Joint Committee on Police Oversight — Burlington, VT
Date: 2023-12-04
Time: 19:00

Monday, December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Dec 4, 2023 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/97822403815
Or One tap mobile :
  +19292056099,,97822403815# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,97822403815# 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
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 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
Webinar ID: 978 2240 3815
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ab9G2Nt1PW




1. Agenda
 Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 1. Agenda

 Department


 Type

 Recommended Action
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Adjournment
  Subject 5.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

Monday, December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Dec 4, 2023 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/97822403815
Or One tap mobile :
  +19292056099,,97822403815# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,97822403815# 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
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 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
Webinar ID: 978 2240 3815
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ab9G2Nt1PW




1. Agenda
 Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 1. Agenda

 Department


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 1 of 18
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from November 27

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Adjournment
  Subject 5.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting December 4, 2023 - Joint Committee on Police Oversight Meeting Agenda - Monday,
 December 4, 2023, 7:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 2 of 18
Page 3 of 18
 ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE
 Monday, November 27, 2023
 Bushor Conference Room, 1st Floor City Hall or Remote via Zoom
 DRAFT MINUTES
Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Councilor Bergman
(Charter Change Committee Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty, Councilor Shannon,
Councilor Hightower
Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of
Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel)
Others in Attendance: Romeo Von Hermann, Melo Grant, Sharon Bushor, Dave Maher, Sital
Dulal, Whitney Hodges, Daniel Pecor, Jane Knodell, Ted Wimpey
Meeting called to order at 5:38 PM.
1.0 Agenda
Motion to adopt/amend agenda
Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from November 13
Motion to Adopt Minutes as is.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon
Abstain: Councilors Bergman and Hightower

3.0 Public Forum
Sharon Bushor: I sent a question to Councilor Bergman late. Has the Police Commission had a
chance to see the proposed draft language? I remember that they felt, as volunteers, taking on
additional work would be taxing. I think that having the sitting body give some feedback would
be important. I was hoping the charter language would suggest expertise for the HR panel that
would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council.
Melo Grant: The issue of redacted documents came up last meeting. There was a comment that it
could have been a redaction for juvenile’s name. That was not the case in the documents I was
referencing. It was so heavily redacted that the documents were useless and gave me grave concern
that there was something that was trying to be covered up.
Romeo Von Hermann: I want to echo Sharon Bushor’s concerns. I also want to emphasize having
the Police Commission continue their work and not relying heavily on the HR Committee.

 Page 1 of 5


 Page 4 of 18
4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Change Language
Attorney Sturtevant shared the working document from November 13. This document is available
in the CivicClerk agenda packet.
Attorney Diamond brought up a potential issue of timing with regards to disposition and potential
Loudermill hearings. It would be awkward to have two separate dispositions between the Chief
and the Commission and two potential Loudermill hearings. Councilor Carpenter responded that
the Commission should be informed of those issues before the Chief comes to a disposition.
Councilor Bergman suggested adding a notice period between when the Chief has come to a
decision and when the Commission has to decide on their course of action.
Councilor Shannon asked about outreach to both the Police Commission and the police union
(BPOA). Councilor Shannon said that she spoke with Police Commissioners and they were not
aware of the current direction of the draft charter change language.
Councilor Shannon added that, in speaking with current commissioners, that the Commission
wants additional help in reviewing materials received from the BPD rather than conducting their
own investigations. Commissioners have said they do not feel qualified to do so.
Councilor Hightower disagreed and said one of the primary focuses of these charter changes is to
establish independent investigatory authority. She continued that the staffing issue will be
resolved in ordinance so that the Commission has sufficient support. She was also concerned with
having professional requirements for the three individuals on the new panel. Instead of
establishing a separate body, the Police Commission should have the ability to overrule the Chief
with a super majority.
Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said that the Mayor envisions that this new body would be
on standby and would only meet when there is an impasse between the Chief and Commission.
Professional expertise would be necessary since they would not be interacting regularly with BPD
given they would not meet very often.
Councilor Hightower reiterated her disagreement with having a new panel as currently described.
Jordan Redell said that the Mayor believes expertise is necessary when the decision could override
the Chief of Police. The Mayor wants it to be a high bar to override the Chief’s decision. The
rationale being that the Chief is the primary person in charge of discipline for Burlington’s officers.
Jordan Redell shared the Mayor’s thoughts on the current iteration of the draft charter language.
First, the Mayor is opposed to increasing the Commission size from seven to nine. Larger boards
are less cohesive and require more administrative support. Second, the Mayor would like
complaints about the Chief themselves to be referred to the Mayor and have it be clear that the
Commission would not have authority to discipline the Chief. Third, there should be guardrails
on the timeframe for how long the Commission has to render a disciplinary recommendation or
investigate misconduct. Fourth, the Mayor thinks any independent investigation by the
Commission should be done by a qualified investigator that is approved by the City Attorney.
Fifth, the Mayor believes there should be a clear timeline that states that the Commission will give
their recommendation to the Chief and the Chief will be the one to finalize the disposition after a
potential recommendation from the Commission. A written memo from the Mayor’s Office stating
as much is forthcoming.

