►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
This
meeting
will
be
recorded
and
posted
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
minnesota
open
meeting
law.
At
this
time,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role,
so
we
can
verify
a
quorum
is
present
for
the
meeting.
B
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum
next,
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
has
been
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
lims.minneapolis.gov
and
the
acceptance
of
the
minutes.
From
the
last
meeting
of
october
25th
2021,
may
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
both
the
minutes
and
adopt
the
agenda
for
today's
meeting.
C
B
All
right
the
motion
carries
and
the
agenda
is
adopted
for
today's
meeting
as
well
as
the
minutes
for
october
2021
are
accepted.
The
next
order
of
business
will
would
normally
be
public
comment.
I
am
going
to
ask
that
we
move
public
comment
to
later
on.
In
this
meeting.
We
do
have
staff
that
has
a
time
conflict
and
in
light
of
that,
we'll
be
moving
straight
into
unfinished
business,
starting
with
an
update
on
no
knock
warrants.
E
Hi
chris
band
here
so
ryan
franzen,
the
legal
analyst
is,
is
not
able
to
be
here
today,
but
the
update
I
have
from
him
is
that
he's
continued
to
gather
the
some
additional
information
that
we
had
talked
about,
including
demographic
information.
You
know
the
as
well
as
who
is
applying
for
the
warrants
from
so
that
would
be
the
swan
law
enforcement
officer
who's
signing
the
affidavit,
an
issue
that
we've
run
into
is
that
the
search
warrants
are
not
all
saved
in
the
police
case
management
system.
E
So
we
will
need
to
arrange
to
get
those
fro.
They
should
be
filed
with
the
court.
They
call
the
b
vault,
although
it's
not
in
the
people
anymore,
but
the
should
be
filed
with
the
court,
but
going
and
pulling
those
is
time
because
it
means
that's
the
one
kind
of
holdup
we
have.
E
E
But
really
it
would
be.
You
know
what
do
we
want
out
of
the
out
of
a
report
or
how
have
we
decided
to
present
this,
because
I
know
that
there's
certain
practices
that
were
put
forwards
and
I
think
that,
if
we're
looking
purely
at
minneapolis
data,
there
is
a
more
limited
amount
to
to
show
in
support
of
those
either
way.
E
But
I
think
that
there
are
certainly
cautionary
tales
from
other
jurisdictions
that
that
we
are
all
aware
of
so
I
you
know,
I
wonder
if,
if
we
want
to
present
this
more
as
like
a
research
and
study
or
as
a
a
policy
proposal,
you
know
based
on
here,
you
know.
We
know
that
this
carries
risk
and
even
though
the
evidence
here
might
not
might,
we
might
not
have
found
egregious
incidents
of
that
happening.
E
But
we
know
it
can
go
very
wrong,
so
here
are
the
steps
we
think
should
be
taken
to
modify
it.
There
is
also
another
factor
that
we
have
talked
about
is
number
of
statements
going
down
as
a
result
of
covert,
and
there
were
some
policy
changes.
I
think
that
is
still
still
providing
a
bit
of
a
challenge
in
the
comparison.
E
So
there
were
some
policy
changes
made
by
the
police
department
to
do
with
announcing
mostly-
and
you
know,
I
think
something
we
would
want
to
look
at
there
is.
Is
that
making
a
difference
at
the
moment?
It
is
a
little
bit
difficult
to
do
that.
You
know
between
there's
covered
implications.
E
Staffing,
you
know
that's
doing
a
like
for,
like
a
comparison
is
a
little
bit
difficult
there,
okay,
and
something
else
that
that
we've
noticed
a
bit
in
the
data
is
you
know
there
are
times
this
one
might
be
classified
so
it's
applied
for
as
a
high
risk
warrant.
E
E
B
E
So
so
I
think
that
really
it's
kind
of
the
question
on
what
direction
do
we
want
to
go
now?
You
know
that
we
haven't
found
anything
in
the
data.
That
is,
that
is
a
super
strong.
You
know
this.
These
these
things
have
gone
poorly
example,
but
we
know
that
nationwide
those
exist.
B
Initially,
my
my
one
concern
about
expanding
outside
of
our
jurisdiction
is
the
potential
implication
of
saying.
Well,
you
know
well
x,
doesn't
happen
here.
You
know,
and
I
think,
as
long
as
any
work
that
ends
up
coming
out
of
this
acknowledges
what's
currently
happening
or
what
has
recently
happened
in
minneapolis,
given
the
information
that
we
do
have,
but
then
isolates
that
and
contextualizes
it
within
a
bigger
picture
like
what
you're
alluding
to
then
I
think
that's
fair
as
long
as
we're
not
confounding
the
two.
E
Yeah-
and
we
have
we've
talked
about
this
before,
but
you
know
there
are,
there
are
some
definite
recommendations
that
had
appeared
in
some
of
the
groups
that
spoke
to
you
before
about
data
collection,
and
we've
talked
about
the
issues
in
even
conducting
a
study
like
this,
and
I
think
that
is.
