
opposed
to
a
previous
complaint
that
we
review,
and
so
I
can
commend
him
on
that
point.
At
least,
I
have
no
discussion
other
than
that.
On
this,
I
I
agree
with
the
investigation
that
happened
from
the
from
the
materials
that
we
were
given
to
review.
E
Just
a
point,
this
clarification,
I
know
we
discussed
it
last
last
meeting.
However,
if
a
supervisor
is
requested,
that's
something
that
has
to
be
done.
According
to
epd
policy,.
H
I
it's
something
that
I
don't
know
that
it's
written
anywhere
in
policy,
but
it's
practice
that
you
call
a
supervisor
out.
If
a
citizen
requests
a
supervisor
I
mean
technically,
it
would
be
a
rule
violation
of
rule
two,
not
calling
a
supervisor,
because
that
would
be
any
action
that
impedes
operation
or
efficiency
of
the
department
and
its
members.
H
In
my
my
view,
because
if
if
a
citizen
is
asking
for
a
supervisor
to
respond
to
clarify
something
or
to
just
go
over
something
with
them,
rather
than
arguing
with
the
citizen,
you
would
want
to
call
out
a
supervisor,
and
I
guess
that
could
also
fall
under
the
failure
to
provide
prompt,
correct
and
courteous
service
too
for
rule
20..
So
there's
nothing
specific
to
that.
But
it
is.
H
It
is
past
practice
and
we
do
if
a
supervisor
is
called
a
supervisor
responds
immediately
and
a
citizen
doesn't
have
a
right
to
have
a
supervisor
out
there.
Just
I
I
I
kind
of
take
it
as
the
same
thing
as
if,
if
you
call
you
know
and
talk
to
customer
service
and
you're,
not
getting
what
you
like,
you
can
ask
for
a
supervisor
and
and
pick
it
up
a
level.
So.
I
What
what
aaron
said
you
know
pete
officers
have
to
if
there's
a
a
practice,
that's
communicated
to
them
verbally
or
in
writing.
That's
well
known.
They
have
to
comply
with
it.
It
would
take
an
extraordinary
set
of
circumstances,
for
if
somebody
requests
for
a
supervisor
that
one
one
would
not
be
immediately
requested,
the
officer
doesn't
have
to
stop
their
actions
or
investigation
into
a
traffic
stop
or
their
enforcement
action,
because
they're
waiting
for
a
supervisor.
Typically,
they
can
continue.
So
it's
well
known,
it's
been
orally
verbally,
been
given
the
direction.
I
So
it's
it's
the
expectation,
less
an
extraordinarily
extraordinary
amount
of
circumstance.
The
circumstances
are
extraordinary
and
dictate
otherwise,
and
that
would
be
an
extreme
rarity.
A
All
right
seeing
there's
no
further
discussion
on
di
20-09.
If
I
can
have
a
motion
to
move
this
forward
to
hsc.
A
Thank
you
jamal.
All
that
agree
say
aye,
aye,
aleppo,
say
nay,
having
no
opposition
20
days.
I
didn't
hear,
but
one
eye.
Oh,
they
all
said
it.
At
the
same
time,
I
thought
they
all.
C
A
Say
it
again,
all
in
greece
and
I
now
to
clear
now:
okay,
having
no
opposition,
this
commission
removed
department
in
create
number
20-09
to
hsc
for
further
recommendation.
A
That
concludes
our
new
business
for
today.
So
moving
further
along
on
the
agenda,
we
do
have
old
business
here,
which.
B
H
You
so
yes,
there
are
complaints,
you're,
you're,
not
you're,
seeing
all
citizen
complaints
so
you're,
seeing
all
of
the
complaint
registers,
which
are
the
citizen.
Complaints
that
are
have
the
sworn
affidavit
typically
are
the
cases
that
are
like,
like
the
one
with
the
transcripts
that
are
a
little
more
egregious.
H
I
guess
you
could
say
and
then
all
the
departmental
inquiries
are
either
start
off
as
a
complaint
register
and
someone
doesn't
follow
up
and
that
since
it's
a
citizen
complaint
we
just
categorize
it
as
that.
So
any
citizen
complaint
will
go
through
this
commission,
so
you
are
seeing
them
so
so
far,
the
only
one
you
have
not
seen
from
this
year
was
di2002
and
that
was
given
to
hsc
directly
in
april,
and
that
was
the
last
time
they
had
met
so
that
one
was
ready
to
go.
H
They
saw
some,
I
think
some
2019
cases
and
then
that
one
so
you're
seeing
every
other
one
right
now
we
have
18
total
for
the
year
and
we
just
saw
di2009
right.
