City Council - Charter Change Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2024-06-12
Time: 17:00

Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jun 12, 2024 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/95455861713?pwd=Uorx_TwyW__3bPMt55iu7MUkL7IuZw.BJCnmZnGu5MqPdRr
Passcode: 671374
Or One tap mobile :
  +13126266799,,95455861713#,,,,*671374# US (Chicago)
  +16469313860,,95455861713#,,,,*671374# 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
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
  +1 719 359 4580 US
  +1 253 205 0468 US
  +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
  +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  +1 360 209 5623 US
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
Webinar ID: 954 5586 1713
Passcode: 671374
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/a2q2IcZRc




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 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 June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 6. Adjournment

Department Council and Board


Type

Recommended Action

Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

When: Jun 12, 2024 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/95455861713?pwd=Uorx_TwyW__3bPMt55iu7MUkL7IuZw.BJCnmZnGu5MqPdRr
Passcode: 671374
Or One tap mobile :
  +13126266799,,95455861713#,,,,*671374# US (Chicago)
  +16469313860,,95455861713#,,,,*671374# 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
  +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
  +1 689 278 1000 US
  +1 719 359 4580 US
  +1 253 205 0468 US
  +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
  +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  +1 360 209 5623 US
  +1 386 347 5053 US
  +1 507 473 4847 US
  +1 564 217 2000 US
  +1 669 444 9171 US
Webinar ID: 954 5586 1713
Passcode: 671374
  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/a2q2IcZRc




1. Agenda
  Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 1. Agenda

  Department


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 1 of 21
2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 5/1

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
  Subject 4.1. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 PM, Bushor Conference Room 1st Floor, City Hall OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

5. Any Other Committee Business
  Subject 5.1. Any Other Committee Business
  Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 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 21
Meeting June 12, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 5:00
 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 21
 CHARTER CHANGE COMMITTEE
 Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at 10:00AM
 Via Zoom (Remote)
 DRAFT MINUTES
Members Present: Councilor Bergman (Chair), Councilor Carpenter
Staff Present: Kim Sturtevant (Acting City Attorney)
Others in Attendance: None


Meeting called to order at 10:03 AM.


1.0 Agenda
 1.01 Motion to amend agenda
  Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Bergman
  Final Resolution: Motion Passes
  Yes: Unanimous

2.0 Public Forum
No members of the public present.

3.0 Discussion of Potential Upcoming Charter Changes

Councilor Bergman said the Committee has received comments from the Police Commission
regarding police oversight charter changes and their memo will be on the list. A second issue from
two years ago is councilor compensation. He think we should start with the framework for police
oversight changes.

Councilor Carpenter said the previous Joint Committee ended its work after having a discussion
with the Burlington Police Officers’ Association (BPOA). She said the Committee still needs to
parse out what language should be in charter versus ordinance or directives.

Councilor Bergman said the next conversation should be with the Police Commission and with the
BPOA. The Committee should take testimony and only ask clarifying questions so we have every
viewpoint before we move onto drafting the ordinance. Councilor Bergman thinks this shouldn’t
be part of a joint committee, but the members of the previous joint committee should be invited.
The Attorney’s Office should review the Commission’s memo to ensure this Committee has all
the necessary documents and policies that commissioners might have asked for.

Councilor Bergman then moved on to Councilor compensation. This includes the question of pay
as well as childcare and healthcare compensation.

 Page 1 of 2


 Page 4 of 21
Councilor Carpenter said another issue would be administrative support for the Council. It has
been brought up many times.

Councilor Bergman added that this is all related to improving the ability of the Council to recruit
a diverse range of people.

Councilor Carpenter asked that if the current method of having an exact number for Councilor
compensation put into charter is necessary.

Councilor Bergman said that research into comparable pay structures would likely have to stretch
beyond Vermont because the rest of the state’s towns are so small. He requested that the City
Attorney’s Office discuss this with the Chief Administrative Officer to see what kind of support
can be provided for the Council. He would like to have a report or preliminary findings about
what can be done along with analysis of comparable municipalities.

4.0 Discussion of Next Meeting and Schedule

Councilor Bergman wants to avoid having a special election for charter changes unless absolutely
necessary, so the Committee need to complete its work before the December deadline for the next
Town Meeting Day.

Next meetings are set for June 12 at 5-7PM and June 18 at 5-7PM.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 AM.