 Page 2 of 5


 Page 5 of 18
Councilor Hightower said that the vote to initiate an independent investigation in Section 184(d)
should be a simple majority. Councilor Carpenter said that the Chief would have already presented
evidence to the Commission and it seems like having a higher threshold of two-thirds is
appropriate. Councilor Doherty agreed with Councilor Carpenter on having a two-third majority
given the expense and impact of having a second investigation for something the Chief has already
had investigated. Councilor Traverse also believes two-thirds is an appropriate threshold to
balance civilian oversight and the rights of officers. Councilor Shannon favored a two-thirds
majority as well. Councilor Bergman favored a simple majority as with a seven person
Commission it would have to be a 5-2 majority for two-thirds versus a 4-3 simple majority.
Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) to require a two-thirds majority of
the Commission to initiate an investigation.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Traverse, Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon
No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) to require a simple majority of the
Commission to initiate an investigation.
Final Resolution: Motion Fails
Yes: Councilors Bergman and Hightower
No: Councilors Traverse, Doherty, Carpenter, and Shannon

Councilor Shannon questioned the validity of allowing an investigation after the Chief has
concluded their investigation and included Commission input. Councilor Shannon was also
concerned about giving subpoena authority to a commission without standards for service,
particularly because the Commission could subpoena victims.
Councilor Doherty said that the subpoena power of the legislature has limitations in statute. Many
would presumably plead the fifth. Attorney Diamond said there are statutes around civil
investigative demands for the AG’s office. We could add more language here or not.
Councilor Traverse said that he always assumed investigations would be performed by an outside
professional rather than the commissioners themselves. The investigator would be the one using
the subpoena power to that goal. Councilor Bergman said there should be some additional
language around subpoena power to make the process clear for everyone involved.
Councilor Shannon was uncomfortable with the subpoena authority given that many people cannot
afford an attorney and not understand the process. She reiterated that giving the Commission
authority to compel testimony after the police department has already finished its investigation is
not appropriate. If this included then there should be guardrails so as to not victimize members
of the public.
Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(d) paragraph 2 to include the
language “In connection therewith, the board of police commissioners shall have the power to
subpoena witnesses and documents and to administer the oath to such witnesses.”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Bergman, Traverse, Carpenter, and Hightower
No: Councilors Doherty and Shannon

 Page 3 of 5


 Page 6 of 18
Councilor Doherty would like to revisit this language in the future and is uncomfortable with the
current language around subpoena power as currently drafted. He believes there should be more
detail on the process. Councilor Bergman asked that Attorney Diamond draft some language
around this subpoena power issue.
Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to require a two-thirds majority (as
opposed to a simple majority) of the Commission to request that an independent panel resolve an
impasse between the Chief and the Police Commission.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, Doherty, and Shannon
No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower

Councilor Hightower suggested leaving the question of expertise on this new independent panel
alone for the time being and simply saying an apolitical panel will be appointed to deal with an
impasse. Councilor Carpenter was concerned about the timing of having this panel get together to
decide on a pending personnel issue.

Attorney Diamond raised the issue that an independent panel, as the last step in a process, would
have to have the ability to craft a novel decision after having a Loudermill hearing for the
employee. Attorney Diamond continued that a Loudermill hearing provides an opportunity for an
accused employee to influence the decision about their employment. The employee would get to
submit testimony or evidence themselves. The awkward part is that a Loudermill would probably
take place before this new panel meets.

Councilor Shannon believes there should be professional expertise on the panel, but there is room
for what expertise that would be. Her concern is that professional discipline requires professional
decision makers.

Councilor Traverse offered having a list of criteria that could be met for appointment to the new
panel, such as HR, union, management, or law enforcement expertise.

Jordan Redell reiterated that the Mayor feels strongly about maintaining the expertise requirements
for the new panel and pointed to the success of the Church Street Marketplace Commission that
has similar relevant requirements. The Mayor would also likely have a hard time supporting
having these requirements in ordinance rather than charter.
Councilor Traverse offered that, given the many levels of appeals that this process can go through,
it might be easier to leave the appeal decision to the Mayor rather than create a new three person
panel.
Councilor Bergman said, as a point of information, that the Church Street Marketplace
Commission requires two members to be owners or managers of businesses on the marketplace
and another to reside in the downtown improve district. He also said that there are professional
requirements for some members of other boards.
Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to read that the Mayor shall appoint
the members of the new panel.
 Page 4 of 5


 Page 7 of 18
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, Doherty, and Shannon
No: Councilors Bergman and Hightower

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184(e) to reflect that “At least two of the
members of the new panel shall have experience in law enforcement, human resources, labor and
employment law, or similar experience, and one member from the general public.”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection.
Motion to strike in its entirety the draft charter language of Section 190(b) pending follow up from
the Mayor’s Office and the Chief of Police and further discussion at a subsequent Joint Committee
meeting.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection.
The next Joint Committee meeting will be held at on 12/4 at 7:00PM in Bushor Conference Room
or Remote.
5.0 Adjournment
Motion to adjourn.
Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection
Yes: Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 PM.




 Page 5 of 5


 Page 8 of 18
 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT

183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms.
The board of police commissioners shall consist of nine (9) legal voters and should represent the Commented [A1]: The Mayor recommends keeping
diverse nature of said city’s constituents, including those from historically marginalized communities, that the number of commissioners at 7, the current
to be appointed by the city council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years and until their level.
successors are appointed and qualified.

(Act No. M-18, § 2, approved 3-1-16)


 184 Same-powers and duties.
(a) The city council shall make rules and regulations for the government of the entire police
department and shall fix the qualifications of applicants for positions and service on said department
and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the chief of police shall furnish the city council with
any information they may require concerning the police department. The chief of police shall be
responsible for all expenditures made by the police department and no expenditures shall be made
by the department except in conformity with the standards promulgated by the city council.

(b) The board of police commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the
management, auditing, or monitoring of the police department, its services and facilities, as may be
delegated from time to time by the ordinances and orders of the city council. Said board shall notify
the mayor and the chief administrative officer, in writing, of any and all changes, modifications or
additions to the rules and regulations of the department.

