City Council - Charter Change Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2024-07-01
Time: 17:30

Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jul 1, 2024 05:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/92468410160?pwd=QYXH7dCNNKkb1wC9JugtF4mbjROtAJ.1
Passcode: 817715
Or One tap mobile :
  +16469313860,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US
  +19292056099,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US (New York)
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 646 931 3860 US
  +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)
  +1 564 217 2000 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
Webinar ID: 924 6841 0160
Passcode: 817715
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ab8MzmRAzH




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 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 July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 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. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Any Other Committee Business

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

6. Adjournment
  Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action

Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jul 1, 2024 05:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/92468410160?pwd=QYXH7dCNNKkb1wC9JugtF4mbjROtAJ.1
Passcode: 817715
Or One tap mobile :
  +16469313860,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US
  +19292056099,,92468410160#,,,,*817715# US (New York)
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 646 931 3860 US
  +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)
  +1 564 217 2000 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
Webinar ID: 924 6841 0160
Passcode: 817715
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ab8MzmRAzH




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 1 of 26
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 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 July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 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. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY 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 26
Meeting July 1, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Monday, July 1, 2024, 5:30 PM,
 Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 26
 Charter Change Committee
 Tuesday, June 25, 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), Erin Jacobsen (Mayor’s Chief of
Staff), Councilor Grant, Hayley McClenahan (Assistant City Attorney)

Public Present: Jeffrey Jarrad

Meeting called to order at 7:40 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 6/18
 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/18

Motion to Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

3. Public Forum

Jeffrey Jarrad: I am a resident of Ward one. At the end of the last meeting Councilor Doherty
brought up that he would like the draft language to read that the Police Commission shall appoint
someone to the independent panel rather than appoint one of their own members to the panel. I
think the draft language should explicitly exclude Commissioners from being on the panel.
Similarly, I think the draft language should explicitly exclude a member of the BPOA from being
appointed to the panel. This would make the panel more independent.

Melo Grant: There were comments during the Joint Committee process from previous Police
Commissioners that seem to have been suppressed. Where do those comments stand now? I
have heard from other people that they are disconnected because they have lost faith. I think
that, looking at some of the comments from newer Commissioners, that they are politically
motivated. People have been talking about issues like how the spokesperson for the BPOA is

 Page 1 of 4



 Page 4 of 26
involved in a lawsuit. We have focused too much on the Department and not enough on the
public.

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes

Attorney Sturtevant shared the draft language changes in resolution format. The draft resolution
is available in the agenda packet.

Erin Jacobsen (Mayor’s Chief of Staff) said the Mayor agreed with Councilor Carpenter that five
members on the independent panel may be too unwieldy, but the Mayor is more concerned with
ensuring the panel is representative and truly independent. She suggested that instead of a
BPOA appointment that City Council could appoint a member instead. She continued that
adding an experience requirement might be better done in ordinance instead of in charter and the
charter could make reference to the ordinance instead.

Councilor Carpenter agreed that BPOA should not have an appointee on the independent panel
as it would jeopardize the independence of the panel. She also agreed that having a member
appointed by the City Council would be prudent.

Councilor Bergman said he was agreeable to having a five person panel with three members
appointed by the Mayor, one by the Police Commission, and one by the City Council.

Councilor Doherty said he disagreed to substituting the BPOA appointee for an appointee from
the City Council. He said that the panel could be exposed to incredible political pressure and it
would be good to have a member be appointed by the BPOA to alleviate concerns from officers
that it won’t be a fair process.

Councilor Carpenter said it was a good idea to include an explicit statement in charter that none
of the appointees to the independent panel can be a current member or employee of the
appointing party. Councilors Bergman and Doherty both agreed.

Melo Grant said there is always a political influence. Life experience always influences people’s
politics and outlook with regards to the police.

Erin Jacobsen said it is a good idea not to have appointees be a part of their appointing body.
She said it isn’t that the BPOA shouldn’t have their voices heard, because the BPOA will be
present throughout these processes. The Mayor wanted a member appointed by the City Council
instead of the BPOA so there is more accountability to the public and more oversight by the
citizenry.

