City Council - Charter Change Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2024-06-18
Time: 17:00

Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or
 REMOTE via Zoom

When: Jun 18, 2024 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91781917195?pwd=agjrboizRnquWSdu-79fd7o4H_3XZQ.QkypvTf3zMSr3sNL
Passcode: 095751
Or One tap mobile :
  +19292056099,,91781917195#,,,,*095751# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,91781917195#,,,,*095751# US (Washington DC)
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
  +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
  +1 305 224 1968 US
  +1 309 205 3325 US
  +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
  +1 646 931 3860 US
  +1 719 359 4580 US
  +1 253 205 0468 US
  +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
  +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  +1 360 209 5623 US
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
Webinar ID: 917 8191 7195
Passcode: 095751
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abkNoWq6Jh




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 4. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 5. Any Other Committee Business

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

6. Adjournment
  Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action

Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or
 REMOTE via Zoom

When: Jun 18, 2024 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91781917195?pwd=agjrboizRnquWSdu-79fd7o4H_3XZQ.QkypvTf3zMSr3sNL
Passcode: 095751
Or One tap mobile :
  +19292056099,,91781917195#,,,,*095751# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,91781917195#,,,,*095751# US (Washington DC)
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
  +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
  +1 305 224 1968 US
  +1 309 205 3325 US
  +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
  +1 646 931 3860 US
  +1 719 359 4580 US
  +1 253 205 0468 US
  +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
  +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  +1 360 209 5623 US
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
Webinar ID: 917 8191 7195
Passcode: 095751
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abkNoWq6Jh




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 1 of 28
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 12th

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 4. Discussion of the Joint Committee's Proposed Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


  Category 5. Any Other Committee Business

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

6. Adjournment
  Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn


 Page 2 of 28
Meeting June 18, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 5:00
 PM, 645 Pine Street DPW Front Conference Room or REMOTE via Zoom


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 28
 Charter Change Committee
 Wednesday, June 12, 2023
 Sharon Bushor Conference Room
 at City Hall or Remote via Zoom. Burlington, Vermont
 DRAFT MINUTES

Members Present: Councilor Bergman (Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty
(remote)

Staff Present: Hayley McClenahan (Assistant City Attorney), Joe Corrow (BPD Detective),
Shakuntala Rao (Police Commissioner), Jack Keefe (Police Commissioner), Mary Cox (Police
Commissioner, remote), Susan Comerford (Police Commissioner, remote), Eric Dalla Mura
(BPD Officer)

Public Present: Josh Kirtlink, Jake Schumann, Jeffrey Jarrad

Meeting called to order at 5:04 PM.

1. Agenda
 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda

Motion to Adopt Agenda as is.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1
 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1

Motion to Adopt Minutes from May 1, 2024.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Bergman
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilor Doherty abstained due to absence from the given meeting.

3. Public Forum
 3.01 Verbal Comments

Jake Schumann submitted a comment to the Committee ahead of the meeting to be included in
the agenda and reiterated its main point, being that the proposed charter change language omits
appeal language and believes it is an oversight that needs to be addressed.

Public Forum closed at 5:09 PM.




 Page 1 of 7



 Page 4 of 28
4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
 4.01 Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes

The Committee reviewed the Police Commission’s Recommendations/Suggestions to the Charter
Change Committee on Police Oversight, as compiled and submitted to the Committee by
Commissioner Rao:

 • Councilor Bergman requested the memo from the Joint Committee’s Chairs in
 December, which summarizes the proposal, be posted with the online agenda of this
 meeting. The proposal itself was published with the agenda for public viewing.

 • Commissioner Rao explained that the Police Commission’s submission is a compilation
 of input from Police Commissioners, members of the public, and BPOA, gathered
 between January 2024 and now, and that the document was reviewed by all stakeholders
 prior to submittal.

 1. Retaining Commission’s Appellate Authority

 a. Commissioner Keefe stated the current language is ambiguous in whether or not
 it serves to set up an independent body that has ultimate authority, adding the
 purpose of the charter change seems unclear, citing Resolution 7.09 as the
 guiding resolution on addressing this issue. ‘Resolution 7.09’ was introduced to
 the City Council on October 18, 2021 but was not referred to the Joint Committee
 on Police Oversight.

 b. Commissioners Rao, Cox, and Garrison voiced support for retaining the
 Commission’s appellate authority. Commissioner Rao added removing the
 Commission’s appellate authority conflicts with other duties and powers afforded
 the Commission by the charter, and urged the Committee to reinstate it.


 2. Use of a Complaints Monitor to Help Commission with Administrative Work on All
 Complaints…Commission Retains the Responsibility of Reviewing Complaints

 a. On behalf of Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Rao summarized
 Commissioner Hanson’s agreement with removing the responsibility of
 independent investigations from the Police Commission, but takes issue with this
 responsibility moving to the independent body instead, due to similar limitations
 in resources as the Police Commission. Commissioner Rao also emphasized the
 importance of BPD’s transparency in how it ensures impartiality in
 investigations, and noted that Commissioner Keefe expressed the Police
 Commission should still retain investigation authority for extraordinary cases.