That
is
definitely
you
know
very
relevant
recommendations
that
could
be
made.
E
You
know
that
are
specific
to
minneapolis,
where
we're
having
issues
running
an
audit
like
this,
you
know,
if
we're
going
to
look
at
the
implic,
you
know
the
impact
of
changing
policy,
then
really
that
should
be
a
very
easy
way
to
do
that.
You
know
by
quarter
or,
however,
it's
done
and
without
a
central
place
where
everything
is
stored.
That
makes
it
more
difficult.
E
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
think,
that's
fair.
You
know
that,
and
that
was
initially
what
I
had
in
my
mind.
The
whole
reason
why
we
were
you
know
trying
to
conduct
our
own
analysis
of
what's
going
on
here.
So
that
way
we
can
take
the
information
that
was
brought
to
us
by
previous
presenters.
B
That
says,
you
know.
Generally,
we
see
these
sorts
of
instances
happening.
B
This
is
cause
for
concern
and
we
wanted
to
see
whether
or
not
those
causes
for
concern
were
relevant
to
minneapolis
police
department
right,
and
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
where
it's
just
you
know
we
have
such
a
limited
data
set
that
maybe
we
can't
you
know,
have
a
robust
analysis
to
say
that
some
of
those
things
are
happening,
but
that
doesn't
mean
we
can't
say:
hey,
be
aware
of
what
what
else
is
out
there
or
what
we
have
seen
in
comparable
instances.
B
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
that's
that's
a
fair
way
to
you
know,
set
the
work
that
we
have
been
doing
already
into.
You
know
a
policy
proposal
that
a
lot
of
that
work
has
already
been
done
for
us
in
the
form
of
a
presentation.
As
long
as
we're,
you
know
able
to
verify
their
information
and
make
sure
that
you
know.
B
If
we're
you
know
going
to
be
setting
proposals,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
just
you
know,
copying
and
pasting
their
work,
but
we're
we're
making
sure
that
we've
done
our
due
diligence.
I'm
fine
with
that
yeah.
E
Yeah-
and
I
do
I
do
think
one
of
the
the
concrete
issues
that
has
been
identified
is
the
the
data
collection
on
this,
because
you
know
this
is
something
that
has
been
talked
about
before
these
at
these
meetings.
And
that's
you
know
if
you
change
policy,
how
do
you
measure
the
success
of
that
change?.
B
And
yeah,
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
policy
recommendations
that
also
give
a
recipe
for
identifying
growth.
You
know
so
well
said
what
what
do
you
believe
are
just
looking
at
timeline.
I
remember
we
were
talking
about
this
last
time
we
met.
What's
your
idea
of
timeline
now,
given
this
new
update.
E
So
I
would,
I
would
need
to
connect
with
with
all
the
analyst
ryan
to
to
make
to
really
give
promises
on
timeline.
Yeah.
E
But
I
think
it
I
think
it
really
depends
how
we
present
it.
You
know
a
full
research
and
study
is
a
bit
more
involved
and
the
we
do
have
a
more
limited
data
set
in
that
I
think
if
it
was
a
a
proposal
that
would
be
take
a
bit
less
time,
I
would
hope
to
have
a
draft
by
by
december,
and
then
you
know,
depending
on
how
much
time
everyone
has
to
to
review
it
and
and
look
at
the
proposals.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
great.
Let's
follow
up
via
email
to
just
make
sure
we
can.
You
know
verify
that
we
can
get
on
that
path
for
the
next
meeting
and
yeah.
Well,
I'd
be
happy
to
take
a
look
at
any
drafts,
either
at
next
meeting
or
in
between
next
meeting
and
beginning
of
the
year
and
get
the
ball
rolling
on
that.
B
Okay
sounds
good.
Okay,
any
other
comments
from
commissioners
before
we
move
on
to
coaching
all
right
next
item
of
business
is
our
conversation
on
coaching
and
yes,
I'm
sure
we
all
remember
that.
B
There's
ongoing
litigation,
that's
kind
of
stifled
our
work
in
this
regard,
but
what
we
came
up
with
at
the
end
of
last
meeting
was
talking
about
the
discipline
matrix
and
how
we
could
ideally
impose
the
data
set
that
we
currently
have
on
our
dashboard
up
to
2017
and
be
able
to
compare
the
aggregate
data
that
we
have
there
with
the
discipline
matrix.
B
Even
if
it's
a
discipline
matrix
that
is
backdated
back
in
2017
to
be
able
to
see
whether
or
not
policy
meets
practice
and
whether
you
know
practice
is
enforced
above
the
policy
standard
or
below
the
policy
standard
are
aware
right,
and
in
that
I
remember,
our
subcommittee
ended
up
asking
mostly
for
a
new
discipline
matrix.
So
that
way
we
can
understand
that,
but
also,
if
possible,
a
2017
discipline
matrix.
B
E
So
the
the
first
thing,
I
would
say,
is
the
same
thing.
I've
said
every
time
you
acknowledge
this,
you
know.