Councilor Bergman moved on to lines 69-70 of the draft resolution.

Erin Jacobsen said the Police Chief is the only department head that is not currently subject to
the authority of the Mayor and the Mayor is in favor of the draft changes to this section to codify
that the Mayor has authority over all department heads including the Police Chief.

 Page 2 of 4



 Page 5 of 26
Attorney McClenahan said the draft language that came out of the Joint Committee mirrors the
language used in other sections of the charter for other department heads. The intention is to
make clear that the Police Chief is subordinate of the executive authority of the Mayor. The new
draft changes reference section 116 of the charter which lays out the relationship between the
Mayor and the department heads. Worth noting that the previous and current draft language do
not extend any more managerial power over the Department than previously and this is a
codification of the current mayoral authority.

Councilor Carpenter said that it only came to their attention that the Police Chief was treated
differently under charter after we started looking into this oversight question.

Councilor Bergman said it is important to reference section 116 to make clear that the Mayor is
only going to take emergency control of the department in an emergency and that the department
head still has general managerial authority over their personnel as delegated by the Mayor. He
does not support having the Mayor be able to micromanage the police department generally.

Councilor Doherty said he doesn’t think the intention of the draft language is to expand mayoral
power.

Erin Jacobsen said this language is not intended to provide new powers to the Mayor but to
establish clarity on the relationship between the Mayor and the Police Chief.

Attorney Sturtevant asked if the changes to lines 19-20 were acceptable. This change would add
the City Council to the list of people that must be notified if and when the Police Commission
changes any rules or directives for the police department. All councilors agreed to the change.

Councilor Bergman moved on to the questions posed by the BPOA. The document titled “2024-
06-21 Joseph Corrow BPOA Questions for Charter Change” is available on the agenda packet.

Councilor Doherty asks why the Committee is discussing questions from the BPOA without the
BPOA being present. Councilor Bergman said the BPOA had a conflict with the meeting time
and the Committee needs to continue to work forward.

Councilor Doherty said he was unsure why the BPOA said that the Police Commission would be
given hiring authority. He said that is not part of the current changes.

Councilor Bergman agreed that there is no hiring authority in the Commission and that there
isn’t a change in disciplinary hierarchy either.

Councilor Carpenter said the intent was never to change the bargaining process. She continued
that the confidentiality of the Police Commission has always been important. These changes do
create a new panel that could be considered another level of hierarchy.

Motion to find that the premature general public knowledge of confidential attorney-client
communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the committee
would clearly put the committee at a substantial disadvantage.
 Page 3 of 4



 Page 6 of 26
Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

Motion to go into executive session to receive confidential attorney-client communication
pursuant to 1 V.S.A. 313(a)(1)(f).
Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter.
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

5. Any Other Committee Business

The Committee’s next meeting is set for 5:30PM on July 1.

6. Adjournment
 6.01 Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn.
Motion by Councilor Bergman, without objection.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.




 Page 4 of 4



 Page 7 of 26
Email from Joseph Corrow of the Burlington Police Department and Burlington Police Officers’
Association, 2024-06-21


Councilor Bergman,


I apologize for the delay in this. Here are the questions posed by our council:

It appears that they are recommending essentially making the Police Commission the hiring &
disciplinary authority in the first instance, as I understand Section 184 (b) through (d). How can this be
consistent with the whole notion of collective bargaining & the current agreement? It seems to me that
this changes the collective bargaining entity on behalf of the employer completely from the City
(through the Chief) to the City (through the Chief & the Police Commission). Is the Police Commission
going to have members present at bargaining now?

And under Section 184(d), the Police Commission is now going to be the recipient & evaluator of all
complaints about officers? How does this impact the confidentiality of these matters from an officer
perspective?