(c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the board of police commissioners and the chief of police
may propose rules and regulations for the government of the entire police department in a manner
not inconsistent with those established by the city council. Adoption of such proposed rules and
regulations requires joint approval by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police. In
the event joint approval is not provided by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police,
either party may bring forward to the city council the proposed rule or regulation for the city council’s
consideration.

(d) The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian
and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the police department. To the greatest extent
permitted by law, the chief of police shall provide the board of police commissioners timely updates
of any review, investigation, or proposed disposition of alleged misconduct, and the board shall have
the ability to request additional information from the chief of police and access to all documents or
other evidence relied upon by the chief of police in reviewing allegations of misconduct.

After receiving notice of the proposed disposition relating to the review of alleged misconduct by the
chief of police, the board of police commissioners shall have the authority to: Commented [A2]: The Mayor recommends that this
 authority not extend to matters involving the Chief
 (i). recommend an alternative disposition to the chief of police within a time established by of Police. Per section 190, the Mayor has the
 ordinance; or authority and discretion, subject to the City
 Council's oversight, to discipline and remove the
 Chief.




 Page 9 of 18
 (ii) independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the police
 department upon a 2/3 majority vote. Such investigation shall be commenced and
 completed within a time established by ordinance. Upon the conclusion of such an
 investigation, the police commission may make a recommendation per subsection (i).

(e) Upon receiving a recommendation by the board of police commissioners in
subsection (d), the chief of police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and
hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject the recommendation. In the event the chief
of police rejects the recommendation, the chief of police shall immediately the notify police
commission. Upon receiving notice of the rejection, the board of police commissions may, upon a
2/3 majority vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter, subject to
the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 190(a).

 This independent panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed by the mayor. Each
panel member shall serve for staggered three (3) year terms. Members of the independent panel
shall include at least two persons with experience in law enforcement, human resources or labor and
employment law, or other similar experience, and one member from the general public.

(f) In connection with an independent investigation provided in subsection (d), the board of
police commissioners shall commission a qualified investigator to perform the investigation. Upon a Commented [A3]: The Mayor recommends that the
majority vote of the board of police commissioners, the investigator may issue a subpoena to compel commissioning or hiring of a qualified investigator
the production of documents or witnesses to provide testimony under oath. The investigator will be be approved by the City Attorney.
authorized to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to
enforcement or modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and
809b.




 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN

185 Officers of police department designated.
(a) The direction and control of the entire police department, except as herein otherwise provided,
shall be vested in a police officer who shall be called the chief of police and such other ranking
police officers as the city council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as chief
executive officer and the ordinances and orders of the city council. The order of rank and succession
within the police department shall be as designated by the city council by regulation.

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




 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION

190 Chief may remove member for cause; hearing.




 Page 10 of 18
(a) Whenever it shall appear to the chief that any member of said department has become
incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or
her official duty, or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any
well-grounded complaints or charges to such effect are made in writing to the chief by a responsible
person against such member, the chief may investigate and, after appropriate notice and hearing,
dismiss such member from the department, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member
without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14 days. In connection with any possible
dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the chief’s notice to the member shall be
given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the charges being
considered. In connection therewith, the chief shall have the power to subpoena documents and
witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to
enforcement or modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and
809b.The board of police commissioners shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect
to such actions of the police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate
process shall be as determined by such board of regulation. Following its consideration of any such
appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision made by the police chief.

(b) The [city council shall assign responsibility to a standing committee of at least 3 city
councilors] to hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to discipline issued by the chief
of police in subsection (a) above or the independent panel set forth Article 62, section 184(e). The
time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be determined by the city
council. Following its consideration of such appeal the appellate committee may affirm, modify, or
vacate the decision made by the police chief or the independent panel.

(b)(c) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or
incapable from any cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of
any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or
charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor by a responsible person, the mayor may
suspend the chief from duty pending a hearing thereon by the city council. The city council shall forth
with notify the chief of the charges preferred by them, or of the complaints or charges presented by
such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and investigate the
same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made,
shall give the chief reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the city council shall
have the power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such
witnesses.

(c)(d) If, upon hearing, the city council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it
may dismiss the chief from the department, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her without
pay for a period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control in the
event of any conflict with section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the chief.

(d)(e) The chief may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any
of the rules and regulations of the police department that may seem to the chief sufficient, suspend
from duty without pay any member of the police department for a period not to exceed 14 days.




 Page 11 of 18
 ARTICLE 62. POLICE DEPARTMENT

183 Board of police commissioners; composition; terms.
The board of police commissioners shall consist of nineseven (97) legal voters and should represent Commented [A1]: The Mayor recommends keeping
the diverse nature of said city’s constituents, including those from historically marginalized that the number of commissioners at 7, the current
communities, to be appointed by the city council with mayor presiding to serve for three (3) years level.
and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

(Act No. M-18, § 2, approved 3-1-16)


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

(b) The board of police commissioners shall have such authority and responsibility relating to the
management, auditing, or monitoring of the police department, its services and facilities, as may be
delegated from time to time by resolution the ordinances and orders of the city council. Said board
shall notify the mayor and the chief administrative officer, in writing, of any and all changes,
modifications or additions to the rules and regulations of the department.

(c) Without limitation to the foregoing, the board of police commissioners and the chief of police
may propose rules and regulations for the government of the entire police department in a manner
not inconsistent with those established by the city council. Adoption of such proposed rules and
regulations requires joint approval by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police. In
the event joint approval is not provided by the board of police commissioners and the chief of police,
either party may bring forward to the city council the proposed rule or regulation for the city council’s
consideration.

(d) The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian
and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the police department. To the greatest extent
permitted by law, the chief of police shall provide the board of police commissioners timely updates
of any review, investigation, or proposed disposition of alleged misconduct, and the board shall have
the ability to request additional information from the chief of police and access to all documents or
other evidence relied upon by the chief of police in reviewing allegations of misconduct.

