►
From YouTube: Citizen Police Review Commission 07-07-2012
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).
B
Welcome
back
everyone:
this
is
the
citizen
police
review
commission
being
held
july,
7
2021.
It
seems
as
though
we
have
a
quorum,
so
I
will
call
this
meeting
to
order.
A
Can
I
just
do
a
quick
roll
call
just
for
the
record
commissioner
luke?
Oh
okay,
here
she
comes
right
back,
so
let
me
go
ahead
and
not
start
with
her
commissioner
marsh
here,
commissioner
richman
here,
commissioner
strickland
commissioner
whitmore
here,
commissioner,
graham
commissioner
ross
commissioner
lilly.
B
Thank
you
for
that
kimberly.
B
If
I
can
have
someone
I
don't
know,
it
might
be
our
last
time
doing
this,
but
if
I
can
have
someone
re
read
the
the
government
executive
order.
D
I
can
read
it
as
a
result
of
an
executive
order
issued
by
governor
jb
pritzker
suspending
in-person
attendance
requirements
for
public
meetings.
Commission
members
and
city
staff
will
be
participating
in
this
meeting
remotely.
B
That
will
be
the
order.
The
second
thing
we
have
on
our
agenda
moving
along
is
our
approval
of
their
april
7
april
7
2021
meeting
minutes.
B
C
B
All
right,
thank
you
all
all
all
in
favor
say:
aye,
hi,
hi,
okay,
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
no
opposition
will
be
approving
the
april
7
2021
meeting
minutes
next
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment.
I
am
not
seeing
anyone
from
the
public
to
have
public
comment,
so
we
will
move
forward
on
our
agenda.
B
We
have
next
have
our
items
for
consideration.
B
B
D
I
I
moved
to
discuss
di
20-13.
I
have
a
second.
C
B
Having
no
opposition,
we
can
be
begin
discussion
on
di
2013..
Commissioner
marsh
you
had
a
question
on
this.
E
And
my
question
was
what
you
know
I
I
guess
you
know.
I
remember
this.
I
remember
having
discussions
on
this
a
couple
of
times
I
I
guess
I
probably
really
need
to
kind
of
when
I
look
at
the
the
recommendations
you
know
for
this
particular
officer
I
mean
the
recommendation,
is
you
know
you
should
have
been.
E
There
wasn't
communication
with
the
complaint,
I
mean
it
was
communication,
but
it
wasn't
communication
enough,
I'm
assuming
from
our
perspective
for
us
to
really
kind
of
hone
in
and
say
you
know,
this
was
a
that.
He
handled
it
in
the
right
way
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
if
he
was
reprimanded
in
the
right
way.
G
G
D
G
G
So
it
was
brought
back
for
a
third
review
and
the
committee's
concerns
and
what
they
thought
was
incomplete
in
the
investigation
to
be
addressed
are
outlined
in
the
april
8th
memo
to
acting
deputy
chief
deputy
chief
in
chief
again,
I
think,
going
through
the
updated
rule,
violations
that
rule
violations
that
may
have
been
emitted,
the
first
time
that
should
have
been
there
review
some.
I
think
some
points
of
interest
on
the
body
weren't
camera
footage
that
needed
to
be
pointed
out,
highlighted
directly
questions
that
needed
to
be
answered.
G
Coming
from
our
last
conversation
and
then
kind
of
the
conclusion
that
also
included
some
direction
and
then
that's.
What
brought
us
to,
I
think,
is
our
the
completion
of
our
third
review.
B
G
I'm
sorry
that
video,
the
video
that
was
requested,
the
end
of
the
other
officer's
body-worn
camera
footage
to
see
what
the
conversation
was.
We
do
have
that
available.
B
Okay
and
then
I
know
that
we
also
have
some
questions
about
the
completeness
of
not
only
investigating
this
officer
that
the
complainant
answered,
but
that
there
were
other
officers
that
should
have
also
had
some
sort
of
what
the
the
review
should
have
focused
on
them
as
well,
and
so
are
we
are
we
seeing
anything
on
that
or
I
I
just
from
reading
what
we
just
recently
got,
I'm
not
seeing
anything
different
from
what
we
looked
at
before.
G
Well,
yeah,
there
was
a
second
officer,
the
more
senior
officer
it
was
felt
that
that
was
not
fully
addressed.