A
E
Litigation,
we
can't
talk
about
new
coaching
matters
as
far
as
the
the
matrix
goes,
the
the
pcoc
in
september
of
2020.
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
were
on
the
committee
at
the
time
submitted
a
request
for
a
legal
opinion
from
the
state
attorney's
office
and
the
legal
opinion
which
is
available
on
limbs,
and
I
can
link
to
it.
E
Give
me
a
second
here.
I
will
put
that
in
the
chat,
but
it
is
on
limbs
from
september
of
2020
and
in
that
one
they
go
quite
into
depth
about
coaching
and
discipline
and
at
the
from
page,
see
page
25.
E
They
have
a
discipline
matrix
from
then
and
then
there
is.
There
is
a
note
on
the
discipline
matrix.
That
is,
you
know.
A-Level
violations
are
not
listed
in
the
matrix,
so
that
is.
That
is
something
that
that
has
been
talked
about
previously
about
whether
or
not
something
could
get
rooted
to
coaching
or
not
so
the
matrix
is
not
all-encompassing,
but
that
does
have
a
lot
of
the
violations
listed
on
it
and
that's
on
page
25,
sorry,
24
onwards,.
E
This
one
is
revised
of
march
2018
and
the
according
to
the
attached
argument
and
then
the
the
memo
was
written
september
of
2020.
yeah
yeah.
I
am
unsure,
if
there's
anything
more
recent
than
that,
but
that
is.
B
E
B
Yes,
yes,
it's
a
year
old,
but
I
don't
know:
do
we
think
it's
worthwhile
for
us
to
apply
some
of
the
data
of
a
of
the
dashboard
that
goes
up
to
2017
to
what
is
available
through
this
discipline
matrix
on
2018
and
see
if
there
is
a
disparity
between
the
discipline
matrix
that
we
just
do
have
versus
that
the
data
in
practice
that
is
currently
available
to
us
or
the
fact
that
those
years
are
off?
C
B
And
so
chris,
just
forgive
me
for
for
asking
directly,
I
mean
when.
B
I
and
I
get
why
you
provided
this
document
because
it's
already
been
available,
but
is
it
possible
to
get
what
is
currently
used
as
a
discipline
matrix
or
is
this
the
up-to-date
discipline
matrix.
E
So
I
I
I
thought
this
was
the
most
recent
one,
but
I
think
the
probably
the
easiest
way
to
move
forwards
would
be
to
submit
a
data
request
for
the
discipline
matrix
for
the
years
that
you
that
you
want
yeah.
So
you
know
we
go
to
the
process
and
say
we
want
the
most
recent,
the
one
that
is
currently
in
effect
as
of
date
of
request.
E
And
then,
if
you
look
back
at
the
years
that
you
have
access
to
data
for.
A
E
Then
you
know
ask
for
what's
in
effect
and
like
each
of
those
years.
That
would
probably
be
the
the
easiest
way.
I
don't
know
to
what
extent
that
is,
that
is
all
public
I,
but
I
assume
it
would
be
since
it
is
provided
in
this
document.
B
Yeah,
like
the
only
logical
step
forward
and
I'm
happy
to
you,
know,
madam
clerk,
would
we
need
to
have
a
vote
on
that
to
make
that
a
you
know
a
formal
action
of
the
subcommittee
to
request
both
the
current
discipline
matrix,
as
well
as
historical
accounts
of
the
mpd
discipline
matrix
for
the
appropriate
years
of
the
data
set
that
we're
talking
about
in
regards
to
coaching.
B
A
B
Okay,
well
I'll
I'll
make
the
request.
Chris,
can
I
work
with
you
to
to
do
that
appropriately,
yep.
A
B
B
All
right
well
we're
ticking
away
at
the
coaching
thing
team
we
really
are.
In
the
meantime,
let's
talk
about
items
of
new
business
which
were
referred
to
us
from
the
pcoc
in
the
most
recent
meeting
on
november
9th.
B
B
16
of
those
discharges
were
upheld
and
the
other
10
were
not
to
some
degree
and
they
itemize
out.
In
the
first
summary
of
that
document,
which
I
will
save
everyone
from
hearing,
you
can
read
it
on
our
agenda
if
you
wish,
but
although
I
was
not
there
for
the
meeting
itself,
I
have
watched
and
read
the
meeting,
and
I
can
see
that
the
chair
abigail.
B
Sarah
has
asked
that
this
audit
subcommittee
do
a
an
analysis
of
the
root
cause
of
those
10
hearings
that
were
not
upheld,
get
an
understanding
as
to
general
themes
amongst
those
10
hearings
and
to
see
if
we
can
identify
areas
for
potential
improvement
for
the
the
police
department
and
that
that
is
the
extent
to
which
you
know
in
a
condensed
form,
I
believe,
is
what
we're
tasked
with.
B
And
now
I,
oh,
I
see
chris,
you
have
your
hand
up.
Would
you
like
to
speak
on
this
from
a
staff
perspective.
E
Yep,
so
the-
and
this
applies
to
both
both
new
items
just
wanted
to
share
this.