So they are creating another layer of hierarchy and this provision also does not indicate what happens if
an officer disagrees, as opposed to the Chief of Police? These changes are doing away with the right of
appeal of an officer completely, as far as I can tell. (This last one is not a question, but I think it is
important to highlight as we want to make sure changes to the charter do not at all cause this to be the
case.


Joseph Corrow | Detective
Burlington Police Department
1 North Ave
Burlington, VT 05401




 Page 8 of 26
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 9 of 26
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 10 of 26
  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 11 of 26
 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 12 of 26
 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 13 of 26
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 14 of 26
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 15 of 26
Page 16 of 26
Page 17 of 26
Page 18 of 26
Page 19 of 26
Page 20 of 26
Page 21 of 26
Page 22 of 26
Page 23 of 26
 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, ordinances, and orders of the City Council. Said board shall notify the mayor, chief administrative officer,
20 and City Council, 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., Tand the Board of Police Commissioners shall


 Page 24 of 26
 Page 2
 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING
 POLICE OVERSIGHT



33 have the ability to request additional information from the Chief of Police and access to all those documents or other
34 evidence relied upon by the Chief of Police in reviewing allegations of misconduct as the City Council shall designate
35 by ordinance. For complaints of alleged misconduct that constitute an offense subject to an investigation of the
36 Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A 2401 et seq. or for which the Chief of Police
37 intends to impose discipline constituting loss of pay, suspension, or termination, the complaint may not be disposed
38 until the Board of Police Commissioners is notified of the proposed disposition.

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

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

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

50 (e) Upon receiving a recommendation by the Board of Police Commissioners in subsection (d), the Chief of
51 Police may accept the recommendation subject to the notice and hearing provisions in Article 62, section 190(a) or
52 reject the recommendation. In the event the Chief of Police rejects the recommendation, the Chief of Police shall
53 immediately the notify Board of Police Commissioners. Upon receiving notice of the rejection, the Board of Police
54 Commissions may, upon a 2/3 majority vote, request that an independent panel decide the disposition of the matter
55 within a time established by ordinance, subject to the notice and hearing provisions set forth in in Article 62, section
56 190(a). The disposition of the independent panel shall be final, subject to any applicable right of appeal or grievance
57 process.

58 This independent panel shall consist of five (5) persons appointed on a case by case basis, per ordinance, as follows:
59 one (1) member to be appointed by the Burlington Police Officers’ AssociationCity Council; one (1) member to be
60 appointed by the Police Commission to be appointed by the Chair; and, three (3) members to be appointed by the
61 Mayor as follows: one (1) member with at least five (5) years of work experience in human resources, or the labor
62 and employment sector; (one) (1) member with at least x (x) years of work experience in law enforcement; and, one
63 (1) member from the general public. No panel member appointed shall be a current member or employee of the
64 appointing party.

65 ARTICLE 63. CHIEF OF POLICE AND CAPTAIN

66 185 Officers of Police force Department designated.
67 (a) The direction and control of the entire Police force Department, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be
68 vested in a police officer who shall be called the Chief of Police and such other ranking police officers as the City
69 Council shall authorize, subject to the authority of the mayor as chief executive officer pursuant to §116 and the
70 ordinances, resolutions, and orders of the City Council. The order of rank and succession within the police
71 department shall be as designated by the City Council by regulation.

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



 Page 25 of 26
 Page 3
 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING
 POLICE OVERSIGHT



