City Council - Charter Change Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2024-06-25
Time: 19:30

Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jun 25, 2024 07:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91403316495?pwd=3nLlGyzvUUB65ixiryQmV7sETr4zfc.1
Passcode: 322522
Or One tap mobile :
  +13126266799,,91403316495#,,,,*322522# US (Chicago)
  +16469313860,,91403316495#,,,,*322522# US
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
  +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
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
  +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
Webinar ID: 914 0331 6495
Passcode: 322522
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/axIXBLOGN




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes
  Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. 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 June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action

Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jun 25, 2024 07:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91403316495?pwd=3nLlGyzvUUB65ixiryQmV7sETr4zfc.1
Passcode: 322522
Or One tap mobile :
  +13126266799,,91403316495#,,,,*322522# US (Chicago)
  +16469313860,,91403316495#,,,,*322522# US
Or Telephone:
  Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
  +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
  +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
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
  +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
Webinar ID: 914 0331 6495
Passcode: 322522
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/axIXBLOGN




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 1 of 25
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from June 18

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes
  Subject 4.1. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. 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 25
Meeting June 25, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 7:30
 PM, Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 25
 Charter Change Committee
 Tuesday, June 18, 2024
 Public Works Conference Room at 645 Pine St. or Remote via Zoom.
 DRAFT MINUTES

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

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

Public Present: Commissioner Keefe

Meeting called to order at 5:09 PM.

1. Agenda
 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda

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

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

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

3. Public Forum

No members of the public spoke at public forum.

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

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

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

 Page 1 of 3



 Page 4 of 25
Councilor Bergman said that the changes to lines 34 and 35 of the draft resolution is to clarify
the circumstances when a complaint can and cannot be disposed without notifying the Board of
Police Commissioners. Councilor Bergman asked Attorney Sturtevant and others for more
clarity on how the change to line 35 will align with Department Directive (DD) 40 and the
BPOA union contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilor Doherty said that having appointees from these two groups did not effect the
independence of the independent panel. He continued that the logistics of finding and appointing
panelists should be the prerogative of the appointing entities. He said that the BPOA has not
 Page 2 of 3



 Page 5 of 25
made large requests of the Committee and having one member of the panel be appointed by them
would be fair and modest.

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

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

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

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

5. Any Other Committee Business

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

6. Adjournment
 6.01 Adjournment

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

The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM.




 Page 3 of 3



 Page 6 of 25
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 7 of 25
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 8 of 25
  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 9 of 25
Page 10 of 25
Page 11 of 25
Page 12 of 25
Page 13 of 25
Page 14 of 25
Page 15 of 25
Page 16 of 25
Page 17 of 25
 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 18 of 25
 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 19 of 25
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 20 of 25
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 21 of 25
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 22 of 25
 Resolution Relating to RESOLUTION________
 Sponsor(s): Charter Change
 Committee
 CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65
 Introduced: ____________________
 REGARDING POLICE OVERSIGHT Referred to: ____________________
 ______________________________
 Action: ________________________
 Date: __________________________
 Signed by Mayor: ________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 Page 23 of 25
 Page 2
 Resolution Relating to CHANGES TO CITY CHARTER ARTICLES 62, 63, AND 65 REGARDING
 POLICE OVERSIGHT



33 the ability to request additional information from the Chief of Police and access to all documents or other evidence
34 relied upon by the Chief of Police in reviewing allegations of misconduct. For complaints of alleged misconduct that
35 warrant suspension or more severe discipline that constitute an offense subject to an investigation of the Vermont
36 Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A 2401 et seq. or for which the Chief of Police intends to
37 impose discipline constituting loss of pay, suspension, or termination, the complaint may not be disposed until the
38 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 statutory applicable right of appeal or
57 grievance process.

58 This independent panel shall consist of three five (35) persons appointed on a case by case basis as follows: one (1)
59 member to be appointed by the Burlington Police Officers’ Association; one (1) member of theto be appointed by the
60 Police Commission to be appointed by the Chair; and, three (3) members to be appointed by the Mayor and shallas
61 follows: include at least two one (12) persons member with at least five (5) years of work experience in in law
62 enforcement, human resources or resources, or the labor and employment sector; (one) (1) member with at least x (x)
63 years of work experience in law enforcement; law, or other similar experience, and, one (1) member from the general
64 public.

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 and 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 24 of 25
 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), an independent
88 panel assembled as in §184(e) shall hear any appeal filed in a timely manner with respect to such actions of the
89 police chief. The time of filing an appeal and the nature of the appellate process shall be as determined by such board
90 of regulation. Following its consideration of any such appeal, the board may affirm, modify, or vacate the decision
91 made by the police chief.

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

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

106 (d) The Chief of Police may, without notice or hearing for any infraction, violation, or disobedience of any of the
107 rules and regulations of the Police Department that may seem to the Chief of Police sufficient, suspend from duty
108 without pay any member of the Police force Department for a period not to exceed 14 days.
109
110
111 *Materials in red are changes since 6/18 mtg. draft
112
113
114 HM/JD/Resolutions 2024/ NAME
115 DATE




 Page 25 of 25