 3. General Questions/Suggestions for the Joint Committee City Council

 Page 2 of 7



 Page 5 of 28
 a. Commissioner Rao emphasized Commissioner Hanson’s points, being to ensure
 the investigation process has a clear timeline, supportive of Detective Corrow’s
 concerns about the stress placed on officers during this process and disagreement
 over the mayor’s involvement in disciplinary action, and the need for the
 Commission to be non-political.

 b. Commissioner Cox added the Police Commission does not want to do
 investigations, stating it is not an appropriate function for the Commission to
 have when it is intended to be the bridge between BPD and the community, aside
 from the lack of bandwidth, but expressed support for the idea of an independent
 panel, to which matters could be referred to by the Police Commission as
 appropriate. Commissioner Cox explained the current internal policy says the
 Police Commission can send appropriate matters to the Mayor, but this conflicts
 with the authority granted the Commission through the charter, so an independent
 panel for this process would make more sense. Commissioner Cox also added
 the need to ensure the panel is a non-political body, such as the Mayor
 nominating members to the panel instead of appointing, on which the City
 Council could vote.

 c. Detective Corrow confirmed the concerns from BPOA’s perspective are reflected
 accurately in Commissioner Rao’s document, especially as it relates to a fixed
 timeline for investigations and resolving disciplinary matters.

The Committee deliberated on the proposed charter changes, as adopted by the Joint Committee
on Police Oversight that had been put forward for public hearing but redirected by City Council
to the Police Commission for comment and then sent to the Charter Change Committee:

 • The Committee agreed to do a walk-through of the proposed charter change, using the
 document provided by Commissioner Rao as an outline and address each concern, with
 the option for additional points to be raised as needed and allowing the Committee to
 review the whole document.

 • Commissioner Keefe noted one issue was left out of Commissioner Rao’s document
 concerning threshold issues, which was raised in a memo sent to Charter Change
 Committee in January 2024. Councilor Bergman advised Commissioner Keefe to resend
 it to the Committee’s and City Attorney’s Office’s attention ahead of the next meeting on
 June 18.

 1. Section 190(a) Lines 97-101

 a. Councilor Doherty understood the reason for removing the language authorizing
 the Police Commission to function as an appellate body was due to concerns with
 that function conflicting with the new role afforded through the proposed charter
 change, though as it seems most Police Commissioners and BPOA are in favor of
 the Police Commission retaining this function, supports adding that language back
 in.
 Page 3 of 7



 Page 6 of 28
 b. Councilor Carpenter stated she would support the Police Commission retaining
 that authority with the added layer that an independent panel review serious
 offenses or offenses for which the Police Commission does not have the capacity
 to review.

 c. While in support of reinstating appellate authority to the Police Commission,
 Councilor Bergman distinguished that the language was struck due to concerns of
 sufficient due process rather than conflict of interest, as it is unclear whether it is
 appropriate for the Police Commission to act as an appellate body for a case it has
 prior knowledge of through executive sessions or other meetings with the Chief,
 based on the current grievance process. Councilor Bergman asked for
 clarification on the legalities of that dynamic from the City Attorney’s Office and
 BPOA’s or Police Commission’s counsel if they had thoughts on it, and also
 asked Detective Corrow to follow up on what qualifies a case for the grievance
 process. Councilor Carpenter conferred it did not seem like a conflict of interest
 issue. Councilor Doherty noted the question of sufficient or insufficient due
 process could be a legally gray area, for which the City may have to develop
 policy.

 d. Commissioner Rao agreed due process has been a concern for some of the
 Commissioners hearing cases. Commissioner Cox acknowledged it is a gray area
 but has generally felt confident in her ability to be fair in making a decision.

2. Complaint Monitor and Investigation Authority

 a. The Committee discussed if a monitor or other staffperson should be explicit in
 the charter, requesting the City Attorney’s Office to draft language and weigh in
 on whether support staff are implicit to the structure of the charter.

 b. Attorney McClenahan offered that a middle ground approach could be to add to
 the charter that a city official or some other city body is responsible for the
 designation and regulation of this role, which Councilor Bergman requested be
 drafted as an option for the Committee to review.

 c. Commissioner Keefe clarified that the monitor would advise the Commission on
 best practices and other administrative support functions, in addition to
 monitoring complaints, but given the City’s fiscal state, would be willing to
 deprioritize the need for a monitor at present. Commissioner Keefe added
 successful oversight bodies require adequate support and resources from the
 community and administration, and that therefore, the charter should provide that
 the City set through ordinance funding for its oversight methods by whatever
 mechanisms it can.

 d. Councilor Bergman added the charter does provide some authority to the Police
 Commission to monitor and hire to carry out monitoring duties, but
 Page 4 of 7



 Page 7 of 28
 Commissioner Rao disagreed with the idea that Police Commissioners are in a
 position to realistically hire and supervise, given current resources and the
 backlog of complaints. Councilor Bergman clarified the proposed language does
 not mandate the Police Commission hire a monitor but merely provides the
 authority to do so.

 e. Commissioner Cox voiced that giving the Commission authority to conduct
 investigations, independent of internal investigations, is a step in the wrong
 direction.

 f. Commissioner Comerford emphasized that it would be in the Commission’s best
 interest to have language in the charter that broadens its powers and allows the
 Commission discretion in exercising them.

 g. The Committee decided to retain the language regarding independent
 investigations.