I
think
that
it
has
in
this
review
all
the
questions
that
were
asked.
They
came
from
this
committee.
The
questions
that
are
outlined
in
rule
in
the
april,
seventh
or
eighth
memo
have
been
addressed.
Now.
Recommendations
may
not
have
changed
our
third
review.
G
So
I
can
look,
he
said
if
there's
points
I
apologize,
I
do
not
have
paper
memos
in
front
of
me
off
screen.
I
have
another
computer,
that's
got
all
the
pdf,
so
as
I
scroll
through
and
come
up
with
three
viewpoints
that
we
talk
about,
it
might
be
a
couple
minutes
for
me
to
find
those
memos
that
we're
referencing,
but
again
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
the
the
memo
that
was
drafted
pursuant
to
our
last
meeting
directing
supervisors.
D
And
to
janita
to
answer
your
question,
it
looks
like
on
page
15
of
the
the
pdf
for
this
meeting,
so
the
redacted
third
review
file
on
page
15.
It
lays
out
the
recommendations
and
it
does
address
all
three
officers,
so
the
the
ticket,
the
officer
who
sort
of
responded
to
the
scene
and
then
the
other
two
officers
that
were
present
and
recommended
shift
level,
counseling
and
additional
training
for
for
all
three
of
them.
It
looked
like
which
I
don't
think
was
part
of
the
recommendation.
The
previous
time
around.
D
I
think,
the
last
time
we
reviewed
it.
It
was
only
training
for
the
one
officer
this
time.
It's
for
all
three.
G
I
think
I
think
that
our
last,
I
think
that
our
last
review,
I
think
that
the
criticism
that
there
were
some
glaring
omissions
with
regards
to
what
was
addressed
was
completely
fair
and
we
definitely
instructed
the
supervisors
not
to
gloss
over
things
that
we
were
in
agreement
with
the
committee
on.
G
As
far
as
you
know,
if
somebody
did
not
address
something,
somebody
failed
to
fully
investigate
an
issue
that
that
needed
to
be
addressed,
even
if
that
person
wasn't
specifically
named
in
the
initial
complaint
from
several
months
back
on
a
there
is
varying
degrees
of.
I
think
that
somebody
might
look
at
this
and
go
well.
There
was
probable
cause
to
make
an
arrest
absent
any
further
investigation.
G
That
is
one
way
to
look
at
it.
Some
people
may
look
at
it
and
go
well.
Maybe
that's
not
the
failure.
The
failure
was
you
didn't
investigate.
The
officers
on
scene
didn't
investigate
enough
to
even
make
that
determination.
G
I
think
that
at
a
bare
minimum
would
be
accurate.
Anything
above
that
is
also
open
possible,
but
I
think
that
that
has
been
addressed,
including
again,
I
apologize.
There
is
a
part
in
the
memo
when
we
talk
about
the
bias
we
did
specifically
instruct
people
to
review
this
for
implicit
or
explicit
bias.
G
It
was
done
that
was
listed
as
a
rule
violation
taken
from
our
our
policies
that
were
spelled
out
and
the
officer
that
reviewed
it
also
not
only
didn't
notice
or
did
pick
up,
but
there
was
a
consistency
that
there
was
no
enforcement
action
taken
even
other
parts
of
the
investigation
where
an
individual,
not
the
driver,
admitted
to
drinking
underage,
and
there
was
no
enforcement
action
taken
there
as
well.
So
the
enforcement
action
may
have
been
lacking,
but
it
was.
F
Consistent
think,
from
my
perspective,
our
our
role
and,
I
think
kimberly
you'll,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
our
role
is
to
decide
whether
or
not
the
investigation
is
thorough
and
now,
with
our
third
review
and
everything
that
you
guys
have
done
in
ops,
I
do
feel
100
that
the
investigation
is
thorough.
I
completely
disagree
with
it,
but
I
think
at
this
point
we're
beating
a
dead
horse
because
that's
not
our
job.
F
We
don't
get
to
decide
whether
or
not
that's
the
outcome
that
we
would
want
or
whether
or
not
we
think
that
that's
the
right
sanctions
for
those
officers,
because
I
think
universally
I'm
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
all
of
us
on
the
commission
and
please
jump
in
if
I'm,
if
I'm
not
speaking
properly,
but
that
we
as
a
commission,
don't
agree
with
these
sanctions
against
these
officers.