So
I
was
hoping
for
the
next
meeting
to
get
you
four
cases
and
we're
getting
pretty
close.
H
I
mean
the
next
next
set
of
cases.
We
have
one
that's
from
july
and
then
we're
into
august
and
september
for
the
complaints
for
the
date
that
they
were
initiated
right.
So
we're
get
we're
getting
pretty
close
to
being
being
concurrent
with.
What's
going
on.
C
Correct
so
I
will
speak
to
this
as
we
discussed
at
our
last
meeting.
As
per
these,
the
ordinance
that
that
governs
this
committee,
a
report
will
be
given
to
human
services,
and
so,
after
our
conversation
last
week,
what
we're
presenting
to
you
are
the
cases
that
will
be
going
to
human
services
in
november.
C
That
includes,
if
you
see
the
summary
of
report
and
the
findings
along
with
at
the
end,
the
commission
summary
if
there
were
any
comments
made
that
needed
to
be
added
to
the
summary
we
added
it.
We
added
those
comments,
so
the
one
that
we
did
not
move
forward
was
the
one
that
we
asked
to
be
re
reviewed.
So
that
summary
will
include
that
context
of
the
of
the
request.
C
So
we
will
say
what
the
request
was
asked
of
for
with
the
for
ops
to
do
in
regards
to
review,
and
then
we
will
put
the
submission
of
whatever
comes
out
of
the
review
once
you
already
re-review
it,
so
that
one
has
not
is
not
in
front
of
you
today,
because
we
are
not
ready
to
present
that
to
hsc.
C
If
you
are
agreeable
to
these
summary
reports,
then
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
them
forward
and
they
will
be
the
record
that
will
be
submitted
to
hsc.
As
part
is
your
report.
D
Okay,
I
just
had
one
question
on
both
of
them:
actually,
the
portion
that
says
commission
summary
where
it
states
that
the
members
of
the
commission
did
not
provide
any
comments,
concerns
or
recommendations.
In
regards
to
the
thoroughness,
I
thought
that
was
a
little
bit
inaccurate,
because
we
did
discuss
both
of
them
and
we
just
didn't.
You
know
we
agreed
with
the
the
recommendations
that
were
made,
that
we
agreed
with
the
thoroughness
of
the
investigation
for
both
20-04
and
20-05,
and
so
it
just
seems
the
way
it's
phrased
here.
It's
a
little
misleading.
D
C
Would
you
like
to
learn
it
because
I'm
struggling
with
how
to
speak
for
you
all
cause?
I
am
not.
You
know.
I
went
back
and
listened
to
the
the
meeting,
so
you
all
discuss
the
the
investigation
but
as
to
the
therialness
of
like,
unlike
like,
for
instance,
the
previous
cr
like
there
was
concerns
about
the
review,
like
the
pro
of
the
the
review,
and
there
were
some
process
concerns
that
were
raised.
So
that
was
noted
in
these.
C
D
Me
some
guidance
yeah.
My
suggestion
would
be
to
say
that
you
know
the
the
commission
discussed
the
incident
and
agreed
with
the
thoroughness.
I
don't
know
if
others
have,
you
know
another
other
wording
that
they'd
prefer,
but
just
to
make
it
clear
that
it
was
discussed
and
that
the
the
recommendations
were
agreed
with
by
the
commission.
A
A
C
C
A
So
we
just
had
a
discussion
about
the
summaries
and
it
was
brought
up
that
maybe
the
the
language
should
be
changed
in
the
commission
summary.
There
was
suggested
language
that
should
be
put
in.
So
if
I
can
have
someone
to
motion
that
the
that
the
amendment
is
made
to
the
commission
summary
so
that
we
can
move
forward
on
this.
C
G
I
have
a
question
with
like
I:
don't
I'm
not
sure
that
even
so,
the
only
out
of
the
cases
that
we've
done
that
cr
2001
is
the
only
one
we've
had
that
we
have
not
concurred
with
the
investigation.
G
So
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
we're
ever
really
not
in
agreement
with
the
thoroughness,
because
I
have
found
the
thoroughness
to
be
like
on
point.
So
I
think
it's
more
that
we
just
don't
concur
with
the
findings.
C
So
here's
the
thing
within
the
ordinance
it
doesn't
give
you
it's
not
directing
you
to
find
it's
not
directing
you
to
find
concurrence
with
the
findings.