3. Criminal Justice Council and Duty to Report

 a. Councilor Bergman suggested adding “and relevant State statutes” to the end of
 Line 63.

4. Section 184(d)

 a. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the finality of a disposition,
 distinction between higher level offenses and lesser, and if the Commission’s
 authority, in respect to the first two issues, are limited to higher level offenses.
 Commissioner Keefe clarified the Police Department investigates every
 complaint, but the classification level for each complaint is set by Department
 Directive 40 (DD40), which was then integrated into the policy guiding the
 complaints process, parts of which have no real legal basis from Commissioner
 Keefe’s perspective and should be reworked. Detective Corrow shared that DD40
 is currently being revised, and that the Police Commission is anticipated to vote
 on it in July. Councilor Bergman asked the Commissioners to forward the
 publicly available latest draft to the Committee to reference with the proposed
 charter change.

 b. Councilor Carpenter asked how Department Directives are adopted and revised.
 Commissioner Keefe explained the Department Directives are drafted by the
 Chief, and per the charter, are approved by the Police Commission. Councilor
 Bergman added the Commission, the Chief, or the City Council can initiate the
 process to change a Department Directive, the procedure for which is set by
 DD01.

5. Composition of the Panel

 Page 5 of 7



 Page 8 of 28
 a. Councilor Doherty recalled that BPOA once suggested the independent panel be
 increased from 3 members to 5 members, where 3 members are appointed by the
 mayor and the last 2 are each appointed by BPOA and the Police Commission,
 and more stringent requirements for members to have law enforcement or HR
 experience.

 b. Councilor Carpenter wondered if the number of members should be expanded in
 terms of qualifying individuals approved to sit on the panel, in the event that an
 appointed member is away at the time the panel is called to meet for a hearing,
 since the panel would be meeting so irregularly and infrequently, and believes it
 would be challenging to have 3 or 5 fixed members who could be reliably
 organized on such short notice, adding 5 would be much harder than 3.

 c. Councilor Bergman noted Commissioner Cox advocated for a fixed panel.
 Councilor Bergman also expressed concern with the board’s independence if the
 BPOA appointed a member to the panel, but does not have strong feelings about
 the Police Commission appointing a member or the experience criteria currently
 proposed in the charter change.

 d. Detective Corrow disagreed that a panel solely appointed by the Mayor can be
 independent and emphasized that outlining specific experience requirements,
 including experience in municipal government and matters would ensure the
 panel has the education it needs to make unbiased decisions. Detective Corrow
 offered to prepare relevant draft language with BPOA counsel to present at the
 Committee’s next meeting.

 e. Councilor Doherty emphasized that whether the panel is ad hoc or fixed, the use
 of the panel is intended to be irregular and has to have confidence of the
 community and the Burlington Police Department in order to work, and given
 BPOA’s engagement with the Committee through the charter change, thinks the
 request that the panel not be entirely mayoral is reasonable.

6. Investigation Timeline

 a. Councilor Bergman clarified the charter only provides that notice of a hearing be
 given when the decision is over 14 days, and any existing timelines for the
 grievance process are set by the BPOA contract. Detective Corrow added there is
 a directive that internal investigations have a timeline as well, and so believes the
 language in the charter should mandate that a timeline be set via ordinance. The
 Committee agreed to make that change and asked that BPOA’s counsel and the
 City Attorney’s Office identify the best place(s) to insert the draft language.

7. Section 185(a) Lines 79-80

 a. Councilor Doherty asked for clarification on the origin of the language regarding
 the Chief of Police being subject to the Mayor’s authority as Chief Executive
 Page 6 of 7



 Page 9 of 28
 Officer and ordinances and orders passed by City Council. Councilor Bergman
 said the previous Mayor requested it be added for consistency with other
 departments’ processes. Councilor Doherty requested that the Committee revisit
 this change at their next meeting and asked the City Attorney’s Office to provide
 further guidance on it. Attorney McClenahan agreed to look into the language
 more because on first reading, it seems to run contrary to how the City would
 typically interpret State law with respect to ordinances and executive orders.

 b. Detective Corrow said the BPOA takes issue with the Mayor having power over
 the Chief in final decisions, as this could potentially compromise the Chief’s
 ability to run the Department in the best interests of the community and its
 officers. Councilor Carpenter said there still needs to be a link to the Mayor’s
 Office because the Mayor is elected to run the City, inclusive of the Police
 Department. Councilor Bergman requested the City Attorney’s Office reach out
 to the Mayor’s Office to obtain the current Administration’s opinion on the
 language for this portion of the charter.

5. Any Other Committee Business
 6.01 Any Other Committee Business

Councilor Bergman said the aim of the next meeting would be to make decisions on the proposed
charter language based on the information and draft language requests made and presented to the
Committee for the next meeting.

Attorney McClenahan stated she would clarify with the Clerk-Treasurer’s Office when the
Committee needs to have the charter change ready for City Council in time to be placed on the
ballot in November.