F
But
the
investigation
is
thorough
and
we've
we've
kicked
it
back
three
times.
You
guys
have
done
your
job.
We
can't
change
the
outcome
at
this
point.
We
can't
change
the
sanctions
at
this
point
because
the
investigation
is
thorough
and
kimberly.
Isn't
that
our
job
I
mean
that.
A
Is
correct,
I
mean
yes,
that
is
the
correct
response
to
the
role
of
this
commission.
However,
even
though
the
investigation
has
been
completed,
the
the
disposition
is
not
the
the
final
sign-off
is
the
chief
that
does
not
occur
until
after
this
has
gone
through
the
process
of
review,
and
so
the
chief
does
take
back
some
of
that
feedback,
but
this
from
the
the
shift
level
on
up
it
is
complete.
A
However,
the
chief
can
take
in
consideration
and
and
and
decide
to
enact
additional
discipline
or
additional
form
or
discipline,
as
as
one
chooses,
but
as
to
this
commission,
you
are
correct.
It
will
go
to
the
human
services
with
understanding
that
is
thorough,
with
no
no
consideration
on
the
type
of
discipline,
since
that
is
at
the
prerogative
of
this
of
the
police
chief.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
if
I'm
not
misspelled.
Speaking
from
behalf
of
you
commander,
glue
or
sergeant.
E
E
So
in
essence
we're
one
of
you
know
three
levels.
You
know
you
have
the
investigator
piece
of
it.
You
have
our
involvement
and
then
you
have
what
you
must
human
services,
and
then
you
have
the
police
commission
right,
maybe
four
levels
so
we're
just
one
or
four
levels
in
terms
of
determine.
If
indeed
you
know,
this
warrants
a
change.
D
I
guess
one
question:
I
I
have
sort
of
fallen
on
to
what
kimberly
just
said
and
picking
up
on
what
what
you
said,
shaina
the
even
if
we
agree
that
it
can
be
passed
on
to
hr
based
on
the
completeness
can
we
include
a
note
in
there
that,
although
we
agree
it's
complete,
we
don't
necessarily
agree
with
the.
D
The
the
outcome
or
the
decision
on
whether
or
not
bias
played
a
role
in
in
in
the
the
failure
to
to
you
know
arrest
or
do
any
kind
of
you
know.
Field
sobriety,
testing
or
sort
of
you
know
carry
it
on
to
the
sort
of
logical
conclusion
that
we
all
thought
it
should
have
ended
with.
So
just
some.
A
Can
I
just
speak
to
that
because
I
think
this
is
where
this
is,
where
I
think
there's
some.
You
know
the
whole
idea
of
this
commission
and
being
that
I've
been,
you
know
the
staff
person
working
to
try
to
re-establish
this
commission
is
to
be
more
transparent
in
the
process
for
how
we're
reviewing
our
cases
our
internal
practices.
Now
one
may
say
that
there
was
a
bias
in
the
in
the
disposition
of
how
the
officers
were
between
the
case
and
that
needs
to
be
addressed
internally.
A
I
think
the
question
that
you
could
pose
more
so
than
about
the
discipline
of
one
case
is:
how
are
you
as
a
department
addressing
explicit
or
implicit
bias
outside
of
just
training,
so
that
this
type
of
situation
doesn't
keep
reoccurring,
because
one
might
say
and
look
at
this
have
a
different
point
of
view.
Considering
what
lens
they're
looking
from
you
know,
considering
that
we
are
all
people
of
color,
we
have
a
different
lived
experience.
A
A
I
think
it's
more
of
a
question
of
you
all
having
a
saying
of
recommendation
saying
you
know
this
is
something
where
in
looking
at
this
case,
a
concern
that
was
brought
up
was
about
bias,
and
how
is
that
being
addressed?
I
think,
is
a
fair
point
to
make,
because
I
think
it
is
something
that
has
to
be
addressed
but
as
to
just
talk
about
not
not
agreeing
with
the
disposition.