After receiving notice of the proposed disposition relating to the review of alleged misconduct by the
chief of police, the board of police commissioners shall have the authority to: Commented [A2]: The Mayor recommends that this
 authority not extend to matters involving the Chief
 (i). recommend an alternative disposition to the chief of police within a time established by of Police. Per section 190, the Mayor has the
 ordinance; or authority and discretion, subject to the City
 Council's oversight, to discipline and remove the
 Chief.




 Page 12 of 18
 (ii) independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the police
 department upon a 2/3 majority vote. Such investigation shall be commenced and
 completed within a time established by ordinance. Upon the conclusion of such an
 investigation, the police commission may make a recommendation per subsection (i).



(e) Upon receiving a recommendation by the board of police commissioners in
subsection (d), The board of police commissioners may recommend discipline to the chief of
police. tThe chief of police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing
provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject the recommendation. In the event the chief of police
rejects the recommendation, the chief of police shall immediately the notify police commission.
Upon receiving notice of the rejection, tthe board of police commissions may, upon a 2/3 majority
vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter, resolve the impasse,
subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 190(a). and the right of
appeal set forth in Article 62, section 190(b).

 This independent panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed by the mayor. Each
panel member shall serve for staggered three (3) year terms. Members of the independent panel
shall include at least two persons with experience in law enforcement, human resources or labor and
employment law, or other similar experience, and one member from the general public.

(f) In connection with an independent investigation provided in subsection (d), the board of
police commissioners shall commission a qualified investigator to perform the investigation. Upon a Commented [A3]: The Mayor recommends that the
majority vote of the board of police commissioners, the investigator may issue a subpoena to compel commissioning or hiring of a qualified investigator
the production of documents or witnesses to provide testimony under oath. The investigator will be be approved by the City Attorney.
authorized to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to
enforcement or modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and
809b.




 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN

185 Officers of police forcedepartment designated.
(a) The direction and control of the entire police forcedepartment, except as herein otherwise
provided, shall be vested in a police officer who shall be called the chief of police, and such other
ranking police officers as the city council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as
chief executive officer and the ordinances and orders of the city council. The order of rank and
succession within the police department shall be as designated by the city council by regulation.

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




 Page 13 of 18
 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION

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

(b) The [city council shall assign responsibility to a standing committee of at least 3 city
councilors] to hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to discipline issued by the chief
of police in subsection (a) above or the independent panel set forth Article 62, section 184(e). The
time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be determined by the city
council. Following its consideration of such appeal the appellate committee may affirm, modify, or
vacate the decision made by the police chief or the independent panel.

(b)(c) Whenever it shall appear to the mayor that the chief has become incompetent, inefficient, or
incapable from any cause, or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty, or is guilty of
any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or
charges to such effect are made in writing to the mayor by a responsible person, the mayor may
suspend the chief from duty pending a hearing thereon by the city council. The city council shall forth
with notify the chief of the charges preferred by them, or of the complaints or charges presented by
such responsible person in writing, and shall thereupon proceed to consider and investigate the
same. It shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of such complaints and charges so made,
shall give the chief reasonable notice of the same, not less than 48 hours, and the city council shall
have the power to subpoena documents and witnesses and to administer the oath to such
witnesses.

(c)(d) If, upon hearing, the city council shall find such complaints or charges to be well founded, it
may dismiss the chief from the forcedepartment, demote him or her in rank, or suspend him or her
without pay for a period not to exceed 60 days. The procedures outlined in this section shall control
in the event of any conflict with section 129 of this Charter as pertains to the removal of the chief.

(d)(e) The chief may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any
of the rules and regulations of the police department that may seem to the chief sufficient, suspend
from duty without pay any member of the police forcedepartment for a period not to exceed 14 days.




 Page 14 of 18
 Office of Mayor Miro Weinberger




To: Charter Change and Ordinance Joint Committee
From: Mayor Miro Weinberger
Date: December 3, 2023
Re: Police Oversight Charter Change

I am writing this memo as a follow up to input Chief of Staff Jordan Redell has made throughout your
process and to the comments I made at the November 20 City Council meeting.

From my perspective there are three critical goals we must achieve if we are going to act on a new
charter change and send it to voters:

 1) Increase public trust in our police oversight system. Burlingtonians rightly expect our
 police officers to be held to high standards. As a city, we have made significant progress,
 especially since 2015, strengthening the Police Commission to be a body that helps ensure that
 we do this . I, Chief Murad, the City Council, and the Police Commission have all committed to
 more of this hard and important work.

 Since early 2020, I have consistently supported a change to the Burlington City Charter that
 codifies our current practice of referring all citizen complaints to the Police Commission and
 establishes a procedure to reconcile disagreements between the Police Chief and the Police
 Commission about disciplinary matters.

 I am hopeful that codification and refinement of the system we have created would
 improve public trust in our police oversight system and confidence that our department
 is meeting the high standards we require.

 2) Create guardrails to ensure procedural justice and fairness for officers. As I have said
 since the beginning of this process and during past debates on the issue of police oversight, if
 we are going to change the charter to codify a new and strengthened system of police
 oversight, we also need to learn from our recent experiences under the new policies of the
 Police Commission and build in guard rails that ensure procedural justice and fairness for
 officers working under this evolved police oversight system.

 3) Create a system that is both functional and feasible to properly administer.
 Administration of this new system should not overburden the already under-resourced police
 department, whose primary responsibility is to ensure public safety, or a city administration
 that also has limited resources and significant other responsibilities.