 Page 2 of 2


 Page 5 of 21
Jake Schumann Public Comment

Charter Change Meeting 6/12



“Here are my quick takeaways:

184(d)

Line 46: following “all”, strike "civilian and internal”; e.g. in cases of mutual aid or inter-departmental
collaboration (fire department personnel) where external, non-civilian complaint could arise

Line 49: following “of alleged misconduct” - strike “and” and start a new sentence. They’re different
ideas and need to be decoupled

Line 50: following “from the Chief of Police and”, insert "shall be provided timely” here

Line 50: strike “or”, replace with “and”

Line 52: strike “is notified of”, replace with “is afforded an opportunity to deliberate upon”

Line 56: strike “within a time established by ordinance”, replace with “subject to the ordinances and
orders of the city council”

Lines 59-60: strike “within a time established by ordinance”, replace with “subject to the ordinances and
orders of the city council”

Lines 61-63: should be delineated separately, in a new subsection

184(e)

~Needs to be clarified to address timeframes
~Panel should be from a pool of previously vetted candidates to be confirmed by council (this is how
things work at the state-level)
~Diversity language needs to be clarified to address different (political) biases

185

Title - does changing the title mean we have to change a bunch of other sections of the charter that
reference this section?

190(a)

********removes appeal language, which is not reconstituted anywhere!!!!

190(b)

Line 102: following “Mayor”, add “or City Council or Board of Police Commissioners”




 Page 6 of 21
Line 102: following “Chief”, add “of Police"

Line 103: two instances of “his or her” that warrant changing to non-gendered language

~what is the role of the PC in these affairs? Should the PC, CC, & M (20 people total) participate? Maybe
Mayor (or designee), Council President, and PC Chair oversee the review and the other 17 people get to
pose questions, etc.?

190(d)

~add language that says the Chief then needs to notify the PC chair, immediately thereafter



Police Commission Comments

Comment 1 - I agree in principle, but the final language is very important and I might ultimately disagree
with the direction this conversation goes in

Comment 2 - We 100% need to see the internal investigation directives/SOP prior to voting on this
charter change proposal

Comment 3 - "Civilian Review Board” should be added to the description of the Police Commission in
order to clarify and align with language in VT Statutes. Otherwise it might be argued that such state laws
do not apply in Burlington (“because we don’t have a civilian review board here”)”




 Page 7 of 21
 Additional Comments on Proposed Charter Change

The purpose of amending the City Charter, as explained in the October 18, 2021 Police
Oversight and Accountability Resolution 7.09, is to address the “question of moving disciplinary
authority from the Chief of Police to a body that is independent from the Burlington Police
Department.” Oakland, CA and Portland, OR have established strong police oversight bodies
that have removed disciplinary authority from the Chief of Police and provide helpful guidance.

The Oakland Police Commission is considered to be the nation’s strongest civilian oversight
body, as well as an outlier. In 2020, the city proposed a ballot measure containing detailed and
comprehensive changes to its charter (attached separately) that was approved by 81% of the
city’s voters. Portland’s Office of Independent Police Review (IPR) is regulated by the city’s
code Chapter 3.21 Office of Independent Police Review | Portland.gov

Both city’s laws contain clearly defined powers and duties describing where ultimate authority to
discipline officers resides. They also describe each oversight body’s authority to implement a
complaints adjudication process, including conducting investigations and issuing subpoenas.
They define the bodies’ jurisdiction, types of complaints and provide procedures for adjudicating
complaints and hearing appeals. They describe the bodies’ staffing requirements, and budget
resources to effectively carry out their mandates. They describe the required professional skills,
experience and attributes required to serve on the oversight bodies, and stringent selection
processes. These provisions appear to provide for the due process and procedural justice required
by civilian oversight bodies to have the power to discipline officers. There are, however,
significant differences in the two city’s laws.

In its 2021 report, on The Evolution and Growth of Civilian Oversight, the National Association
for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) notes that when considering oversight
reforms, it is important to ensure they “can be implemented sustainably, with the resources, staff,
cooperation, and political support necessary to continue a practice into the future.” Recognizing
that reforms are context specific, NACOLE recommends a “a mindset oriented towards a “best
fit” approach” appropriate for the local context.

This is apparent in the divergent approaches included in the Oakland and Portland laws. The
preamble to Oakland’s charter change measure outlines a history of transgressions, including
human rights violations and corruption committed by its police department, that appear to have
created a sense of urgency for reforms and may explain why voters overwhelmingly approved
establishment of the nation’s strongest oversight body.