I'm
sure
you're,
aware
of
it,
but
you
know
in
in
new
study
proposals,
there's
a
research
to
study
process.
So
I'd
say
that
you
know
once
the
group
has
decided
how
they
want
to
proceed,
then
you
know
get
in
touch
with
me
and
ryan
and
we
can
talk
about
methodology
and
how
it
could
be
scoped
out
to
answer
your
your
questions
about
the
topics
and
then
just
very
quickly
on
arbitration.
E
I
think
it
would
be
worth
getting
an
opinion
from
the
city
attorney
about
where
this
falls
in
the
pcrc's
remit
and
the
reason
that
I
say
that
is
because
it
was.
It
is
my
understanding
that
arbitration
is
an
action
of
the
city
attorney's
office.
You
know
it's
kind
of
it's
a
legal
process
before
what
is
effectively
an
administrative
court.
E
That'd
be
my
only
input
there
is
that
I
think
arbitration
is
false
into
the
city
attorney's
office
per
view.
So
it'd
be
worth
you
know
finding
out
to
what
extent
or
what
limitations
there
would
be
in
any
research
and
study
into
that.
B
Yes-
and
I
remember
our
our
council,
mr
fussy,
speaking
up
in
that
say
reminding
us
of
our
the
scope
of
our
authority
here
being
limited
to
you,
know,
policing,
policing
matters,
and
I
think
that
that's
apt,
if,
if
we
could,
madam
clerk,
if
we
could
invite
our
our
counsel
to
next
month's
meeting,
so
we
can
get
his
opinion
regarding
this
and
try
to
find
a
a
healthy
compromise
for
us
to
be
able
to
get
the
information
that
we're
we're
seeking
here
versus
what
is
allowed.
B
What
is
accessible.
I
do
know
one
point
that
was
brought
up.
It
was
a
point
of
conjecture
that
we
might
our
chair
kind
of
believe
that
we
might
be
able
to
look
at
unredacted
versions
of
the
documents
that
are
posted
here
today.
I
know
that,
to
some
degree,
that's
up
to
debate,
as
I
believe
the
city
attorney's
office
would
believe.
That's
up
to
debate.
B
E
I
I
don't
know
for
certain
my
the
the
only
kind
of
comparison
I'd
have
is
that
you
know
if
it
is
a
legal
document
with
litigation,
it
would
be
the
city
attorneys
who
are
assigned
to
the
case
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
the
same
kind
of
restrictions
are
planned
arbitration,
but
it
is
my
understanding
is
a
very
legal
process.
B
Yeah,
my
my
hope,
for
one
reason
or
another,
and
again
I
don't
know
whether
or
not
it's
even
a
valid
one
is
that
you
know
in
the
same
way,
opcr
has
certain
la
access
to
private
information
and
they're
able
to
make
generalized
analysis
of
you
know
the
case
studies.
Then
we
could
take
those
ten
documents
have
someone
who
does
have
access
to
them.
Do
that
kind
of
work
and
then
say
hey?
B
This
is
my
opinion
of
the
general
trends
that
we
that
I've
noticed
that
that
was
my
quick
and
dirty
work
around
to
try
to
you
know,
play
by
the
rules,
but
also
you
know,
achieve
the
responsibilities
we've
been
charged
with
you
know,
but
that
might
be
a
question
for
city
attorney's
office
when
next
meeting
is
being
held.
B
Since
jordan
crockett
jordan
sparks
you
were
both
there
for
it.
Do
you
have
thoughts
or
suggestions
or
questions
regarding
particularly
these
ten
cases
and
what
you
would
like
to
see
be
the
you
know,
the
purpose
and
the
scope
of
this
sort
of
investigation
or
evaluation.
C
So
the
understanding
that
I
had
from
chair
sarah
is
that
the
scope
is
rather
small.
It's
just
to
look
at
these
cases
and
see
what
happened.
Why
why
the
case
was
why
it
was
upheld
or
not
upheld,
and
that's
pretty
much
it
then
it's.
I
don't
know
if
it's
necessarily
to
advise
anyone,
but
it's
maybe
it's
more
just
for
us
to
have
an
understanding
and
I
think
in
the
cursory
look
that
chair
sarah
was
able
to
have.
C
I
think
that,
from
what
she
was
telling
me
there's
a
good
chance
that
it's
basically
on
the
on
the
part
of
the
the
city
or
on
the
part
of
npd.
It's
just
lack
of
documentation.
B
Well,
thank
you
for
your
thoughts.
I
know
christopher
you
have
to
leave.
Thank
you.
We
will
follow
up
with
you
on
the
last
item.
B
And
any
other
further
discussion
on
on
this
item
of
new
business,
the
one
about
the
10
cases,
arbitration
cases.
B
If
not,
we
can
move
on
to
our
final
item,
which
is
a
more
abstract
understanding,
and
I
think
this
is
more
along
the
lines
of
something
that
we
can
kind
of
dig
into
and
understand
more
as
a
a
practice
of
evaluating
disparate
impact,
which
I
think
is
a
huge
part
of.