74 ARTICLE 65. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION

75 190 Chief of Police may remove member for cause; hearing.
76 (a) Whenever it shall appear to the Chief of Police that any member of said force Police Department has become
77 incompetent, inefficient or incapable from any cause, or is or has been negligent or derelict in his or her official duty,
78 or is guilty of any misconduct in his or her private or official life, or whenever any well-grounded complaints or
79 charges to such effect are made in writing to the Chief of Police by a responsible person against such member, the
80 Chief of Police may investigate and, after appropriate notice and hearing, dismiss such member from the force Police
81 Department, order a reduction in rank, or suspend the member without pay for a specified time period in excess of 14
82 days. In connection with any possible dismissal, demotion, or suspension for more than 14 days, the Chief of Police’s
83 notice to the member shall be given at least 48 hours prior to any hearing and shall include a description of the
84 charges being considered. In connection therewith, the Chief of Police shall have the power to subpoena documents
85 and witnesses and to administer the oath to such witnesses. Such a subpoena will be subject to enforcement or
86 modification in conformity with the procedures set forth in 3 V.S.A. §§ 809a and 809b. The board of police
87 commissioners, or in the case it has already offered an opinion on discipline pursuant to §184(d)(i), or in the case that
88 the voting number of commissioners falls below four (4) due to declared actual or apparent conflicts of interest, an
89 independent panel comprised as in §184(e) shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions
90 of the police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such
91 board of regulation. Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the
92 decision made by the police chief.

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

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

107 (d) The Chief of Police may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the
108 rules and regulations of the Police Department that may seem to the Chief of Police sufficient, suspend from duty
109 without pay any member of the Police force Department for a period not to exceed 14 days.
110
111
112 *Materials in red & highlighted are changes since 6/25 mtg. draft
113
114
115 HM/JD/Resolutions 2024/ NAME
116 DATE




 Page 26 of 26

Charter Change Committee
 Monday, July 1, 2024
 Bushor Conference Room in City Hall. or Remote via Zoom.
 DRAFT MINUTES

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

Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Hayley McClenahan (Assistant
City Attorney), Jon Murad (Chief of Police), Eric Dallamura (BPD, BPOA)

Public Present: Jeffrey Jarrad, Jack Keefe (Police Commission), Carolyn Hanson, Chris Haessly
(Marketplace Commission), Mark Hughes, Shelby Lincoln

Meeting called to order at 5:32 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 6/25
 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/25

Motion to Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

3. Public Forum

Carolyn Hanson: I was fortunate to be on the Police Commission for six months. I feel like the
Commission has good processes, but reading the minutes from the last meeting I feel like the
Commission has been thrown to the weeds. A lot of conversation is going into who will be
going to be on the independent panel. I would urge you all to read DD-40 as it lays out a really
good process. I would also encourage you to look at what the Criminal Justice Training Council
does. The Council usually has the department do an internal investigation, but they have the
power to hire an outside investigator to do an investigation if necessary. I think it is important to
consider every option before we expand the budget to pay for more things. My boss, the
Attorney General, did not want me to continue to be on the Commission and I found it very hard
to find people to recruit to be on the Commission. I don’t know what the independent panel will
accomplish, even while we already have a good process in the Commission currently. My two
big issues that I could never raise with the Commission during my tenure was that the
 Page 1 of 6
department always needs to have someone answer the phone when the public calls. The other
issue is the department lobby is horrendous and not inviting. It feels like you’re going into a jail.
I think those two things would go a long way to building trust with the public.

Eric Dallamura: I am the treasurer of the BPOA. I don’t think it is necessary to have a panel
with individuals that are handpicked by political leaders, either the Mayor or the Council. We
already have an HR Department, we have State oversight. This will drag out the process and
will be bad for morale. I appreciate you are moving things along to get the issue to the voters
quickly. BPOA wants educated people to make the important decisions and do it quickly. It is
in the interest of the BPOA to have good officers and that is good for the public as well.

Jeffrey Jarrad: I am a resident of Ward One. I don’t know every detail of things that have
happened in the last five years and I am working on that. But if I made a list of issues or
difficulties from the last five years I would include things like officers being paid out and
resigning and complaints from the public. So what would those issues have looked like if we
had the proposed changes to the charter in effect at that time. Would these proposed changes
have mitigated or eliminated some of the issues? That is a litmus test of the value of the changes
to the charter.