If we are going to put a charter change in front of the voters again at the heigh of a public safety crisis,
when we cannot afford to lose any more officers and when the department and administration is


 City Hall | 149 Church Street | Burlington, VT 05401
 802.865.7272 | www.burlingtonvt.gov


 Page 15 of 18
committing all of its capacity to addressing serious public safety challenges, it is essential that the
charter change address all three of the goals.

In support of these goals, I request that the following issues be addressed or improved in the current
Charter Change draft:

Commission size and member qualifications
  I oppose increasing the size of the Police Commission from seven to nine commissioners.
 Already, it has proven difficult to recruit community members to generate competitive and
 diverse pools of applicants interested in serving on the Commission, and the proposed charter
 and ordinance changes will increase their duties and workload.

 Large committees are difficult to serve on and to administer, such as when the need arises to
 schedule a special or emergency session. Further, the current proposal creates a second body
 for the purpose of adjudications and those new members will also be fielded from the
 community and have a certain minimum professional qualifications. Thus, I do not believe a
 substantial increase in membership to the Police Commission is either feasible or supports the
 functional administration of their work.

  Because the proposed charter language gives significant new authorities and responsibilities to
 the Commission, at least half of the Commission should be required to have legal, judicial, HR,
 senior management or law enforcement experience. There is precedent for this type of board
 member qualifications-requirement both in our charter – both the Church Street Marketplace
 Commission and Development Review Board – and among the very few other community
 boards in the country that have actual disciplinary authority (as opposed to advisory authority
 only).

Commission review of Police Chief conduct
  I feel very strongly that the Charter should be clear that the Commission has no authority to
 investigate or discipline the Chief of Police. Complaints about the Chief received or generated
 by the Commission should be referred to the Mayor. The Police Chief is a mayoral appointment
 that, currently, can only be disciplined or removed by the Mayor (per the City Charter and
 subject to the Council’s agreement), and this important mayoral authority and responsibility
 should not be eroded by this prospective charter change.

Commission role in officer discipline
  The Charter should make clear the sequencing of when the Commission should make a
 recommendation to the Chief on discipline. I believe the Chief should be the lead actor in the
 investigator process charged with taking input from the Commission before rendering a
 decision, and then issuing a dispensation.

  The Charter should articulate guardrails on how much time the Police Commission has to
 consider and render a disciplinary recommendation or independently investigate misconduct
 after receiving a decision from the Chief. The Chief and employees of the department need
 some predictability and finality in making a disciplinary decision, especially during the period
 of reduced staffing levels.

  I agree that a 2/3rds supermajority of the Commission should be able to request a separate
 independent investigation be conducted if they have concerns about a conflict within the
 Police Department or if they find reason to question the integrity of an internal investigation.
 City Hall | 149 Church Street | Burlington, VT 05401
 802.865.7272 | www.burlingtonvt.gov


 Page 16 of 18
 The Charter should be clear that the separate investigation would be conducted by a qualified,
 impartial professional investigator or lawyer selected by the City Attorney.

 After hearing from legal professionals during the current process, I do not support the
  Independent Investigator having subpoena powers, and do not believe that is necessary to
  achieve the goal of conducting a thorough, separate investigation. Such powers could lead to
  the Commission subpoenaing civilian witnesses and bystanders that would need costly legal
  representation to protect themselves from possible incrimination.




 City Hall | 149 Church Street | Burlington, VT 05401
 802.865.7272 | www.burlingtonvt.gov


 Page 17 of 18
 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS, SUPERVISOR REVIEWS, ADMINISTRATIVE
 REVIEWS & INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

 INTERNAL COMPLAINT EXTERNAL CITIZEN COMPLAINT
 Performance issues or improper conduct Anyone can make a complaint, to be filed
 observed by coworkers or supervisors; via the online portal, in person, or on
 also guided by DD43 Reporting Corruption paper, or referred by local stakeholders (City
 Council, Police Commission, etc.)

  Does it refer to the wrong Burlington (e.g., Iowa) or the wrong agency or wrong city department?
And/or is it clearly mental-health related? And/or is it a crime complaint? And/or is it prima facie false?

 NO YES
 Respond if possible; close as “Invalid Complaint.”

Is there a use-of-force with Injury? And/or is there reasonable suspicion of a criminal violation? And/or
 is there a referral to an outside agency such as the Vermont State Police or Attorney General’s office?

 NO YES

 SUPERVISOR REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW INTERNAL AFFAIRS
 Assigned to a supervisor Assigned to a Lieutenant or DC INVESTIGATION
 Assigned to a Lieutenant or DC
  Does the supervisor need to Does the misconduct indicate a
  notice and formally interview pattern of behavior? And/or is it
 the subject employee(s)? likely that there will be a
 And/or is there a possible substantial penalty involving
 violation of DD03 or DD05? suspension or termination?

 NO YES NO YES

 Complete the SR Complete the AR Complete the BIA.

 Refer to Chief of Police for review.
  The Chief reviews with H/R, City Attorney, Mayor as necessary. If an incident results in injury to any
 person or raises significant public concerns, the Mayoral Executive Order of September 2020 applies.

 Does the Chief need to interview the subject or afford the subject an
 opportunity to explain or rebut? Is discipline likely to include suspension or termination?

 NO YES

 Loudermill Hearing

 From “Role of the Burlington Police Commission in Reviewing Complaints Against BPD Employees”
(August 2020): “For lower- and mid-level complaints, the Chief will provide a verbal or written summary
 of the complaints and their status or disposition in Executive Session. For higher-level complaints, such
  as those involving an allegation of excessive use of force, dishonesty, discrimination, harassment, or
  other serious misconduct; or for any lower- or mid-level complaint that results in discipline beyond a
 written reprimand; or for any other conduct for which suspension or termination is recommended, the
 Chief will provide the Police Commission with a full verbal briefing of the allegations and the
 recommended disposition of the case in executive session.”