A
E
A
G
G
G
She
can
make
recommendations
above
and
beyond,
would
have
already
been
made
with
regards
to
discipline
or
corruptive
action
or
she
could
stand
and
and
and
concur
with,
what's
already
been
determined
we're
going
back.
I
want
to
hit
on
bias
with
this
case
implicit,
explicit
bias,
implicit
bias.
G
The
third
review
and
the
sergeant
that
reviewed
it
brought
up
the
point
that
well,
there
was
somebody
of
color
who
admitted
to
drinking
underage
in
this
investigation
and
that
the
was
consistent
aaron.
Am
I
correct
in
that.
A
Can
I
just
stop
you
there,
because
I
don't
want
to
go
down
that
road
that
I
think
we're
about
to
go
down.
I,
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
color
of
the
person
of
the
police
officer's
skin.
It
was
the
behavior
for
which
that
the
commission
was
observing
that
was
concerning.
A
G
My
only
point
in
that
is
to
show
consistency
here.
It's
not
too,
I
want
to
say,
expand
it
to
the
entire
department
or
all
investigations.
It
has.
A
very
my
point
is
very
narrow,
but
with
regards
to
how
are
we
using
this
process
to
improve
one?
Our
internal
and
investigations
bring
additional
awareness
to
what
could
be
behaviors
that
are
resulting
implicit
bias.
G
So
the
first
thing
I
want
to
hit
on
is:
we
took
the
opportunity
myself
and
kimberly
to
speak
to
all
police
supervisors
about
this
case
about
the
mission
of
this
committee
and
give
give
guidance.
As
far
as
when
people
are
reviewing
this
and
doing
an
investigation,
there
is
an
expectation
that
it
will
be
thorough.
Things
will
not
be
overlooked
if
they
overlook
this
committee
will
bring
it
back
to
our
attention
and
those
individuals.
We
will
be
repeating
the
work
that
they
should
have
done
the
first
time
the
members
of
the
department.
G
As
far
as
you
know,
implicit
bias,
training,
it's
something
that
that
my
24
years
addressing
bias,
has
been
something
that
has
always
been
part
of
the
department.
That
is
something
that
has
improved
the
training
and
its
relevance
has
improved
significantly.
Since
I've
been
there,
it
continues
to
improve
and
with
our
new
legislation
coming
through
and
I'm
sure
more
legislation
coming
through
from
the
federal
government.
Those
efforts
are
going
to
be
become
more
robust
and
refined.
G
One
of
the
things
that
we
correct
in
our
third
review
here
is,
if
there's
an
accusation
of
bias
that
needs
to
be
specifically
spelled
out
in
the
potential
rule
violations,
and
it
needs
to
be
reviewed
specifically
in
addition
to
everything
else,
which
might
be,
you
know,
a
failure
to
investigate
further
incompetency.
G
It's
this
incident
needs
to
be
reviewed
specifically
also
for
implicit
and
explicit
bias.
G
E
So
my
hope
is
that
we
can
kind
of
connect
in
and
better
understand
how
you
know
how
we
can
be
better
right.
I
mean,
hopefully,
the
input
that
comes
from
this
commission
can
be
something
that
can
be
additive
and
hopefully,
implicit
or
explicit,
and
and
and
how
you
all,
as
a
police
department.
Look
at
you
know
these
different
issues,
so
yeah.
G
G
That
external
view
that
cro,
that
that
isn't
is
concurrent
with
theirs
gives
it
additional
credibility.
They
work
together,
and
I
think
in
this
case
the
third
review
has
given
us
an
opportunity
to
speak
directly
to
our
supervisors
and
be
like
like
this
is
the
reality
of
these
complaints.
They
need
to
be
thorough,
they
need
to
they
need
to
take
everything
into
consideration,
and
you
need
to
take
the
viewpoint
that
comes
from
the
committee
and
incorporate
it
into
meditate
their
concerns
and
address
them.
Now.
G
I'm
hoping
in
the
future
I'll
be
quite
honest
that
we're
able
to
use
this
one,
two
three
review
and
this
kind
of
use
this
as
an
evolutionary
point
in
the
work
that
we're
doing
as
a
department
and
with
the
committee
that
that
we
won't
be
doing,
we
will
not
be
doing
three
reviews
on
cases
in
the
future
that
will
be
looking
at
them.
If
there's
concerns,
we
will
look
at
the
body.