B
B
You
know
come
to
either
disparate
outcomes
based
off
of
any
number
of
factors
you
know
could
be
you
know
precincts,
it
could
be
the
the
ranks
of
officers,
it
could
be
the
age,
gender
race
or
anything
that
you
know
could
not
be
directly
relevant
to
the
case.
But
yet
outcomes
tend
to
correlate
with
these
non-direct
aspects
of
either
the
individuals
that
have
complaints
filed
against
them
or
the
people
processing
or
the
people
filing
the
complaints?
B
That
was
my
general
overview
of
what
I
saw
from
the
record
of
that
meeting.
I'll
leave
the
door
open
to
the
two
of
you
since
you
were
there.
Am
I
right
in
that
understanding
of
the
second
referral
that
we
have
before
us.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
sounds
about
right.
I
guess
basically
what
you
said:
that's
just
the
concern
about
complaints
or
the
research
of
those
complaints
not
being
applied,
evenly
possibility
of
discipline
not
being
applied
evenly
yeah,
and
I
it
I
think,
chair
sarah
has
had
that
concern
for
a
long
time.
She
certainly
voiced
that
that
it's
it's
not
a
transparent
process,
at
least
to
you
know
to
us.
C
By
any
stretch
of
the
imagination,
it
seems
like
it's
just
a
sort
of
of
just
sort
of
a
void
to
how
those
complaints
are
so
much
of
his
is
left
up
to
chance
left
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
the
chief
too
just
stuff
like
that,
and
so
there's
a
concern
that,
because
of
lack
of
transparency,
it's
not
being
evenly
applied
and
there's
certainly
with
the
lack
of
transparency
room
for
people
to
be
singled
out
for
any
number
of
reasons
or
if
you're
part
of
the
right
club
or
the
right
click
to
also
not
have
discipline
or
coaching
applied
to
you
as
it
would
be
applied
to
someone
else.
D
Yeah,
I
would
I
I
I
would
add,
and
sparks
kind
of
ran
it
down
for
sure.
But
I,
what
kind
of
stuck
out
to
me
most
is
like
just
the
discretion
of
the
discretion
of
the
chief
that
there's
a
lot
of
gray
area
and
if
he
has
discretion,
then
it's
there's
not
going
to
be
some
consistency.
It's
going
to
be,
you
know
what
he
feels
and
you
know
you
get
to
pass
and
you
don't
get
to
pass
and
you
know
so
that's
what
stuck
out
to
me
a
lot.
B
Okay,
yeah,
I'm
I'm
glad
I'm
on
the
right
track
with
my
recap
and
yeah.
I
agree.
This
is
definitely
something
we
wanna.
You
know
either
bring
to
light
if
this
is
occurring
or
demonstrate
that
it
is
not
in
fact
occurring
and
either
result,
I
think,
is
very
helpful.
So
if
we
want-
and
I
know
this
meeting
went
until
five-
I
just
didn't
know
how
quickly
or
how
slowly
we
would
go
through
all
of
these.
So
I
wanted
to
provide
more
than
enough
time.
B
I
don't
foresee
we'll
be
going
through
the
full
hour
that
is
remaining,
but
since
we
do
have
the
time,
why
don't
we
take
a
few
moments
to
have
a
conversation
and
really
like
physically
write
it
down?
So
that
way
we
can
go
back
to
it,
as
we
have
with
previous
research
and
studies
to
understand
what
is
the
the
main
question
at
hand
and
then
what
potential
factors
we
think
might
lead
to
the
the
issue,
the
problem
that
we
believe
might
be
happening.
B
A
B
I
mean
this
idea
of
discretion.
I
think,
is
important
right.
B
B
I
mean
it's,
I
think
it's
fine
to
have
a
first,
a
big
question
get
to
smaller
questions
because
of
it
right.
Like
simple
thing,
we
probably
already
have
a
lot
of
information
on.
Is
the
complaint
review
process
right?
B
That
was
something
that
we
have
really
in
our
in
our
orientation,
for
this
commission
right
so
understanding
and
maybe
taking
a
a
look
at
how
the
complaint
review
process
could
lend
itself
to
bias,
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
guys
talked
about
at
the
very
beginning
was
discretion
of
the
chief
right.
B
So
I'm
just
going
to
start
writing
down
some
of
these
right
now.
Let's
do.
B
B
I
guess
one
question:
is
you
have
a
slash
here
evenly
versus
equitably
when
you're
thinking
of
the
term
equitably?
B
C
Well,
it's
a
choice
of
words
right,
so
when
I
think
equitably,
I,
I
think
we're
thinking
of
the
same
things.
You
remember
that
comic
of
the
three
people.
C
Yeah
so
there's
a
difference
between
even
evenly
and
equitably
and
I'm
not
sure
which
one
we're
shooting
for.
I
suppose
maybe
we
want
it
to
be
applied
evenly.
You
know
the
way
that
it's
written
in
the
policy
manual
rather
than
equitably,
but
I
suppose
that's
why,
if
you're,
if
you're
going
for
equitable
discipline,
maybe
that's
why
the
chief
has
such
a
free
hand
to.