 The Chief finalizes the disposition as per DD40 and offers discipline if appropriate. For sworn officers,
 this is guided by the “Agreement between City of Burlington and the BPOA,” specifically §15, and for
 professional employees it is guided by the City’s Personnel Policy Manual.

As per the August 2020 “Role of the Burlington Police Commission in Reviewing Complaints Against BPD
 Employees” agreement, the Police Commission may disagree with the Chief’s determination and refer
 that disagreement to the Mayor.

 The Chief follows Act 56 of 2017 and, if applicable, refers to the Vermont Criminal Justice Council.

 The subject employee may grieve and appeal the Chief’s decision to the Police Commission,
 as per City Charter 24 App. V.S.A. ch. 3, § 190.

If the subject employee is an officer, he/she may grieve and appeal the Police Commission’s decision to
 arbitration, in accordance with the Agreement between City of Burlington and the BPOA §16.7(C).



 November 20, 2023

 Page 18 of 18

ORDINANCE and CHARTER CHANGE JOINT COMMITTEE
 Monday, December 4, 2023
 Bushor Conference Room, 1st Floor City Hall or Remote via Zoom
 DRAFT MINUTES
Members Present: Councilor Traverse (Ordinance Committee Chair), Councilor Bergman
(Charter Change Committee Chair) (arrived at 9:00PM), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty,
Councilor Shannon
Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of
Staff), Josh Diamond (Outside Counsel), Jon Murad (Chief of Police)
Others in Attendance: Joseph Corro, Mary Cox, Andy Vota, Carolyn Hanson, Sharon Bushor,
Jane Knodell, Nancy Westbrook, Michele Asch
Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM.
1.0 Agenda
Motion to adopt/amend agenda
Motion to Adopt the Draft Agenda.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Shannon
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

2.0 Adopt the Draft Minutes from November 27
Motion to Adopt Minutes as is.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Shannon
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

3.0 Public Forum
Joseph Corro: I am the President of the Burlington Police Officers’ Association (BPOA). BPOA
sees no reason to increase the number of commissioners to nine as per the changes in Section 183.
In Section 184(a), the BPOA does not like how vague the new changes are. It should be clearer
on what types of information the Chief would be furnishing rather than just saying “all
information.” The BPOA has some issues with Section 184(e). Other professionals, like doctors,
lawyers, or nurses, have boards that are comprised of either current or former professionals in their
respective fields. The BPOA wants oversight that is professional and understands policing and
the current commissioner training does not provide that. With more authority comes a greater
need for professional standards and expertise for those doing the oversight. Continuing with
Section 184(e), I like the concept of the independent panel, I just think the qualifications for the
panel are too vague and should account for things like length of time in a field, different positions
held, and the like. Personally, I would prefer if someone in this role had a variety of policing
experiences (patrol, detective, supervisory) and have trainings and expertise relevant to a
department the size of BPD. In addition, we would also suggest having a five person panel rather
 Page 1 of 8
than three. In Section 185(a), we do not support the language added regarding the Mayor’s
authority and do not see it as fair given that the mayor is subject to political pressure. I am not
certain on what the subpoena power’s as draft would entail and thus we are concerned about it.
The outcome could be that it pushes officers out the door. There are a number of things in this
document that officers would be uncomfortable with. Our fear is that new hires may choose other
departments because they fear they won’t be treated fairly. From my personal experience, I know
that an internal investigation is extremely stressful on top of the regular stress of police work.
Having multiple levels of investigations would add more time and the continued possibility of a
decision being reversed or changed. In short, we want a robust, but fair, oversight system that
does not add additional stress.
Jon Murad (Chief of Police): There is some room in the current charter for change, at least when
it comes to the issue of disciplining the Chief of Police themselves. I would recommend having
the Mayor be in charge of discipline for the Chief. A large issue throughout the draft charter
changes is the absence of a distinction between discipline and substantive discipline. For
substantive discipline the Chief does not act alone and consults with the City Attorney’s Office,
HR, and Mayor’s Office. This is important since the draft language would notify the Commission
of all discipline rather than just substantive discipline as it is laid out in the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA, union agreement). The CBA recognizes that some issues can be resolved
quickly without a special meeting of the Commission to lighten stress on officers for minor issues.
The CBA says that the Commission shall receive all recommendations of discipline or the
dispositions of smaller issues. I agree with the BPOA on Section 185 that it is important to keep
politics out of the department and Section 191 actually restricts certain political involvement by
officers or the Chief.
Mary Cox (Police Commissioner): I personally concur with most everything the corporal and the
Chief said. The Commission has not had a chance to discuss the draft language in a meeting yet.
I personally think we need some cleanup of a few policies but that a charter change is not necessary.
Councilor Shannon followed up with Mary Cox and asked her to elaborate on what the
Commission has agreed on.
Mary Cox: We wanted a complaint monitor to take over the work that Jack Keefe has been doing.
This wouldn’t be an investigator, but rather administrative staff for the Commission. We also
discussed removing the appellate role for the Commission. There was no consensus on exactly
what we should do on that issue, however. Currently, we listen to the Chief’s recommendation,
but also have an open mind when it comes to acting as an appellate body for officers. I did
personally like the idea of having an independent body to investigate and really dig into more
important incidents. I agree with the corporal that the independent body should have experienced
law enforcement officers and be five members instead of three. Another thought was having the
body be ad-hoc and appointed on a case-by-case basis depending on the context of the incident,
such as with issues of racial justice, disability rights, mental health, etc.
Councilor Carpenter said that the system does seem to be working currently, but this charter change
is to ensure that, with a different Chief, different mayor, and different Commission, the system
continues to work well. A large part of the Committee’s goal was to establish in charter the right
to information that is currently functioning.