More
camera
footage
all
concerns
and
we
feel
our
omissions
from
the
from
the
investigation
will
be
addressed.
G
One
time
and
it'll
be
brought
back,
but-
and
I
think
that
part
of
our
job,
my
errands
and
and
kimberly's
is-
is
to
increase
the
credibility
of
the
investigation
in
your
eyes
and
also
increase
the
credibility
of
what
this
committee
is
doing
as
part
of
this
this
process
and
it's
and
how
it's
beneficial
to
the
process,
because
if
it
passes
your
skeptical
eye
and
it
meets
that,
then
it's
going
to
it's
going
to
rise.
That
level
that
it's
going
to,
I
think,
be
objective
objectively.
Complete.
B
Just
to
add
on
to
that
commander
glue
is
that
not
only
is
it
doing
that,
but
also
it's
instilling
trust
in
the
community,
where
the
community
feels
safe
to
actually
make
their
complaints
we're
nearly
a
year
in
and
this
year
this
has
been
the
most
that
we've
reviewed.
Anything
we
haven't
had
any
complaints
now.
B
And
so
we
will
hope
that
this
going
forward
allows
the
community
to
have
that
trust
that,
if
they
succumb
to
complain,
complain
to
the
epd
that
their
complaint
is
take
serious
seriously,
and
it's
actually
viewed
in
a
light
as
though
the
complaint
facts
were
true,
it's
a
proven
differently.
B
So
I
I
think
that
it
will
instill
all
of
that
from
now
into
the
future.
C
C
My
only
concern
is
yes,
obviously
had
this,
you
know
a
child
been
black
or
latino
would
have
been
handled
differently,
but
that's
only
half
of
the
concern.
The
other
half
is
here.
You
have
someone
who's
admitted
to
drinking,
and
you
didn't
even
bother
to
provide
a
fuel
sobriety
test
which
is
standard
when
you
stop
someone
for
a
dui.
C
So,
yes,
the
concern
is:
is
there
some
kind
of
bias
that
the
officers
aren't
really
seeing,
but
that
we
see
from
the
outside
and
also
what?
C
What
was
it
about
this
case
in
particular
that
they
decided
they
weren't
going
to
go
through
the
procedures
that
they're
supposed
to
be
going
through
when
they
make
this
kind
of
a
stop,
and
so
the
it
begs
the
question:
if
we
could
get
back,
you
know
to
the
police
department.
What
is
what
is
the
department
doing?
What
can
tell
us
that
you're
doing
aid
to
train
the
officers
to
make
sure
that
they
do
their
field
sobriety
test
b?
C
What
are
we
teaching
our
officers
or
how
are
we
educating
them
to
make
sure
that
there's,
you
know
no
kind
of
bias
when,
when
they
come
across
any
type
of
situation,
whether
it's
a
kid
or
an
adult
or
whatever?
So
I
think
that
it
generates
a
lot
more
questions
that
I,
as
a
commissioner,
don't
feel,
have
really
truly
been
answered.
G
There's
a
lot
there.
I
think
that
the
outcome,
I
think
a
large
part
of
the
recommendations
so
far,
have
been
corrective
in
training
to
hope
that
this
doesn't
happen
again.
It
has
been
made
known
that
in
the
in
the
memo
I
apologize,
I
keep
looking
over
at
a
memo
for
reference,
the
that
the
one
officer
was
very,
very
new
on
the
street.
I
would
say
that
we've
taken
this
opportunity
to
point
positively
point
out
some
deficiencies
that
should
not
be
replicated
in
the
future
yeah.
C
G
No,
it's
it's
definitely
like.
You
said
this
is
something
we
do
not
want
to
see
replicate
in
the
future
and
internally
we've
had
some
conversations
with
you
know.
You
know
one
person
may
look
at
this
and
go
this
map.
Probably
you
know
if
there
was
no
further
cooperation
from
him
and
that
probable
cause
some
people
go
well,
no,
it
doesn't,
and
I
think
that
the
minimum
is
there
was
not
invested
enough
investigation
done
period
yeah.
So
even
if
you
say,
if
you're
somebody
who
says
well
the
probable
cause,
wasn't
there
be
like
well?
G
C
Like
we
would
have
like
we
would
have
been
would
have
been
enough
to
justify
additional.