It
is
directing
you
for
fine
concurrence
with
the
the
review,
so
I
don't
know
that
technical
like
how
that
you
know,
unfortunately,
I'm
not
ops
so
at
the
time
that
ops
staff
at
that
time,
probably
is
the
one
that
helped
put
that
language
together.
C
H
I
mean
it
does
say
and
if
you
go
to
the
ordinance
in
2,
15,
5
powers
and
duties
and
then
section
a
and
then
subsection
5
is
the
findings
determined
by
office
of
professional
standards.
We
don't
find
any.
We
we
don't
give
any
findings.
Our
findings
are
the
investigation,
so
we
just
do
an
investigation.
We
send
it
down.
So
I
think
even
the
way
that's
written
is
erroneous.
H
Yeah,
it
is
because
we
don't
have
findings
because
we're
supposed
to
be
the
independent
review
of
this,
like
we
do
the
investigation.
That's
why
we'll
never
issue
discipline
we
do
the
like.
The
discipline
comes
back
to
us.
You
know,
after
the
chief
signs
off
on
it
and
we
issue
the
discipline,
but
we
have
no
recommendation
of
discipline
that
does
not
come
through
this
office.
We
have
no
say-so
in
it
whatsoever
and
to
do
that
or
to
keep
it
fair.
That's
why?
So?
H
We
can
investigate
this
without
any
discipline
in
mind,
we're
just
putting
out
the
facts,
and
then
you
know
the
the
sergeants
commanders
deputy
chiefs
and
then
the
chief
and
you
guys
review
what
the
investigation
entailed.
So
I
think
the
findings
determined
by
office
of
professional
standards,
maybe
should
state
the
findings
determined
by
supervisors.
Reviewing,
I
don't
know
how
hard
it
is
to
amend
that,
but
we
never
give
a
determination.
H
Yeah,
so
I
mean
it's
verbatim,
it
says
the
purpose
of
the
commission's
review
shall
be
to
determine
if
the
completed
internal
investigation
prior
to
any
final
decision
on
discipline
made
by
the
chief
of
police
is
complete,
thorough,
objective
and
fair
based
on
one
through
five,
so
the
thoroughness
to
which
it
was
investigated.
The
extent
to
witness
interviews
evidence
things
of
that
nature.
H
The
manner
and
tone
in
which
the
interviews
were
conducted
and
the
way
I
I
suppose
that
would
go
to
how
it's
recorded
and
written
and
then
the
process
of
seeking,
collecting
and
maintaining
the
evidence
pertaining
the
investigation
and
then
the
last
one
is
the
findings
determined
by
the
office
of
professional
standards.
H
So
I
don't
know
how
that's.
I
guess
that's
open
for
interpretation,
because
to
me
the
findings
determined
by
office
of
professional
standards
are
basically
that
you
know
the
the
off
the
ops
investigation
that
you
guys
are
seeing
so
that
memo
that
you
get
from
the
ops
investigator
is
the
findings,
because
it's
the
findings
of
you
know
the
investigation.
It's
not
a
disciplinary.
Finding,
though,.
D
Discussed
and
agreed
with
the
recommendations
set
forth
in
the
investigation,
to
the
extent
that
it's
something
that
we
are
agreeing
with
and
moving
forward,
obviously
for
the
ones
that
we
don't
agree
with,
that
wouldn't
be
the
summary,
but
for
the
ones
that
are
moving
forward.
Would
that
language
work.
A
I
think
what
kimberly
was
saying
that
it's
not
up
to
us
to
agree
with
the
findings
of
the
investigating
or
the
the
officers,
but
just
the
investigation
if
it
was
thorough.
The
only
thing
with
that
is
that
I
don't
know
that
we
have
a
problem
with
the
thoroughness
of
the
investigation,
but
rather
some
of
the
findings
of
the
investigation,
and
you
know
now
it
could
be
said
that
the
findings
is,
and
that
is
evidence
that
the
investigation
wasn't
thorough.
D
Well,
the
language
of
a
complete,
thorough,
objective
and
fair
right,
so
that,
if
we're
seeing
whatever
is
being
recommended
by
the-
I
guess,
the
deputy
as
it
goes
through
the
process.
So
when
it
comes
to
us
it's
coming
from
the
the
deputy
chief,
so
I
think
in
my
view
the
word
recommendations
encompasses
sort
of
the
investigation
as
we
receive
it
and
whether
it's
complete
thorough,
objective
and
fair.
If
we
don't
agree
with
any
of
those,
then
our
summary
was.
That
would
be
that
we
don't
agree
with
the
recommendations
that
it's
not.