 Page 2 of 8
Sharon Bushor: I am concerned that we have not heard from many of the Police Commissioners.
I have heard from some that they do not know why the Joint Committee is making the changes
that it is. As Councilor Carpenter said, we want to formalize the current system and maybe make
some changes. I fear the current changes adds more friction between the Commission and the
Department. On the issue of disciplining the Chief, I think the Mayor should seek the input of
other elected officials. I am not saying that the decision should go before the Council, but rather
the Mayor should seek guidance from and inform the Council of their intent.
Jane Knodell: As a process recommendation, please make sure every document you work on in a
meeting is available to the public. I hope the Joint Committee will listen to the BPOA, the Chief,
and the Commission. It would be damaging to have investigations into discipline linger longer
than necessary.
4.0 Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Charter Change Language
Councilor Traverse laid out the background for the Joint Committee’s inception. The community
control board referendum vote last March failed and the Council decided to take up the issue as
there still was a lot of public support behind it. There has been a push in the last few years to
memorialize in either charter or ordinance the parts of police oversight that have been working and
make changes as necessary. Many of our initial meetings for the Joint Committee were for
information gathering. We alerted many groups in our community as well as the municipal unions
of our meeting schedule and encouraged input.
Attorney Diamond shared the document “Draft Charter Language from 11-27-23 Meeting (Jrd
Edits)”. This document and its ‘clean’ version are available in the CivicClerk agenda packet.
Councilor Traverse asked Commissioner Cox for her opinion on the draft change from a seven to
a nine member commission.
Mary Cox responded that the Commission really wants administrative or staff support. The
Commission lost its staff support and now the commissioners are doing all of the administrative
work such as recording minutes. Staff could monitor the complaints and other tasks that
Commissioner Keefe is currently doing as a volunteer. She said that the Commission does not
need more volunteer Commissioners, but rather needs City staff support.
Jordan Redell (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said that the Mayor’s Office did not realize the Commission
did not have staff support and that she would resolve it.
Councilor Doherty said he supports changing the draft language back to a seven member
Commission. Councilor Shannon agreed that a seven member Commission would be better.
Councilor Carpenter supported keeping the draft language at nine members to include more
historically marginalized groups as well as those with expertise. Councilor Traverse supported a
seven member body.
Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 183 to restore the original seven member
Commission size.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Traverse, Doherty, and Shannon
No: Councilor Carpenter


 Page 3 of 8
Councilor Carpenter brought up that an ordinance change in the future should include that the
Commission has to have administrative staff support.
Jordan Redell said that the memo from the Mayor’s Office (available on the CivicClerk agenda
packet) lays out that Mayor wants at least half of the Commission to have law enforcement, HR,
or legal experience. The Mayor relied on the precedent set in the charter language for the Church
Street Marketplace Commission.

Councilor Carpenter said that the Marketplace Commission only has requirements for four of the
nine members. The Development Review Board has recommended expertise, but not required.

Jordan Redell said that the new draft authority given to the Commission, such the ability to start
their own investigation, requires a higher degree of expertise.

Councilor Traverse did not support having higher qualifications for the Commission given the
higher level panel having requirements. Councilor Shannon was fine not having particular
qualifications for Commissioners so long as they did not have subpoena or investigatory powers.
Councilor Doherty agreed with Councilor Shannon.

Councilor Shannon asked Joseph Corro of the BPOA if he had any thoughts on the draft changes
made in Section 184(a). He did not have any further thoughts on that section at the time.

Chief Murad clarified on the draft changes made to 184(a) that the materials the BPD shares with
the City Council are not the same as those shared with the Commission. Things like the identity
of a victim or the identification of a juvenile would be protected by law and not given to the
Commission. He continued that even materials not protected by law, such as the name of a suspect
in an unresolved, cold case, would not be shared with the Commission even though it would be
legally more ambiguous.

Councilor Carpenter said that the draft change to Section 184(a) was not necessarily about
individual cases, but rather about allowing the Council to have information regarding the
operations generally at BPD.

Jordan Redell asked Attorney Sturtevant if a City Council resolution could compel the BPD to
release information to the Council. Attorney Sturtevant responded that it would depend on the
information and might be protected by law.

Councilor Shannon suggested getting further feedback from the union and the Chief regarding the
draft changes to Section 184(a) before making any further changes. The Committee remained
open to hearing additional changes to this section.

Councilor Traverse quickly summarized Sections 183(b) and (c) and how an impasse on directive
changes would ultimately go to the City Council to decide.

Mary Cox said the current system for changing police directives works well and is very
collaborative. Changes to that current system could disrupt the collaboration between the
Commission, the Chief, and union officers.

 Page 4 of 8
Joseph Corro said any changes made in the charter regarding the Commission or BPD would end
having to require a renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Chief Murad clarified that under the current system that the Commission is informed of lower-
level dispositions by the Chief and not all dispositions go before the Commission before they are
issued. This is to limit the amount of time that officers are under investigation for lower-level
issues.

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184 (d) to remove the word ‘proposed’
before any instance of the word disposition.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous.

Attorney Diamond advised that the word ‘proposed’ was added to disposition in Section 184 (d)
as a matter of continuity with other sections of the charter, particularly for higher-level incidents.

Chief Murad added that the CBA already requires the Chief to inform the Commission of higher-
level allegations of misconduct and must relay the facts of the issue to the Commission before
disposition can take place. This is not the case for lower-level allegations.