You
know,
requesting
additional
information
or
or
taking
additional
action,
but
that
wasn't
you
know
and
that's
pretty
standard
when
you
suspect
someone's
drinking.
So
here
you
have
someone
who's
like.
Yes,
I've
been
drinking
and
we're
still
not
going
to
do
a
field
sobriety
test.
So
to
me
that
was,
it
was
confusing
and
it
was
something
that
we
don't
want
to
see
replicated
with
with.
D
D
C
G
Yeah
definitely
agree
with
all
that.
Definitely
a
concern
and
that
the
recommendations
for
the
policy
violations
are
largely
training
and
corrective
discipline.
A
Can
I
just
say
that
we're
going
to
share
this
video,
also
with
the
the
chief
so
that
they
that
so
that
the
chief
can
you
know,
have
a
a
chance
to
review
the
comments
you
are
making
tonight
so
again,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
the
chief
has
to
be
the
one
that
you
know
makes
that
final
determination.
However,
I
think
it's
very
fair
that
this
is
shared
with,
with
chief
barnes.
H
D
A
F
What
I
want
to
go
back
to,
I
think
that
that
across
the
board,
both
sergeant
wernick
and
commander
glue
and
and
the
commission
were
all
on
the
same
page-
that
that
there
was
probable
cause
here
for
an
arrest.
There
was
a
lack
of
investigation.
F
There
were
a
lot
of
failings
this
this
whole
situation.
You
know
these
guys
got
in
an
accident
and
everything
that
happened
afterwards
has
been
kind
of
discussed
and
discussed
and
discussed
it's
a
black
eye.
This
whole
situation
is
just
a
black
guy
on
the
department,
but
the
thoroughness
of
the
investigation
we've
kicked
it
back
three
times,
we've
discussed
it
a
whole
lot.
I
don't
think
that
chief
barnes,
particularly
as
an
acting
chief
with
I
mean
not
even
a
month
under
her
belt
at
this
point,
is
gonna,
make
any
different
recommendations.
F
So
I
mean
I
think
that
the
investigation
is
thorough.
I
think
commander
glue,
sergeant
wernick,
you
guys
and
your
team
have
done
everything
we've
asked
of
you.
We
wanted
more
body
canvas
video.
We
wanted
the
other
officers
spoken
to
you've
done
everything
we've
asked
and
the
investigation
is
thorough.
We
don't
like
the
outcome.
We
don't
like
really
what
it
comes
down
to.
Is
we
don't
like
the
situation?
F
We
we
don't
like
this
whole
case.
I
think
that
as
an
entire
commission
of
color,
none
of
us
like
this,
but
that's
not
our
job.
It
is
part
of
our
job
to
create
some
systemic
change.
I
hope
that
goes
back
to
something
that
rick
said,
probably
like
in
february
like
what
are
we
here
for
we're
here
to
make
positive
change
in
the
community
and
hopefully
taking
this
back
three
times.
Tells
you
guys
what
our
expectations
of
you
are
as
ops.
F
It
tells
the
department
that
we're
hey
we're
we're
really
on
this,
we're
not
just
here
to
rubber
stamp
things
and
move
them
along
to
human
services,
that
we
expect
the
investigations
to
be
thorough,
that
we
expect
we
have
high
expectations
of
the
officers
to
do
their
jobs
properly.
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
anywhere
on
this
particular
case,
so
I'm
going
to
kick
it
to
janitha,
because
I
think
we're
we're
done
here.
It's
thorough!
It's
done
I'd,
love
to
do
what
nika
said
and
attach
a
note
that
says
we're
not
happy.
B
B
Is
there
do
we
need?
Do
we
have
further
discussion
on
this?
Is
there
a
need
to
go
into
executive
session
in
order
to
view
the
the
second
video
that
commander
blue
states
that
he
has.
I
G
Yeah
I
have,
I
have
the
video
it's
about
seven
minutes
long,
I'm
looking
over
here,
because
we
did
specifically
tell
the
reviewing
supervisors
to
review,
to
look
at
that
video
and
to
see
what
their
summary
was
we
can.
I
could
definitely
try
to
share
it.
I'm
not
100
sure
I
can.