Mark Hughes: I would like to see some oversight of every agency in the state that is substantial
and impactful. There is overlap here with Title 20 on the state side. Everybody wants to be safe
and have a fair process. This department was the first to require use-of-force (UOF) data and
that was back in 2018 or 2019. There was some pushback on that. Because of that change the
rest of the state started requiring that data shortly after. I still think the proposed changes are not
enough. I say that as a former Police Commissioner and retired army officer. I understand what
oversight and responsibility looks like. I don’t see why you don’t advance this to the full
Council before it gets killed before it sees the light of day. Then we can hold Councilors
accountable since it is a political process, just as the Commission is political because of how the
members are appointed. I do not think most of the officers that have had important complaints
about them are or were “bad” police officers. I think there is a bad system which is why we need
oversight. It is intrinsically designed to full afoul. Even the proposed appointment process for
the independent panel creates a predictable outcome. It builds fortifications to protect the
system. We should stop this and bring the changes to the Council.

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes

Attorney Sturtevant shared the draft language changes in resolution format. The draft resolution
is available in the agenda packet.

Councilor Carpenter said that while the Committee has spent time on particulars recently, a lot of
the big changes to the charter are to codify the current working processes of the Commission and
the Department as they are currently only in effect by executive order from the Mayor.

Councilor Bergman said that the Mayor’s Office also sent in a request late in the day and the
Committee will be seeing that for the first time tonight.

 Page 2 of 6
Attorney Sturtevant said the change to line 32 was to correct a typo. The change to lines 33-34 is
to establish that the Commission has access to certain kinds of documents as laid out in
ordinance. This change was to ensure confidentiality and to bring the charter language into line
with the current working processes and allow changes in document access to be made in
ordinance which is easier to adjust going forward.

All councilors agreed that the change in proposed language was what they intended.

Attorney Sturtevant continued that the changes to lines 58-64 were to move the experience
requirements to be on the independent panel into ordinance rather than charter. Councilor
Bergman clarified that the stricken language to have an appointment from the BPOA was to
reflect a request from the BPOA and not language that was approved by the Committee. The
language change was voted on in the June 25 meeting.

Councilor Doherty reiterated Councilor Carpenter’s comment that most of the proposed changes
are to codify the existing processes between the Commission and the Department that are
working well. He said he has not heard the BPOA say the current system is not working. One
issue that is not currently addressed is if there is a difference in opinion on discipline between the
Commission and the Chief. That is the reason for the independent panel.

Councilor Doherty continued that he didn’t think the Committee had voted on the inclusion of
the BPOA appointment, but rather had agreed to disagree and moved on. He said he disagrees
with the current draft language and would like the BPOA to have an appointee on the panel.

Councilor Carpenter said that the Committee contemplated other ideas instead of the current
proposed independent panel. She said that most communities in Vermont use the legislative
body as the final appeal body and Burlington does not. She said she isn’t sure the City Council
wants that authority, but it was discussed. She said there has to be a body that can make a
decision if there is a disagreement between the Chief and the Commission.

Motion to have the City Council be one of the appointing bodies for the independent panel in
place of the BPOA.
Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Bergman and Carpenter
No: Councilor Doherty

Councilor Doherty reminded everyone that there is still more procedural steps to complete before
the current proposed language will be put into the charter. The proposed language must be
passed out of the Committee, go through the City Council, and be approved by the voters.

Attorney Sturtevant said the changes to lines 69-71 were only to clarify the current powers of the
Mayor and that the changes do not confer additional powers onto the Mayor.




 Page 3 of 6
Councilor Bergman said he supported the changes to ensure there is no question about the
existing powers of the Mayor due to a lack of a reference. Councilors Carpenter and Doherty
agreed.

Attorney McClenahan said the changes to lines 88-90 were due to the optics of the Commission
exercising their authority under Section 184(d) to make discipline recommendations or hire an
outside investigator, while then also potentially sitting as an appellate body for an officer facing
discipline under Section 190(a). She said the proposed language would allow the independent
panel to be used as an appellate body if there is not a quorum of commissioners due to some
commissioners feeling they have actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

Councilor Carpenter said there was some concern about having the Commission be an appellate
body for officers but the Committee also heard that both the BPOA and the Commission wanted
to keep the Commission as the appellate body. She said she agreed with the proposed changes.