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184 (d)’s first paragraph to be:
“The board of police commissioners shall have the authority to receive and review all civilian
and internal allegations of misconduct by members of the police department. To the greatest extent
permitted by law, the chief of police shall provide the board of police commissioners timely updates
of any review, investigation, or disposition of alleged misconduct, and the board shall have the
ability to request additional information from the chief of police and access to all documents or
other evidence relied upon by the chief of police in reviewing allegations of misconduct. For
higher level complaints of alleged misconduct, the complaint may not be disposed until the board
of police commissioners is notified of the proposed disposition.”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous.

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184 (d)’s second paragraph to be:
“After receiving notice of the recommended or actual disposition relating to the review of alleged
misconduct by the chief of police, the board of police commissioners shall have the authority to:”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous.

Councilor Traverse said that, since some stakeholders are hesitant to give the Commission the
power to conduct an independent investigation, that a different option would be to allow the
Commission to send the materials to the new oversight body and allow them to decide on opening
an investigation.




 Page 5 of 8
Councilor Shannon was concerned that allowing a different body, either the Commission or the
new oversight body, would lengthen the time that officers are under investigation. She proposed
having the state police oversight board conduct that part of oversight.

Jordan Redell said that there has been an instance already where the Commission was given
permission to hire an outside attorney to review investigation materials from the Police
Department. That attorney did not conduct an investigation, but reviewed already-acquired
materials for the Commission.

Councilor Bergman joined at 9:00 PM.

Mary Cox said that, in her view, the Commission is focused on systemic change in the Department
rather than individual officers. She said that the ad-hoc committee created during the Grenon
incident discussion worked well, and that the discussions should not fall only on the Commission.

Councilor Doherty recommended striking the language around having the Commission conduct
independent investigations. Councilor Shannon agreed.

Councilor Bergman disagreed. He said that the independent investigation power is essential to
oversight at the local level. If the Commission does not wish to use this power, then they do not
have to.

Councilor Carpenter agreed with Councilor Bergman that the Commission should have the
investigation authority. The Commission would not have to utilize the power, but it would have
the power to hire an outside attorney or staff to get more information.

Councilor Traverse recommended removing Section 184 (f) from the draft language which gave
subpoena power. Instead the Commission would have the power to hire an outside attorney to
conduct an investigation, pending approval from the City Attorney.

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184 (d) (ii) to be:
(ii) “independently investigate any allegation of misconduct by members of the police
department upon a 2/3 majority vote. Such investigation or review shall be conducted by an
independent investigator hired by the board of police commissioners, and approved by the City
Attorney’s Office, and completed within a time established by ordinance. Upon the conclusion of
such an investigation, the police commission may make a recommendation per subsection (i).”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, and Bergman.
No: Councilors Shannon and Doherty.

Motion to keep the subpoena power as laid out in the draft Section 184(f):
Final Resolution: Motion Fails
Yes: Councilor Bergman
No: Councilors Traverse, Carpenter, Doherty, and Shannon




 Page 6 of 8
Councilor Doherty supported having an ad-hoc committee take the place of the proposed new
oversight body as laid out in Section 184(e). Councilor Bergman agreed that having an ad-hoc
committee appointed on a case by case basis makes sense for this new body.

All councilors agreed to keep the size of the ad-hoc committee at three members.

Motion to change the draft charter language of Section 184 (e) to be:
“Upon receiving a recommendation by the board of police commissioners in
subsection (d), the chief of police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing
provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or reject the recommendation. In the event the chief of
police rejects the recommendation, the chief of police shall immediately the notify police
commission. Upon receiving notice of the rejection, the board of police commissions may, upon a
2/3 majority vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter, subject
to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section 190(a).

This independent panel shall consist of three (3) persons appointed on a case-by-case basis by the
mayor. Members of the independent panel shall include at least two persons with experience in
law enforcement, human resources or labor and employment law, or other similar experience, and
one member from the general public.”
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

Councilor Traverse said that the language added to Section 185(a) is from the Mayor’s Office and
codifies that the Chief of Police is subject to the Mayor just like any other Department Head.

Chief Murad said that the added language is important because it gives the Mayor authority over
the Chief and removes the possibility of the Chief having the final say on matters without the
Mayor’s approval.

Jordan Redell said that the Mayor became concerned about the charter language around the Chief
of Police in 2018 when it was shown that the Mayor did not have charter authority over the Chief
on police matters.

Joseph Corro said that the Mayor always had the power to remove the Chief as a last resort. He
was concerned about allowing a politician to have authority over police discipline as is outlined in
the draft language. He was concerned about how public opinion or public pressure may influence
the Mayor’s decisions in this regard.

Councilor Shannon said that she would like to remove the draft language added to this section.
She would also like to get input from the Commission on this issue. All other members of the
Committee favored keeping the language as drafted.

Councilor Traverse moved on to Section 190. He explained that in Section 190(a) the draft
language removes the Commission as the appellate body for police discipline. The Committee
agreed that if this language is removed then the discipline appeals process would align with either
the CBA or the Personnel Policy.

 Page 7 of 8
Jordan Redell pointed to a grammatical issue in Section 184(d). This was changed to read:

“After receiving notice from the chief of police of the proposed disposition relating to the review
of alleged misconduct, the board of police commissioners shall have the authority to:”

Jordan Redell added that Section 184 or 190 should include explicit language that states the
Commission does not have the power to suspend or remove the chief of police. Attorney Diamond
said he would draft language to this effect. All councilors were in agreement with this explicit
inclusion.

Motion to refer the draft charter change language back to the full City Council for public hearing.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

5.0 Adjournment
Motion to adjourn.
Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection
Yes: Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 PM.




 Page 8 of 8