The Committee’s next meetings were set for June 18 at 5:00 PM and June 25 at 7:30 PM.

6. Adjournment
 6.01 Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Bergman
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 PM.




 Page 7 of 7



 Page 10 of 28
Page 11 of 28
Page 12 of 28
Page 13 of 28
Page 14 of 28
Page 15 of 28
Page 16 of 28
Page 17 of 28
Page 18 of 28
 Recommendations/Suggestions to the Charter Change Committee on Police Oversight
 by Burlington Police Commissioners

 Prepared and Collated by: Shakuntala Rao, Chair

 1. Retaining Commission’s appellate authority
Quoted from Commissioner Keefe: “Section 190 (a). Regarding the proposed deletion of the
Commission’s appellate authority, it should be kept in mind that when Resolution 7.09 was
approved, it was contemplated that the Commission might serve as the independent
disciplinary body and its appellate functions would raise due process concerns. These concerns
no longer appear relevant.
It is now clear that the Commission will not function as the independent body as reflected in
the proposed language contained in 185 (e). Notably, Det. Corrow confirmed that the BPOA
explicitly negotiated to retain the Commission as the appeals body to hear officer’s grievances
against discipline handed down by the Chief in the terms of the last contract it negotiated with
the city. He explained that the BPOA believed the Commission’s hearing of grievances provided
officers with an effective and efficient remedy. This was after the Commission began to review
complaints of officer misconduct under the Complaint Policy the Commission approved in
August 2020. Additionally, the Commission’s independent legal counsel also conducted analysis
and identified precedent indicating that the Commission’s appellate function in hearing officers’
grievances does not compromise due process.
It is also noted that Section 184 (d) provides that the Commission shall have the authority to
receive and review all civilian and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the Police
Department. Officer’s grievances against discipline often arise from internal allegations of
misconduct. Commission’s hearing of these grievances is an important review function that, like
reviewing civilian complaints of police misconduct, strengthens the Commission’ monitoring
role, helping to improve police performance and public safety. The adage “if it’s not broke don’t
fix it” applies and it is recommended that amendments to the Charter do not eliminate the
Commission’s duty to hear officer’s grievances.”
Commissioner Rao, Cox and Garrison agree that the appellate authority of the Commission
ought to be retained.
 2. Use of a complaints monitor to help Commission with administrative work on all
 complaints (essentially the role of Commissioner Keefe); Commission retains the
 responsibilities of reviewing complaints.

 Quote from Commissioner Hanson: “The charter change proposes that the independent
 panel would have the power to conduct an independent investigation. This change was




 Page 19 of 28
 made to reflect that the police commission does not want to have this power and I
 agree. The Commission is an all-volunteer board and does not have the resources and
 background to hire and supervise an independent investigator. This is just as likely to be
 true of the independent panel. In order to decide if another investigator is necessary,
 the charter change committee needs to first understand what currently exists to
 investigate wrongdoing and I do not think this has been thoroughly explored. There are
 two areas that need to be reviewed and understood: I would like to review the
 department’s internal affairs investigation policy and I am unable to find a directive
 about that on the BPD website of key directives. In order to develop transparency and
 trust, it is important for the public to understand how the department ensures how the
 investigation it undertakes is impartial and independent. It should explain when another
 agency will be asked to conduct an investigation and how the commission can request
 additional follow-up as needed.”

 Or

 3. Quoted from Commissioner Keefe: “Section 184 (d) (ii). Regarding the
 Commission’s authority to conduct investigations, Councilor Bergman clarified the
 Commission is not required to conduct investigations, just that it is authorized to do
 so. Councilor Travers likened the authority to “break glass in case of emergency.” I
 believe providing the Commission with authority to respond to extraordinary events
 strengthens the Commission’s oversight functions and could be effectively exercised
 by the Commission with guidance from the City Attorney’s office and the
 Commission’s independent counsel.
Additionally, Vermont state statute in Title 20: Internal Security and Public Safety Chapter 151:
Vermont Criminal Justice Council § 2403. Law enforcement agencies; duty to report provides
that:
 “(a)(1) The executive officer of a law enforcement agency or the chair of the agency’s
 civilian review board shall report to the Council within 10 business days if any of the
 following occur in regard to a law enforcement officer of the agency: … (B) Category B.
 (i) The agency receives a credible complaint against the officer that alleges that the
 officer committed Category B conduct.”
This includes allegations of Category B misconduct alleged against the Chief. The duty to report
misconduct to the Vermont Criminal Justice Council is mandated by statute and does not
provide discretion to the Commission. As such, it is recommended that the amendments
contain language to the effect that matters of alleged misconduct of the Chief be addressed in
conformity with Section 190 (b) of this Charter and relevant Vermont state statutes.”
 General Questions/Suggestions for the Joint Committee City Council.




 Page 20 of 28
1. Commissioner Keefe: Section 184 (d). The purpose and effect of the provision that higher
 level complaints may not be disposed until the Commission is notified of the proposed
 disposition is not apparent. Does this mean that the Chief’s disposition is not final unless
 the Commission agrees? Or if it does not, final disposition of the complaint rests with the
 independent body? It appears the answers to these questions depend on clarifying the
 powers and duties of the independent panel in disciplining officers.