B
And
also,
we
need
to
remember
we
constantly
it's
always
at
the
front
of
our
mind
now
to
have
conversations
about
equity
in
terms
of
like
racial
demographics
or
identity,
demographics
and
gender
demographics
right
but
like
you
could
apply
that
sort
of
equity
spectrum
along
seniority
of
or
rank
or
precinct
by
demand,
or
you
know
the
stress
that
that
precinct
is
under
given
it's
it's
work
that
it
has
to
do
or
something
like
that.
You
know.
C
B
I'm
not
I'm
not
making
a
pushback
off
of
one
being
right
or
wrong.
I
will
say
evenly
it's
probably
a
lot
easier
to
measure.
B
B
C
Yeah
and
I
would
given
how
much
easier
it
would
be
to
research
I
generally,
I
would
tend
towards
evenly
as
well
yeah,
let's
make
sure
it's
being.
Let's
learn.
D
D
Yeah
yeah
yeah.
I
think
I
think
those
are
some
it's
it's.
It's
a
it's
a
really
good
question
the
whether
it's
evenly
or
equitably.
D
I
said
that
right,
yeah,
I
think
so
to
which,
as
the
the
odded
team,
as
you
guys
mentioned,
I
think
evenly
is,
is
what
we
could
kind
of
like
do
something
with,
but.
D
Yeah,
I
don't.
I
don't,
have
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
trying
to
think
and
see
if
I
can
add
something
that
hasn't
been
added,
but.
B
Well,
I
mean
I,
I
guess
another
thing
that
we
could
talk
about
is
how
broad
do
we
want
this
sort
of
thing
to
be.
You
know,
I
think
one
limitation
that
I
remember
in
the
recording
was
we're
talking
about
discipline
here
right.
It's
only
instances
that
are
of
public
record,
where
you
know
there
has
been
a
confirmed
discipline
with
this
and
therefore
anything
that's
been
labeled
under
coaching
doesn't
relate
here.
B
B
I
think,
if
you
add
in
all
the
possible
coaching
complaints,
it's
it's
going
to
make
you
our
data
set
much
larger,
but
also
that
information
won't
be
available
because
coaching
is
not
disciplined.
C
Well,
I,
and
I
would
prefer
my
impulses
to
say
well,
I
want
to
see
everything,
including
the
coaching,
because
we
could
look
at
an
infraction
and
say
well
how
come
ninety
percent
of
these
are
being
are
going
to
coaching
and
a
few
of
them
are
going
to
discipline.
What's
the
what's
the
difference
and
then,
if
there's
not,
maybe
if
there's
not
a
difference
in
content,
you
know
we're
probably
not
allowed
to
see
the
specifics
of
the
complaint
and
why
it
went
to
coaching
and
the
thought
process
behind
that.
But
maybe
there's
some
other
information.
C
B
And
I
think
exactly
that,
first
part
of
what
you're
saying
that
is
what
we
want
to
do
with
our
coaching
item
in
this
agenda.
We
just
can't
do
it
right
now,
you
know
yeah,
and
so
maybe
this
is
a
a
good
way
for
us
to
start
that
process
start
that
methodology
and
then,
when
we
are
available
to
start
looking
at
coaching
a
little
bit
more,
that
methodology
is
already
created.
We
just
need
the
different
data
set
and
then
it's
in
you
know.
C
Yeah,
it
helps
us
kind
of
front
load
that
work
to
work
out
the
little
the
bugs
before
we
eventually,
we
will
be
able
to
get
those
newer
cases.
B
Yeah
a
question
regarding
some
of
the
the
metrics
that
we'd
be
interested
in,
I
kind
of
rattled
some
off
at
the
very
beginning
that
were
just
on
the
top
of
my
head.
But
the
idea
of
you
know
this
idea
here
is
that
there's
some
form
of
favoritism
that
doesn't
have
any
legitimacy
that
you
know
the
the
initial
assumption
is
that
there's
something
that
has
having
an
impact
that
ought
not
to
have
an
impact
on
the
outcome
of
different
disciplines
right?
B
B
Like
I
guess,
things
that
that
do
have
an
impact
and,
like
you
think
ought
to
have
an
impact
on
someone's
discipline
would
be
knowing
what
the
violation
itself
was
right.
B
Probably
knowing
some
information
about
the
officer,
you
know
being
able
to
ask
whether
or
not
they've
had
violations
in
the
past.
C
I
have
a
question
about,
so
how
do
you
think
it's
possible
to
get
demographic
information
about
the
the
officers?
So
the
reason
I
ask
is
that
so
one
of
the
articles
that
was
linked
here-
and
there
were
a
few
more
that
came
out
too
over
the
summer-
were
about
it,
wasn't
racial
demographics,
so
much,
but
it
was
about
lgbtq
demographics.
I
know
one
of
the
articles
is
linked
here
and
there
were.