C
Maybe
what
I
should
do
is
I
should
just
go
back
in
fix
this
by
putting
in
the
language
within
the
ordinance
and
saying
that
you
know
in
review
of
the
complaint
the
commission
reviewed
and
agreed
that
it
meets
these
objectives
that
are
listed
in
the
ordinance,
because
what
happened
last
meeting
is
that
when
you
had
the
cr,
you
all
did
not
think
that
it
was
thoroughly
reviewed
because
you
had
other
rules
that
you
felt
should
have
been
investigated
or
should
have
been
reviewed
before
a
determination
would
be
made,
and
so
you,
what
your
request
was,
is
to
go
back
to
say.
C
C
Technically
you
did
your
job
and
you
can
say
we
we
requested
them
to
review
it.
We
don't
agree,
but
I
guess
I
don't
know.
That's
your.
You
know
that's
your
program
to
say,
but
this
is
where
it's
tricky,
because
it's
like,
I
don't
know,
really
how
how
to
work
this.
For
you
all
and
I'm
sorry
that
you
know
I'm
not
being
very
helpful
right
now,.
G
I
want
to
defer
to
the
people
with
law
degrees,
but
you
know
for
me
it's
just
I'm,
I'm
just
struggling
with
the
word
thorough,
because
I
think
that
the
only
way
that
we
were
able
to
have
the
discussion
that
we
had
last
month
on
that
cr
was
because
it
was
so
thoroughly
done
by
ops
if
it
if
the
investigation
wasn't
as
thorough
as
it
was,
we
probably
would
have
just
been
like
okay,
let's
move
on,
but
so
I
guess
I'm
just
struggling
with
the
word
thorough,
but
I
really
like
what
the
language
that
nika
talked
about.
G
You
know
maybe,
having
that
language
a
little
bit,
you
know
more
extensive,
saying
that
we're
disagreeing
with
whether
something
was
done
with
you
know
whether
it
was
thorough,
objective
and
fair
and
we're
not
really
pointing
fingers
saying
it
wasn't
thorough,
because
I
think
that
aaron
and
jeff
have
been
doing
an
outstanding
job
and
that's
the
only
reason
that
things
have
been
able
to
move
smoothly
for
us.
C
But
I
think
we
can
clean
this
up
really
quickly.
I
just
think
it
just
needs
to
be
done
when
it's,
you
know
light
out,
and
we
have
some
time
to
kind
of
play
around
making
sure
the
right
wording
is
going
to
be
because
that'll
be
our
template
moving
forward.
So
we
don't
have
to
keep
going
back
to
this.
C
They
get
pushed
back,
it
doesn't
still
go
forward.
So,
like
the
previous
committee
structure,
they
may
have
had
a
disagreement,
but
it
just
went.
It
went
straight
to
human
services.
With
that
noted,
the
whole
idea
with
you
all
is
that
we
don't
want
to
just
go
to
human
services.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
thinks
that
at
least
these
issues
were
re-reviewed
so
that
we
can
say.
Yes,
they
were
review
and
we
reviewed
them
again,
and
this
is
what
the
findings
resulted
in.
C
C
Well,
how
about
this?
Because
if
it's
possible
that
we
can
still
take
action
with
as
amended
recognizing
that
that
amendment
will
be
coming,
you
know
not
tonight,
but
after
nick
and
I
meet
and
send
it
out
to
you
all,
I
mean
unless
there's
some
egregiousness
to
it
and
no
and
you
all
say
no,
we
don't
want
to
move
forward
with
it.
Then
that
way
we
can
at
least
have
it
record
it,
and
we
can
move
it
to
human
services.
A
So
it
seemed
like
it
seems
as
though,
without
knowing
the
exact
language-
that's
in
there.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
we
can
all
agree,
but
I
think
we
can't
agree
that
an
amendment
needs
to
be
made.
A
All
right
so
yeah,
so
if
if
kimberly
and
nica
can
reach
out
and
then
we
can
look
forward
to
an
email
regarding
the
language
to
be
used
for
that
amendment
and
then
we
can
take
action
on
it.
At
that
point,.
A
Yeah
all
right
do
we
have
any,
I
know.
Do
we
have
any
further
discussion
on
oh
business,
okay,
so
before
we
we
don't
have
any
executive
session
today.
So
before
we
move
on
to
adjournment
in
this
meeting,
I
did
reach
out
to
kimberly
today
and
aaron
brought
it
up
and
rick
also
touched
upon
it
that
we
are
getting
approximately
three
complaints
per
month
in
order
to
review
and
discuss
at
each
particular
meeting.