2. Commissioner Hanson: The charter change encourages appointing members of historically-
 marginalized communities to better reflect the diversity of our community which is a great
 and important step. The charter change should also speak to the need for the commission
 to be non-political. As I understand it the city council tries to have geographic diversity,
 should the charter change encourage this? Some cities have provisions that police
 commissioners should not hold any political position, have lived in the community for a
 certain number of years or be a certain age for example.

3. Commissioner Hanson: Having a timeline for when the process will be resolved is
 important because Detective Corrow expressed concern about the stress that this places on
 officers. He also expressed that the officers would like the independent panel, if this idea
 moves forward, to have more than 3 people. He suggested 5 and that they be required to
 have at least 10 years experience for the LE members and 5 years for the HR
 representative. He also commented that officers did not think it was appropriate for the
 mayor to play a role in discipline, that is the chief’s role, and could inject politics in the
 process. It is important that officers feel that any changes to the system provide fairness so
 that we do not adversely affect the department’s critical recruitment efforts.

4. Commissioner Cox: The review panel would be a professional panel consisting of 3
 members. Two of the members would be current or former police officers with a minimum
 of ten years policing experience. The third member would be an individual with
 professional experience in diversity, equity, and inclusion work and/or mental health policy
 or direct services. This panel would be appointed by [whom? Mayor, City Council?] for fixed
 terms of ?? years and members could only be removed for cause, as determined by [mayor,
 city council?]. Panel members would be entitled to per diem compensation for all hours
 worked in investigating complaints and reviewing discipline. The Panel would have
 subpoena power and an ample budget to retain investigators. Panel members need not be
 Burlington residents. Appropriate experience and temperament are more important.
 Would the Police Commission would be responsible for working with the Department to
 make any changes to Department policy or procedure suggested [mandated?] by the
 Special Panel.”

 Response from Detective Corrow (as representing BPOA) at the Commission:




 Page 21 of 28
General agreement with the suggestions being made by various Commissioners. Added
comments were:
1. The review panel is to consist of 5 members with at least one with experience in
 labor/management issues; and
2. To include a fixed and quick timeline for resolution/decision regarding any disciplinary
 matters.




 Page 22 of 28
To: Burlington City Council

From: Councilor Ben Traverse, Chair of the Ordinance Committee
 Councilor Gene Bergman, Chair of the Charter Change Committee

Date: December 7, 2023

Re: Joint Committee Proposal

The joint committee on police oversight forwarded a proposed charter change for consideration by the
full City Council. The question before the Council at its meeting on December 11 will be whether to warn
this item for a public hearing to place this proposal on the Town Meeting Day ballot.

The following is a summary of the proposal before the City Council:

  Section 184 –

 o Size of Commission – The joint committee considered increasing the size of the Police
 Commission to nine members but ultimately settled on a proposal that keeps the
 existing seven-member Commission. This was supported by members of the
 Commission and the Mayor’s Office.

 o Diversity of Commission – The proposal adds language requiring that the Police
 Commission be representative of Burlington’s diverse communities, including those that
 have been historically marginalized.

  Section 185 –

 o Subsection (a) – Information to City Council – the existing charter provides that the
 Chief of Police is only obligated to furnish the City Council with information regarding
 the “finances” of the Police Department. In practice, the Chief of Police regularly
 provides the Council with more expansive information and the joint committee has
 proposed language that aligns with this existing practice. The Chief of Police and the
 Burlington Police Officers Association (BPOA) expressed a desire that the proposed
 language include additional parameters for information that is legally protected from
 disclosure. As noted below, the joint committee has invited suggested edits.

 o Subsections (b) and (c) – Auditing and Monitoring, and Rulemaking – in practice, the
 Police Commission regularly exercises auditing and monitoring functions over the Police
 Department. Additionally, to make amendments to or promulgate new rules or
 regulations at the departmental or Commission level, existing practice requires that
 these directives be mutually approved by both bodies. The joint committee has
 proposed language that reflects this practice and reaffirms the City Council’s role in
 potentially resolving any disagreement over rulemaking.




 Page 23 of 28
o Subsection (d) – Complaint Review and Investigations

  First, the proposed language of this subsection reflects an existing practice
 where the Chief of Police regularly provides the Police Commission with notice
 of and updates on their review of complaints of alleged misconduct by a
 member of the Police Department. For higher-level complaints, such as those
 involving alleged use of force, the proposed language affirms that the Chief of
 Police may not dispose of the complaint until they have notified the Police
 Commission of any recommended disposition.

  Second, the proposed language provides that in the course of receiving notice
 and updates of complaints of misconduct, the Police Commission may provide
 feedback to the Chief of Police and request that the Chief furnish the
 Commission with any documents related to their review of a complaint.

  Third, the joint committee has proposed language affirming that once the Chief
 of Police has disposed of a complaint, the Police Commission may make a
 recommendation on an alternative disposition.