Councilor Doherty also agreed and said this was a helpful change to ensure that there are no
violations of any officer’s due process rights. Councilor Bergman also agreed and that the
changes insulates the Commission from any appearance of a conflict.

Jon Murad (Chief of Police) said there was previous arbitration wherein the arbitrator found no
conflict even without this proposed change. The counsel for the Police Commission at the time
had a different opinion, however. There was actually already a situation where the Commission
changed their mind in an appeal of discipline after they heard more evidence and heard from the
officers directly involved through the appeal process. That is to say the Commission was not
tainted by the initial consultation with the Chief and can, and has, changed its opinion on appeal.

Attorney Sturtevant said the changes to lines 112-115 is a codification of the current system that
only exists by executive order. This language is by request of the Mayor’s Office.

Jon Murad said the proposed language is taken almost verbatim from an executive order from
2020 and that he had no issue with the language being included in charter.

Attorney McClenahan said the inclusion of the language that allows the process to be designated
in ordinance was to allow the details like timing to be laid out in a more adjustable way through
ordinance.

Councilor Doherty did not see why the language needed to be included in charter at all. The
Mayor can have a standing order with the Chief of Police about how the Mayor should be
informed of such incidents and their disciplinary outcome.

Councilor Bergman said the inclusion of the language that allows the process to be laid out in
ordinance conflicts with the current statutory structure. The nature of the discipline goes beyond
what is being considered here. The nature of discipline is laid out already in things like DD-40.
Councilor Bergman says it does make sense for the Mayor to be informed by the Chief of UOF
incidents or issues of significant public concern and having that in charter is sensible. He said he

 Page 4 of 6
was supportive of the proposed changes if the language “by a process designated by ordinance”
was removed.

Jon Murad said DD-40 already directs the Chief to consult with the Mayor, City Attorney, and/or
HR Director as necessary for disciplinary matters. That consultation is already built into the
current system.

Councilor Carpenter said the proposed charter language seems redundant given what is already
in DD-40. She said the language “seek the Mayor’s concurrence with the Chief’s decision” does
not make sense. She said the Mayor should be informed of such issues, but the rest of charter
lays out the process and does not consider that the Chief will seek the Mayor’s concurrence on
discipline.

Councilor Bergman said the proposed language seems aspirational, but does not require the
Chief and Mayor to come to an agreement on discipline.

Councilor Carpenter said the language should be more general and only instruct the Chief to
consult with the Mayor about these issues.

Councilor Doherty said he was uncomfortable with adding this language to the charter and that it
is too specific to be in the charter.

Councilor Bergman said he is fine with not including the language as the consultation is included
in DD-40.

Motion to refer with recommendation the draft charter changes back to the City Council to be
placed on the November, 2024 ballot as drafted and be warned for public hearing.
Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Bergman

Motion to divide the previous motion into two questions: one to refer the draft language back to
the City Council and another about recommending the language for adoption.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Bergman
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

Motion to refer the current draft charter change language back to City Council.
Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Bergman
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Unanimous

Motion to recommend the current draft charter change language be placed on the November,
2024 ballot and be warned for public hearing.
Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter
Final Resolution: Motion Passes
Yes: Councilors Bergman and Carpenter
No: Councilor Doherty
 Page 5 of 6
Councilor Doherty clarified that he believes the BPOA has been supportive of many parts of this
drafting process and at present the draft language is not something he can recommend. He said
he is glad to see the process move back to the City Council but is also hopeful that there will be
some final changes in the City Council.

5. Any Other Committee Business

Councilor Carpenter brought up the possibility of a future charter change to the redistricting
process that would take the process away from the legislature. Councilor Bergman added two
other potential future charter changes: councilor compensation and the public financing of
elections.

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 7:18 PM.




 Page 6 of 6