C
I
think
there
were
some
other
ones
too,
but
it
was
basically
about
how,
if
you
fit
in
the,
if
you
happen
to
be
lgbtq,
there
were
a
lot
of
formal
and
informal
allegations
that
discipline
was
being
applied
unevenly,
that
people
were
being
treated
differently
within
the
department.
C
How
much
of
that
can
we
actually
get?
How
is
that
actionable
for
us.
B
Oh
no,
that
information
is
not
available
for
you,
because
for
me
that
shows
two
things:
one
somebody
somewhere
along
the
line
asked
for
that
and
maybe
that'll
get
someone
thinking.
Oh
maybe
we
need
to
be
recording
that
information.
The
second
thing
is
it's
highlighting
to
you
know
this
is
all
public
and
stuff
it's
highlighting
to
the
public.
That's
like!
B
Oh,
this
is
helpful
information,
but
it's
not
being
captured
and
honestly,
I
think
the
crux
of
a
lot
of
our
problems
here
is
that
there's
important
information
that
we
just
do
not
capture
as
a
city
and
and
having
these
sorts
of
conversations
starts
the
ball
rolling.
Ideally
on
that
sort
of
need.
B
But
yeah
I
mean
stuff
you're
talking
about
is
yeah,
like
demographic
info
of
the
officer,
I
think,
being
able
to
see
if
there
is
a
high
correlation
between
an
officer
being
a
certain
gender,
and
you
know
having
a
lower
discipline
or
a
higher
discipline
associated
with
their
gender,
I
think
is,
would
be
super
important
age
as
well.
If
they
go
oh
well,
they're,
just
really
young
or
oh,
you
know,
they've
been
here
forever,
one
or
and
not
just
ages,
like
actual
age,
age,
but
years
of
service.
You
know.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
want
to
what
do
you
think?
What
do
you
guys
think
about
like
details
like
location
or
something
location
of
the
that's
you
know
whatever
situation
happened.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
both
like
we
talked
about
it
previously
precinct,
but
also
location
of
like
the
complaint
associated
or
the.
B
Same
thing,
as
always,
some
demographic
information
of
the
person
complaining,
I
feel,
like
I
say,
that
every
single
meeting
I
want
demographic
information
of
our
complainants.
B
I
guess,
if
we're
looking
at
historic
information,
we
could
do
a
comparison
between
chief
aerodondo
and,
like
the
past
two
chiefs.
You
know
if
that
information
is
available.
B
See
if
chief
aerodondo
is
more
or
less
disciplinary
than
his
past
two
predecessors
or
something
like
that,
you
know.
B
B
So
far
we
have
demographic
of
the
officer,
the
years
of
service
of
the
officer,
the
precinct,
the
location
of
the
interaction
the
who
the
chief
was
demographics
of
the
person
complaining.
B
I
guess
we
could
talk
about
timeline
or
like
how
many
days
from
complaint
to
opcr
rendering
a
decision
and
then
how
many
days
between
oh
pcr,
rendering
a
decision
and
the
chief
making
his
his
call.
I
think
those
are
three
or
yeah
no
two
points
of
time.
That
might
be
important
like
the
idea
of
like
the
longer
it
takes
the
more
likely
the
chief
might
say
that
that
discipline
is
or
opcr
might
say,
that
that
discipline
isn't
as
good
as
this
other
discipline
or
it's
too
harsh,
or
it's
not
harsh
enough.
C
It's
probably
a
fair
point
to
get
into
anyways,
because
I
chaired
sarah
and
I
had
a
meeting
with
cheryl
schmidt
from
the
union,
and
she
had
mentioned
that.
Sometimes
there
are
huge
gaps
between
when
a
complaint
comes
in
or
an
incident
occurs
and
when
actually
they
try
to
apply
discipline
sometimes
years
she
had.
C
A
C
There's
not
really
a
statute
of
limitations
exactly
they
can,
they
can
go
as
far
back
as
they
need
to
and
do
the
investigation
and
substantiate
it,
and
so
it
does
kind
of
make
you
wonder
if
it's
a
good,
it's
a
good
point.
If,
if
that
would
have
an
impact
on
anything
because
yeah,
you
could
go
through
the
process
and
you
could
go
either
way
on
it
right
like
well,
you
could
look
at
you,
look
at
it
and
say:
well,
I'm
gonna
apply
the
same
discipline
because
you
know
they.
C
B
Yeah
and
I-
and
I
think
that
you
know
this
is
a
different
point-
it's
just
shedding
more
light
on
the
timeliness
of
this
whole
process
because,
yes,
oh,
like
the
process
to
go
through
and
render
a
decision
is
or
a
recommendation
is
one
thing
and
then
the
timeline
for
the
chief
to
implement
that
decision
is
another
thing
and
yeah
it's.
That
might
be
a
different
research
and
study
that
we
could
do
one
day,
but
that's
that's
definitely
something
that
I
think
is
important.
C
We
might
want
to
look
at
too
if
there
was
an
attempt
to
to
do
arbitration
as
well.