  Additionally, a majority of the joint committee supported language that would
 allow the Police Commission, by a two-thirds vote, to hire a third party approved
 by the City Attorney’s Office to conduct an independent review or investigation
 of a complaint. The joint committee discussed whether the charter should
 provide this third party subpoena authority and a majority of the committee
 declined to extend that authority. The City Council would be able to establish
 time limitations for any review or investigation, and at the conclusion of that
 process, the Police Commission may exercise its authority to make a
 recommendation on an alternative disposition of a complaint. Some members of
 the Police Commission provided public testimony indicating disagreement with
 their assuming an expanded investigatory role. Members of the joint committee
 asked that the Police Commission act as a body to please provide the City
 Council additional feedback on this issue.

o Subsection (e) – Complaint Resolution – if a recommendation from the Police
 Commission differs from that of the Chief of Police, the Chief may either accept or reject
 the Commission’s recommendation. If the Chief rejects the Commission’s
 recommendation, the Police Commission may, by a two-thirds vote, elevate the dispute
 to an independent three-member panel for resolution. This panel will be appointed by
 the Mayor for the sole purpose of resolving the elevated dispute. A majority of the panel
 must consist of members with experience in law enforcement, human resources, labor
 and employment law, or other similar experience. Representatives from the BPOA
 expressed a desire for further clarification on these eligibility criteria. As noted below,
 the joint committee has invited the BPOA to provide suggested edits.




 Page 24 of 28
  Section 185

 o At the request of the Mayor’s Office, the joint committee has included language that the
 Chief’s direction and control of the Police Department be “subject to the authority of the
 mayor as chief executive officer and the ordinance and orders of the city council.” This
 language is the same as that which applies to the Mayor’s authority over other City
 department heads. The Chief of Police and BPOA provided public comment on this
 change and noted, among other concerns, that Section 191 of the charter expressly
 creates a disconnect between members of the Police Department and political activities.
 After receiving this testimony, members of the joint committee asked that the Mayor
 please confirm their position on the proposed language.

  Section 190

 o Subsection (a) – Appeal Process – the joint committee proposes the removal of language
 requiring that disciplinary appeals be presented to the Police Commission. This proposal
 is intended to remove any due process concerns related to the Commission exercising
 appellate authority over a matter it was previously involved in. By removing this
 language, the appellate process for unionized members of the Police Department will be
 the subject of collective bargaining and the process for non-unionized members will be
 controlled by the City’s ordinances and personnel policies. The Chief of Police and BPOA
 expressed that unionized members of the Police Department have been historically
 incentivized to advance into leadership ranks with the commitment that they will remain
 subject to the same appellate practices established by their collective bargaining
 agreement. Members of the joint committee verbally expressed support for this practice
 to continue.

The following is a summary of the four areas where the joint committee has specifically asked for
additional feedback:

 1. For Section 184(a), members of the joint committee invited any suggested language that further
 defines parameters for information the Chief of Police must furnish to the City Council.

 2. For Section 184(d), members of the joint committee requested formal feedback from the Police
 Commission on whether its current membership is supportive of the proposal that they be
 permitted to hire a third party to conduct an independent review or investigation of any
 complaint.

 3. For Section 184(e), members of the joint committee invited any suggested language that further
 defines eligibility criteria for the members of the independent complaint resolution panel.

 4. For Section 185, given additional feedback from the Chief of Police and BPOA on the proposed
 language, members of the joint committee asked that the Mayor’s Office confirm its position on
 this proposal.




 Page 25 of 28
 Resolution Relating to RESOLUTION________
 Sponsor(s): Charter Change
 Committee
 CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65
 Introduced: ____________________
 REGARDING POLICE OVERSIGHT Referred to: ____________________
 ______________________________
 Action: ________________________
 Date: __________________________
 Signed by Mayor: ________________

 CITY OF BURLINGTON
 In the year Two Thousand Twenty-Four..………………………………………………………………………
 Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows:

 1 That WHEREAS,
 2 WHEREAS,
 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
 4
 5 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT

 6 183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms.
 7 The Board of Police Commissioners shall consist of seven (7) legal voters and should represent the diverse nature of
 8 said City’s constituents, including those from historically marginalized communities, to be appointed by the City
 9 Council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

10 184 Same-powers and duties.
11 (a) The City Council shall make rules and regulations for the government of the entire Police force Department and
12 shall fix the qualifications of applicants for positions and service on said force Department and, to the extent
13 permitted by applicable law, the Chief of Police shall furnish the city council with any information they may require
14 concerning the finances of the Police Department. The Chief of Police shall be responsible for all expenditures made
15 by the police department and no expenditures shall be made by the department except in conformity with the
16 standards promulgated by the City Council.

17 (b) The Board of Police Commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the management,
18 auditing, or monitoring of the Police Department, its services and facilities, as may be delegated from time to time by
19 resolution the ordinances and orders of the City Council. Said board shall notify the mayor and the chief
20 administrative officer, in writing, of any and all changes, modifications or additions to the rules and regulations of the
21 department.