Oakland’s measure authorized the Commission to remove the city’s Police Chief, which it did
shortly after the measure passed. This authority is not included in Portland’s code. Oakland’s
Commission has ultimate authority to discipline officers, subject to their rights of due process.
The measure specifically states that the “City Administrator shall not have the authority to reject
or modify the Agency's findings and proposed discipline.” Portland’s code provides specifically
that the IPR’s Director and its Citizen Review Committee are not authorized to set the level of
discipline for officers, granting this authority to city council. Oakland’ Commission can
subpoena sworn officers, Portland’s IPR cannot. There are many differences between the city’s


 Page 1 of 2


 Page 8 of 21
laws and oversight bodies’ structure, staffing and procedures that further demonstrate oversight
should be tailored to the local context.

The proposed amendments to Burlington’s charter do not appear to provide the same level of due
process and procedural justice as the laws in Oakland and Portland and may not be sufficient to
achieve Resolution 7.09’s objective to move disciplinary authority from the Chief of Police to an
independent civilian oversight body. To help move this process forward, it is suggested that the
Charter Change Committee clarify the powers and duties that it envisions for an independent
body to enable a more informed discussion of an oversight body appropriate for Burlington.




 Page 2 of 2


 Page 9 of 21
Page 10 of 21
Page 11 of 21
Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21
Page 14 of 21
Page 15 of 21
Page 16 of 21
Page 17 of 21
 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 21
 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 21
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 21
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 21

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

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

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

Public Present: Josh Kirtlink, Jake Schumann, Jeffrey Jarrad

Meeting called to order at 5:04 PM.

1. Agenda
 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda

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

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

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

3. Public Forum
 3.01 Verbal Comments

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

Public Forum closed at 5:09 PM.




 Page 1 of 7
4. Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes
 4.01 Review of Joint Committee Charter Changes

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

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

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

 1. Retaining Commission’s Appellate Authority

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

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


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

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

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

 Page 2 of 7
 a. Commissioner Rao emphasized Commissioner Hanson’s points, being to ensure
 the investigation process has a clear timeline, supportive of Detective Corrow’s
 concerns about the stress placed on officers during this process and disagreement
 over the mayor’s involvement in disciplinary action, and the need for the
 Commission to be non-political.

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

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

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

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

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

 1. Section 190(a) Lines 97-101

 a. Councilor Doherty understood the reason for removing the language authorizing
 the Police Commission to function as an appellate body was due to concerns with
 that function conflicting with the new role afforded through the proposed charter
 change, though as it seems most Police Commissioners and BPOA are in favor of
 the Police Commission retaining this function, supports adding that language back
 in.
 Page 3 of 7
 b. Councilor Carpenter stated she would support the Police Commission retaining
 that authority with the added layer that an independent panel review serious
 offenses or offenses for which the Police Commission does not have the capacity
 to review.

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

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

2. Complaint Monitor and Investigation Authority

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

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

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

 d. Councilor Bergman added the charter does provide some authority to the Police
 Commission to monitor and hire to carry out monitoring duties, but
 Page 4 of 7
 Commissioner Rao disagreed with the idea that Police Commissioners are in a
 position to realistically hire and supervise, given current resources and the
 backlog of complaints. Councilor Bergman clarified the proposed language does
 not mandate the Police Commission hire a monitor but merely provides the
 authority to do so.

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

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

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

3. Criminal Justice Council and Duty to Report

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

4. Section 184(d)

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

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

5. Composition of the Panel

 Page 5 of 7
 a. Councilor Doherty recalled that BPOA once suggested the independent panel be
 increased from 3 members to 5 members, where 3 members are appointed by the
 mayor and the last 2 are each appointed by BPOA and the Police Commission,
 and more stringent requirements for members to have law enforcement or HR
 experience.

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

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

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

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

6. Investigation Timeline

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

7. Section 185(a) Lines 79-80

 a. Councilor Doherty asked for clarification on the origin of the language regarding
 the Chief of Police being subject to the Mayor’s authority as Chief Executive
 Page 6 of 7
 Officer and ordinances and orders passed by City Council. Councilor Bergman
 said the previous Mayor requested it be added for consistency with other
 departments’ processes. Councilor Doherty requested that the Committee revisit
 this change at their next meeting and asked the City Attorney’s Office to provide
 further guidance on it. Attorney McClenahan agreed to look into the language
 more because on first reading, it seems to run contrary to how the City would
 typically interpret State law with respect to ordinances and executive orders.

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

5. Any Other Committee Business
 6.01 Any Other Committee Business

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

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

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

6. Adjournment
 6.01 Adjournment

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

The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 PM.




 Page 7 of 7