I
think,
I'm
pretty
sure
I
can
don't
rule
out
operator
error
but,
like
you
said
it's
about
seven,
I
think
seven
minutes
long.
G
Erin,
can
you
are
you
able
to
see
the
body-worn
camera
footage
summary
of
that
seven
minutes
on
any
documents
that
you
have.
B
That
was
my
question
to
determine
whether
or
not
if
we
wanted
to
go
into.
B
All
right
so
before
before
we
get
everyone's
perspective
on
it,
is
there
any
more
discussion
just
on
the
di
2013.
D
B
All
right,
so
we
have
no
new
business,
but
we
do
have
the
executive
session.
So
if
anyone
feels
as
though
we
need
to
go
into
executive
session,
then
I
will
need
someone
to
move
that
we
move
into
executive
session
in
order
to
view
the
video
and
we
can
vote
on
that.
Is
there
a
move?
Is
there
a
motion.
B
Okay,
I'm
having
no
motion
so
that
being
said,
since
we're
not
going
into
executive
session,
I
guess
our
next
thing
is
that
is
there
a
motion
to
move
this
on
to
hsc.
B
F
The
motion
earlier
I
moved
to
move
di
2013
to
executives
or
to
hsc.
B
Okay,
all
in
favor
say
I
I
I
all
in
all
the
polls
say,
nay,.
B
All
right
well
having
viewed
this
di
di
2013
a
few
times
and
having
no
opposition.
We
we
moved
to
pass
this
on
to
hsc.
At
this
point,.
A
I
B
All
right
all
right,
so
I
move
moving
on.
Like
I
said
earlier,
we
have
no
new
business
and
we
are
not
going
to
executive
sessions.
So
yes,
I.
A
Just
want
to
be
clear
again,
I
am
working
to
figure
out
where
we're
going
to
have
our
next
meeting,
but
it
will
be
most
likely
in
person.
However,
could
you
either
commander
glue
or
sergeant
warren?
Can
you
speak
to
where
we're
at
with
the
next
set
of
cases?
A
I
A
I
We
have,
I
believe,
it's
two
crs
at
this
point.
Cr2101
and
cr21902
are
the
two
complaints
that
we
have
right
now.
G
Yeah
I
I
can.
I
could
look
it
up,
but
I
think
that's
only
the
only
two
things
we
have
close
to
being
completed
and
reviewed.
If,
if
there's
anything
else,
we
have
it's
early
in
the
intake
process,
I
want
to
kimberly
brought
up
a
point
about
having
stuff
to
this
commission
in
a
timely
fashion.
I
want
to
take
the
moment
to
say
that
last
month's
getting
stuff
late
was
not
a
not
a
product
of
procrastination.
G
It
was
a
product
of
us
trying
to
get
things
done
as
quickly
as
possible
and
we
just
couldn't.
We
couldn't
meet
the
deadline
so
for
whatever
issue
that
caused
at
the
last
minute.
I
apologize
once
you
know
it
wasn't
out
of
procrastination.
It
was
out
of
us
trying
to
get
it
before
you
as
quickly
as
possible
and
it
just
kind
of
fell
apart
right
at
the
end.
So.
A
So
with
that
said
september,
1st
is
our
next
meeting.
If
we
don't
have
a
meeting
in
august
on
that,
docket
will
also
be
for
september.
A
We
will
need
to
to
at
least
nominate
a
new
chair
for
the
year
as
the
year
will
be
over
for
chair
shambi,
so
we
just
need
to
I'll
add
that
to
the
agenda,
but
just
know
there
will
be
some
additional
business
and
is
there
anything
that
you
all
will
like
to
see
on
the
agenda?
Please
share
that
with
us.
A
E
One
of
the
things
that
stands
out
to
me
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
within
the
police
department
about
around
re-imaging
it'd,
be
interesting
to
kind
of
get
some
input
insights
into.
You
know
that
whole
process
and
what
are
the
plans?
I
would
say
since
we're.
You
know
we're
doing
this
from
a
complaint
standpoint
from
a
police
complaint
standpoint,
but
re-imaging
what
is
reimagining.
A
So
can
I
just
speak
to
that
reimagining
committee?
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
that
it's
an
initiative
that
the
new
mayor
best
had
initiated.
So
it's
a
can
be.