A
C
If
that
would,
if
that
would
relate
at
all,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
I'd
be
expecting
to
find
there,
but
I
do
think
it
it
it's
possible
that
if
you
were
going
to
do
to
render
discipline-
and
it
was
a
tricky
situation,
it
was
subjective.
It
was
something
like
that
you
might
be
scared
of
the
arbitration
that
can
drag
out
for
a
long
time
and
can
be
expensive.
So
maybe
you
would
make
a
different
decision
if
you
weren't
totally
confident
in
it.
A
B
B
Because,
ideally-
and
I
know
christopher
said
that,
like
you
know,
the
discipline
matrix
is
kind
of
like
it's
not
an
exhaustive
model,
but
it
is
a
standard,
and
so
you
would
think
that
there
would
effort
there'd,
be
efforts
taken
to
make
sure
that
practice
meets
that
standard.
So,
let's
just
keep
comparing
to
the
discipline
matrix.
You
know.
C
Yeah,
I
I
I
I
agree-
didn't
mean
to
cut
you
off
but
yeah.
I
agree.
I'm
very
interested
in
seeing
if
historically
under
at
any
point
in
time
was
the
was
that
actually
being
how
closely
was
that
being
followed
right?
The
public
perception
is
that
it's
not
really
being
followed
at
all.
I
think
I
mean
that's
a
lot
of
what
people
say
to
me.
So
that's.
B
The
thing
it's
like,
we
don't
really
know,
and
you
know
what
I
feel
like
it's
our
responsibility
to
find
out.
So
I
mean
we
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five:
six,
seven,
eight
nine
ten,
eleven
twelve
twelve
or
thirteen
different
parameters
to
look
at
here.
I'm
sure
we
can
brainstorm
with
chris
in
the
future
any
other
last
minute
ones.
To
add
to
my
little
list
here.
B
Okay,
cool
so
yeah
we've
we
we
didn't
really.
I
I
will
say
before
we
move
on
conversation
about
scope,
we
kind
of
touched
on
how
it
would
be
only
discipline.
B
I
think,
as
long
as
you
guys
are
fine
with
it.
I'm
fine
with
that.
Do
you
want
to
limit
this
to
a
certain
time?
Do
you
want
to
look
at
a
certain
precinct?
Do
you
want
to
look
at
all
the
precincts?
You
know.
C
C
I'm
tempted
to
say
that
maybe
we
do
it
the
same
way
that
we're
trying
to
look
at
the
coaching
study
like
just
up
to
2017
and
then
just.
C
C
B
Okay,
so
what
what
are
we
thinking
here,
2015
to
2017
january
2015,
to
2017.
B
B
How
do
you
feel
about
that?
Jordan
crockett?
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
Okay,
so
we
will
do
20
and
21.
B
B
Okay,
I'm
happy
with
where
we're
at
right.
Now.
With
this,
I
will
send
an
email
to
christopher
and
I
will
cc
the
two
of
you
so
that
way,
you
guys
are
aware
of
the
particulars
of
what
I've
written
down
on
this
notebook
and
then
we
will
meet
again
and
talk
about
this
next
meeting.
B
Any
member
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
leave
a
comment
to
this
subcommittee
is
welcome.
To
do
so.
Will
limit
public
comment
period
to
no
more
than
two
minutes
per
speaker.
If
you're
on
your
phone,
you
will
have
to
dial
starsex
to
unmute
yourself.
Are
there
any?
B
I
mean
not
great
but
efficient.
I
guess
for
anyone
watching
on
youtube.
Please
join
live
it'd,
be
great
to
have
you
leave
public
comment.
I
will
say
as
a
note
of
housekeeping,
I
will
not
be
here
in
december.
B
I
am
taking
some
pto
and
that
means
that
I
will
not
be
here
to
chair
the
next
subcommittee
meeting
in
december.
I
wanted
to
let
the
two
of
you
know
that
and
you
know
hand
the
reins
off
to
whoever
is
most
interested
in
december.
D
I'm
I'm
open
to
it,
I'm
hoping
you
doing
it
cool
with
either.
B
Rock
paper
scissors,
some
somebody's
got
to
do
it.
C
C
D
B
Congratulations
if
it
now,
you
guys
will
already
be
down
one.
The
two
of
you
will
both
need
to
be
there
it
to
in
order
to
have
the
meeting.
If
not
that's,
okay,
life
happens.
So
what
I
can
do,
I'm
I'm
here
between
now
and
the
six
effectively,
and
so
I
will
help
try
to
set
things
up
for
you
as
much
as
possible
and
if
it
doesn't
happen,
we'll
we'll
just
continue
on
in
january.
D
Crockett
for
sure
yeah
I'll
plan
to
do
it
and
get
set
and
if
yeah
I'll
just
keep
I'll,
keep
everybody
I'll
keep.
You
know,
jordan
sparks
and
everybody
in
the
loop
and
then
we'll
connect
jackson
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
B
Sounds
good,
I
appreciate
you.
Thank
you
any
other
housekeeping
notes
from
either
the
clerk
or
members
of
the
subcommittee.