The
most
complaints
seem
to
have
been
pretty
straightforward.
A
You
know
it's
absent
one,
and
because
we
did
we
were
formed
later
on
in
the
year.
It
does
let,
as
rich
said,
seems
like
we're
just
trying
to
catch
up
and
constantly
catch
up,
and
we
only
have
two
months
left
in
this
year,
and
so
it
was
I
I
was
wondering
and
leaving
it
up
to
the
commission
on
being
able
to
review
more
complaints
a
month.
I
just
wanted
to
know
how
comfortable
the
commission
was
on
in
doing
that.
B
Well,
I
think
it
depends.
I
mean
you
know
if
we're
playing
catch
up
and
aaron,
you
pretty
much
know
the
type
of
complaints
there
are
I
mean
if
we
had
one,
you
know
that
could
take
an
hour
of
discussion
and
take
you
know,
video
and
and
yeah.
We
had
two.
B
H
H
And
another
one
is
a
discrimination
or
racial
profiling
complaint,
so
those
other,
and
then
those
four
are
not
done.
Those
will
be
at
least
two
of
those
will
be
probably
taking
a
little
more
time
to
go
through
the
other.
Five
are
pretty
straightforward.
Like
this
kind
of
stuff,
the
issue
becomes
two
as
to
what
the
at
our
admin
can
get
done.
So
I
will
check
with
her.
I
can.
H
If
she's
got
all
five
of
those
done,
I
can
get
them
to
you
guys
and
if
you
agree
to
review
them
great,
if
you
can
get
through
three
of
them
great,
if
you
can
get
through
four
of
them
great
I'll,
see
how
far
she
is
along
and
part
of
what
will
help
with
that
is
if
she
has
to
do
the
video
or
not,
because
she
can
redact
the
paper
pretty
easily,
it's
the
video
that
really
ties
her
up.
D
If
there
is
a
level
of
what
these
last,
this
set
was,
I
think
five
for
the
next
session
would
be
fine
and
if
she's
able,
if
we're
setting
what
kim
you
said,
seven
days
after
we
receive
them
to
decide.
If
we
want
to
see
any
videos,
I
guess
we
can
decide.
D
Then
at
that
point
you
know
whether,
if
there
are
you
know
if
we
want
to
see
all
five
videos,
we
might
not
get
through
all
five
and
one
night,
but
I
think
we
can
at
least
start
off
with
agreeing
at
this
point
that
five
would
be
fine
for
the
next
session.
Well,.
H
H
H
So
I'll
have
her
start
on
those
five.
She
I
know
she
already.
She
came
and
scanned
them
already,
so
I
think
she's
been
working
on
them,
so
I'll
double
check
with
her
tomorrow
morning
and
then
we'll
go
forward
with
that
and
hopefully
and
then
we
only
have
four
left
until
other
complaints
come
in
and
plus
that
re-review
of
that
cr.
H
A
That's
understood:
do
we
need
to
take
action
on
that
in
order
to
increase
the
number
of
cases?
No,
okay,
no
just
direction.
Okay
sounds
good,
so
yeah.
If
we
can
go
ahead
and
get
those
five
and
then
again,
like
you
know,
as
we
said
earlier,
so
that'd
be
great.
H
C
Guys
are
doing
an
awesome
job,
I
have
to
say
I'm
really
impressed
with
you
guys.
I
mean
just
amazing
one
last
thing
before
we
go
at
the
next
meeting
I'll
be
bringing
forth
the
2021
schedule
for
this
the
year
because
per
state
law
you
have
to
approve
the
calendar
year.
Did
you
want
to
keep
it
for
wednesdays
at
6
30?
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
as
I'm
preparing
for
the
dates
and
making
sure
there's
no
conflicts
with
holidays
and
so
forth
as
well.
C
A
I
mean
at
this
point
we're
stuck
in
a
house
still
anyway,
but
I
don't
know
we
have
a
spring
break
next
next
year,
but
this
this
time
works
for
me
worked
for
me
as
well.
H
B
A
C
No,
we
will
what
I
would
do
for
those
days.
I
will
put
some
options
and
you
guys
can
make
some
termination,
so
maybe
what
I
should
do
before
that
meeting
is
send
you
all
a
list
of
dates
and
then,
if
you,
if
someone
says
that
they
can't
make
that
because
if
we
can't
do
that
wednesday,
are
you
comfortable
moving
it
to
the
following
wednesday.
C
A
So
all
right
so
having
nothing
else
on
the
agenda.
Can
I
please
have
a
motion
to
adjourn.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
jamal
all
in
favor,
say
aye.