Actually
it's
a
committee
of
community
members
like
yourself
who
are
looking
at
police
from
all
different
facets
to
the
budget,
to
how
looking
at
their
calls
and
so
forth,
they
are
meeting
I
have
not
yet
seen.
A
I
I
have
to
be
honest
with
you,
I'm
not
involved
in
that
discussion
or
our
staff
in
that
committee,
but
for
my
understanding
that
they
are
broken
up
into
multiple
committees
and
I've
asked
the
mayor,
if
he's
reached
out
to
anyone
from
this
committee,
our
commission,
to
get
your
feedback,
I'm
not
sure
how
many
that
has
happened
with,
but
I
know
they're
working.
I
just
can't
give
that
answer
to
you.
We
can
find
out
more,
but
it's
actually
not
internal
process.
A
It's
a
external
commission
or
committee.
B
B
A
That's
all
I
have
so
I
just
wanted
to
show
that
before
we
close
the
business
I
just
wanted
to,
let
just
so
we
know
where
we're
at
with
cases.
I
don't
want
to
waste
people
time
to
schedule
a
meeting
if
we're
not
prepared
to
have
a
meeting
so.
E
B
Rick,
I
I
don't
know,
maybe
I'm
missing.
What's
your
question?
Is
it
could
that
be
on
the
agenda
whether
or
not
we're
talking
about
having
something
going
on
with
a
reimagining
committee,
yeah.
B
A
E
A
E
B
B
B
So
we
brought
this
up
when
we
first
started.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
still
a
thing
because
I
know
like
we
were
all
kind
of
social,
distancing
and
everything,
but
I
know
this
committee
we
we
had
talked
about
doing
some
ride-alongs
with
the
police
that
we
had
not
set
up
as
of
yet,
but
we
still
maybe
have
that
conversation.
G
G
I
think
I
think
that,
following
through
what
was
originally
laid
out
as
a
plan
puts
all
of
us
in
a
more
defensible
position,
if
somebody
were
to
try
to
say
well,
you
guys
didn't
do
this
or
you
guys
didn't
do
that
or
you
didn't
make
yourself
available
to
that
following
through
your
original
plan
goes
a
long
way
to
thwarting
any
of
that
sort
of
nonsense.
B
H
You
guys
can
come
in
any
time
to
do
a
ride-along,
we'll
send
out
an
email
saying
that
commissioners
will
be
coming
in
and
you
just
go
to
the
patrol
office.
A
Can
we
do
this
a
little
bit
more
organized
just
because
it
sounds
that
may
happen,
but
what
we
can
do
maybe
is
create
like
a
google
spreadsheet.
So
if
people
are
interested,
they
can
put
their
names
in
so
that
way
folks
know
who's
coming
into
the
building
and
they're,
not
just
random.
You
know,
commissioners,
so
we
can
just
create
that
spreadsheet
and
then
are
you
guys
looking
to
for
those
who
are
interested?
A
I'm
I'm
assuming
you
want
to
do
it
in
the
months
that
we're
not
meeting
so
between
now
and
september
that
we
can
get
some
feedback
in
your
september
meeting
if
that's
possible.
B
G
Yeah
and
I
well
and
just
off,
you
know
for
the
summertime
you're
most
of
your
if
it
works
for
your
schedule,
you're
going
to
be
exposed
to
you're
the
most
bang
for
your
buck
exposed
the
most
in
your
time
in
the
right,
along
on
the
afternoon,
shift
okay
and
to
kimberly's
point
with
the
with
a
google
sheet
or,
however,
myself
and
error
can
help
facilitate
getting
you
guys,
right,
alongs
and
and
your
requests
so.
A
We're
good
I'm
sorry!
I
am
whispering
to
myself.
Sorry,
I'm
good,
I'm
being
in
this
building
for
14
hours.
Just
kills
you,
okay,
I
don't
have
anything
else.
To
add
sorry
if
that
was
too
much
information,
that's
it!
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
for
a
second
all
agree,
say
I
any
opposed,
say,
nay,.
B
Having
here
having
here,
no
opposition,
thank
you
guys,
thanks
for.
Let's
thank
thank
you
for
having
a
great
successful
meeting.
Thank
you
sergeant,
warnick
and
commander
glue
for
staying
with
us,
especially
on
this
1di.