22 (c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the Board of Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police may propose
23 rules and regulations for the government of the entire Police Department in a manner not inconsistent with those
24 established by the City Council. Adoption of such proposed rules and regulations requires joint approval by the
25 Board of Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police. In the event joint approval is not provided by the Board of
26 Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police, either party may bring forward to the City Council the proposed rule
27 or regulation for the City Council’s consideration.

28 (d) The Board of Police Commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian and internal
29 allegations of misconduct by members of the Police Department. The Mayor’s proposed budget and the City Council
30 shall annually appropriate an amount necessary for the adequate support and facilitation of such review. To the
31 greatest extent permitted by law, the Chief of Police shall provide the Board of Police Commissioners timely updates
32 of any review, investigation, or disposition of alleged misconduct, and the Board of Police Commissioners shall have


 Page 26 of 28
 Page 2
 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING
 POLICE OVERSIGHT



33 the ability to request additional information from the Chief of Police and access to all documents or other evidence
34 relied upon by the Chief of Police in reviewing allegations of misconduct. For higher-level complaints of alleged
35 misconduct that warrant suspension or more severe discipline, the complaint may not be disposed until the Board of
36 Police Commissioners is notified of the proposed disposition.

37 After receiving notice from the Chief of Police of the recommended or actual disposition relating to the review of
38 alleged misconduct, the Board of Police Commissioners shall have the authority to:

39 (i). recommend an alternative disposition to the Chief of Police within a time established by ordinance; or

40 (ii) independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the Police Department upon a 2/3
41 majority vote. Such investigation or review shall be conducted by an independent investigator hired by the
42 Board of Police Commissioners, and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, and completed within a time
43 established by ordinance. Upon the conclusion of such an investigation, the Board of Police Commissioners
44 may make a recommendation per subsection (i). The Board of Police Commissioners shall not have the
45 authority to investigate or impose discipline upon the Chief of Police. Matters regarding the alleged
46 misconduct of the Chief of Police shall be addressed in conformity with section 190(b) of this Charter and
47 other relevant Vermont statutes.

48 (e) Upon receiving a recommendation by the Board of Police Commissioners in subsection (d), the Chief of
49 Police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or
50 reject the recommendation. In the event the Chief of Police rejects the recommendation, the Chief of Police shall
51 immediately the notify Board of Police Commissioners. Upon receiving notice of the rejection, the Board of Police
52 Commissions may, upon a 2/3 majority vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter
53 within a time established by ordinance, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section
54 190(a). The disposition of the independent panel shall be final, subject to any statutory right of appeal.

55 This independent panel shall consist of three five (35) persons appointed on a case by case basis by the Mayor as
56 follows: one (1) member to be appointed by the Burlington Police Officers’ Association; one (1) member of the
57 Police Commission to be appointed by the Chair; and, three (3) Mmembers to be appointed by the Mayor of the
58 independent panel and shall include at least two (2) persons with experience in law enforcement, human resources or
59 labor and employment law, or other similar experience, and one (1) member from the general public.

60 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN

61 185 Officers of Police force Department designated.
62 (a) The direction and control of the entire Police force Department, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be
63 vested in a police officer who shall be called the Chief of Police and such other ranking police officers as the City
64 Council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as chief executive officer and the ordinances and orders
65 of the City Council. The order of rank and succession within the police department shall be as designated by the City
66 Council by regulation.

67 (b) Except as herein otherwise provided, such officers shall have the powers and duties granted to police officers by
68 Vermont law and assigned to them by regulations adopted under section 184 of this Charter.

69 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION

70 190 Chief of Police may remove member for cause; hearing.



 Page 27 of 28
 Page 3
 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING
 POLICE OVERSIGHT



 71 (a) Whenever it shall appear to the Chief of Police that any member of said force Police Department has become
 72 incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty,
 73 or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or
 74 charges to such effect are made in writing to the Chief of Police by a responsible person against such member, the
 75 Chief of Police may investigate and, after appropriate notice and hearing, dismiss such member from the force Police
 76 Department, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14
 77 days. In connection with any possible dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the Chief of Police’s
 78 notice to the member shall be given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the
 79 charges being considered. In connection therewith, the Chief of Police shall have the power to subpoena documents
 80 and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to enforcement or
 81 modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and 809b. The board of police
 82 commissioners shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions of the police chief. The
 83 time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such board of regulation.
 84 Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the
 85 police chief.

 86 (b) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or incapable from any
 87 cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private
 88 or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor
 89 by a responsible person, the Mayor may suspend the Chief of Police from duty pending a hearing thereon by the City
 90 Council. The City Council shall forthwith notify the Chief of Police of the charges preferred by them, or of the
 91 complaints or charges presented by such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and
 92 investigate the same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made, shall
 93 give the Chief of Police reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the City Council shall have the
 94 power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be
 95 subject to enforcement or modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and 809b.

 96 (c) If, upon hearing, the City Council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it may dismiss the
 97 Chief of Police from the force Police Department, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her without pay for a
 98 period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control in the event of any conflict with
 99 section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the Chief of Police.

100 (d) The Chief of Police may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the
101 rules and regulations of the Police Department that may seem to the Chief of Police sufficient, suspend from duty
102 without pay any member of the Police force Department for a period not to exceed 14 days.
103
104
105 *Material underlined in black added by recommendation the Joint Committee
106 **Material stricken out in black deleted by recommendation of the Joint Committee
107 ***Materials underlined or stricken out in red by recommendation of the Charter Change Committee
108
109
110 HM/JD/Resolutions 2024/ NAME
111 DATE




 Page 28 of 28

Charter Change Committee
 Tuesday, June 18, 2024
 Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. or Remote via Zoom.
 DRAFT MINUTES

Members Present: Councilor Bergman (Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty
(remote)

Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Chief Jon Murad (BPD),
Detective Joseph Corrow (BPD)

Public Present: Commissioner Keefe

Meeting called to order at 5:09 PM.

1. Agenda
 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda

Motion to Adopt Agenda as is.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Doherty
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/12
 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/12

Motion to Amend Draft Minutes from June 12, 2024 by clarifying Commissioner Cox’s statement
to read that “Commissioner Cox does not believe the Commission should undertake
investigations.”
Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

3. Public Forum

No members of the public spoke at public forum.

4. Discussion of the Joint Committee’s Proposed Charter Changes

Attorney Sturtevant shared the draft changes to the charter in resolution format. The proposed
changes can be found in the agenda packet.

Councilor Bergman explained that the small change to line 29 of the draft resolution to include
the words “The Mayor’s proposed budget and…” is to accommodate the budget structure of the
city. Change approved without objection.

 Page 1 of 3
Councilor Bergman said that the changes to lines 34 and 35 of the draft resolution is to clarify
the circumstances when a complaint can and cannot be disposed without notifying the Board of
Police Commissioners. Councilor Bergman asked Attorney Sturtevant and others for more
clarity on how the change to line 35 will align with Department Directive (DD) 40 and the
BPOA union contract.

Detective Corrow said that an officer would be put on paid administrative leave after an
allegation, but before any potential discipline. He continued that the City does not consider
administrative leave to be a punishment.

Councilor Bergman asked Attorney Sturtevant to work on the clearest language for line 35 that
would ensure there are no ambiguities on when the Commission must be notified of the
disposition of a complaint.

Councilor Bergman said the changes to lines 46-47 was in response to a comment from
Commissioner Keefe. The change is to accommodate any further other statutory issues that may
arise from misconduct from the Chief of Police. Change approved without objection.

Councilor said that change to line 53 came from a request from the BPOA to make clear that
disposition would happen in a timely manner as laid out in an ordinance. The change to line 54
was from a request from Commissioner Keefe to make clear the finality of the disposition from
the independent panel. Councilor Bergman said he would like to adjust the change to line 54 to
be “applicable right of appeal or grievance process” instead of “statutory right of appeal” to
ensure there are no changes to the union grievance and arbitration system.

Commissioner Keefe asked if the independent panel is taking the power of final disposition away
from the Chief and thus the grievance would go to the panel instead of the Chief. If there is no
answer in that grievance to the panel then it would go to arbitration.

Councilor Bergman said he would like to leave the Chief as the person that hears the first step of
the grievance. Councilor Doherty asked for the City Attorney’s Office to examine this issue and
talk with BPD and the BPOA about this potential change.

Councilor Doherty said the draft changes to lines 55-59 did not reflect his thoughts from the
previous meeting. He said that his original intent was to have a member appointed by the
Commission rather than have a Commissioner themselves on the panel. The Committee was in
agreement that it would be a person appointed by the Commission rather than a member of the
Commission itself.

Councilor Carpenter said it seemed repetitious to have the BPOA and Commission both have
appointees on the independent panel as well as being involved in other levels of the process. She
continued that she favors having three members but is unsure who would appoint them.

Councilor Doherty said that having appointees from these two groups did not effect the
independence of the independent panel. He continued that the logistics of finding and appointing
panelists should be the prerogative of the appointing entities. He said that the BPOA has not
 Page 2 of 3
made large requests of the Committee and having one member of the panel be appointed by them
would be fair and modest.

Detective Corrow said the BPOA wants the process to be fair and having an appointed member
would be helpful to that goal. The BPOA is interested in having a fair disciplinary process rather
than just seeking the least severe discipline for its members. He continued that he was concerned
that the independent panel could be weaponized against the police depending on who is
appointed and who is the Mayor. He said that the Department has lost applicants after they read
the proposed charter changes. He said the criteria for appointment by the Mayor should have a
minimum of 10 years of experience in law enforcement or labor or employment law.

Councilor Bergman said he was fine with having a five person independent panel. He said he is
not in favor of having a BPOA-appointed member. Councilor Bergman said the union will be at
the table for any grievances or arbitration and should not be able to pick one of the panelists.

Councilor Doherty also asked for a drafting change to lines 58-59 to clarify the kinds of
experience that are necessary to be appointed by the Mayor to the panel.

Councilor Bergman said that the material in lines 81-85 was removed in a previous draft but is
being placed back into the current draft. Change approved without objection.

5. Any Other Committee Business

The Committee’s next meeting is set for June 25 at 7:30 PM.

6. Adjournment
 6.01 Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM.




 Page 3 of 3