[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Questions/Comments for October 10, 2019 Study Session - Police Oversight

[Kane, Aimee]

Hello Mary and Hotline followers,

Thank you for your questions. The task force has compiled the answers below (questions are in italics) as well as in the attached document.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Police Oversight Taskforce and Colleagues,

I would like to express my immense gratitude to the Taskforce, staff and facilitator for an amazing body of work accomplished in a very short time. Thank you for all of your time and dedicated effort.

I will, unfortunately, not be able to attend Thursday's study session, so I am providing my comments and questions ahead of time with the hope that you will have enough time to consider them.

The aim of this undertaking is to improve community trust of policing in our community, oversight of internal investigations and provide for continuous improvement and evaluation of police procedures and policies, all of this with the main intent of identifying and working to eliminate racial bias. I would like the outcome of this effort to be the best that it can be. To that end, I support passing an ordinance that codifies a preferred model, then extend the Taskforce's commitment, for those interested, in order to work out the many details left to address.

I support the Taskforce's recommendation and would appreciate consideration of questions and comments below.

1.           One of the functions of the Auditor Monitor is to recommend policy changes. The chart specifies that a potential next step could be a charter change to have Auditor Monitor report directly to the City Council.
a.           What are those pros and cons of this proposal?

Pros: Direct representatives of the community (city council members) would be directly supervising and evaluating the work of the position, reinforcing a stronger connection to Boulder voters. A/M would also be more independent from the police department if they are not supervised by the city manager, who also supervises the chief of police.

Cons: There is potential for less stability for the position because every election cycle could result in changes to the makeup of council members, who in turn would have the power to significantly change the role.

b.           Concern: placing the Auditor Monitor under the direction of the City Council has the potential to politicize police policies. Please address.

The Task Force has discussed this possibility but feels the advantage of direct community representation outweighs concerns of politics. In addition, the Police Chief would still maintain final decision-making authority regarding the outcomes of internal investigations, which means political interference in any single case would be mitigated.

2.           For the Police Oversight Panel, it is recommended that, initially, the panel be selected by 2 Task Force members and 3 members of the community from specified non-profits.
a.           Did the Task Force Consider including members of the Human Relations Commission and/or City Council members as part of the selection committee? Why or why not?

Task Force considered including council members and chose not to in order to maintain greater direct community influence and independence. The Human Relations Commission was not directly discussed.

b.           Who would select the community members from non-profits?

City Council members would select the nonprofits to be represented, and those nonprofits would then identify their individual representative. The specific nonprofits represented could change from selection cycle to selection cycle and would not be automatically tied to specific organizations.

c.           What process is envisioned after the initial panel selection, that is, how would appointments be handled after initial panel is seated?

Future appointments would be made in a similar manner by a selection committee composed of community members. The original two task force members from the first selection committee would be replaced by sitting members of the oversight panel who are continuing their terms, along with the three nonprofit representatives selected by council.

d.           Would the committee selection be a recommendation to council, why or why not?

No. The selection would be a direct appointment by the selection committee. The selection committee would inform the Council and Police Chief of their choices, and the A/M would provide the administrative support to help onboard new members.

3.           The preferred alternative establishes the AM as a member of city staff. How does the preferred alternative ensure AM independence while recognizing that, as a staff member, a certain measure of solidarity with police staff will exist?

The Police Oversight Panel, comprised of community members, will participate in the evaluation of the position's performance to ensure independence. In addition, the position's office will also be physically located separate from the police department.

4.           The proposal states that the Police Oversight Panel would recommend disposition, discipline and mediation. The proposal also states that the POP would receive only summaries of investigations.
a.           How can recommendations on disposition, discipline and mediation be made with review of only a summary of an investigation?

While the Police Oversight Panel will receive summaries of the performance and complaint history of the officer in question, they will be given full access to all current investigation materials for review.

5.           It is proposed that the POP would analyze police policy, data and suggest policy improvements and innovations to the chief and AM.
a.           What guidelines would exist to guide such analyses?

Specific guidelines should be determined as implementation occurs, in partnership with the A/M, police department, additional city staff, and oversight panel (this is true regardless of model selected).

6.           On page 14, the flow chart for the proposed complaint process does not show a feedback loop.
a.           Did the panel consider a feedback loop?

Yes. All individual investigation results will be shared with complainant and community. Regular information will be shared via the web and during community engagement events, including forums hosted by the oversight panel.

In addition, the success of the A/M model and potential improvements will be regularly assessed by the oversight panel in partnership with the community, as well as by the A/M.

b.           If not, how could a goal of continuous improvement be incorporated into this flow chart?

Part of the A/M's job will be to pursue continuous improvement; this will occur beyond the specific duties of the complaint review process.  The oversight panel will also conduct direct engagement with the community to understand the impact of the new model on building trust and transparency. Both the A/M and oversight panel will be responsible for regular reporting on individual cases as well as policing data and trends. The Task Force recognizes that as a new model, continuous improvement will be required as implementation occurs. Continuous examination of the model will help to ensure that community, oversight panel, A/M, and police department needs are being met.

7.           How does the preferred model promote a culture of debriefing and community policing?

This desired culture will be promoted through regular reporting and seeking feedback from the community. Independent reviews of investigations conducted by the A/M are intended to heighten scrutiny of the internal investigation process while building community trust that these investigations are thorough and unbiased. The influence of the oversight panel coupled with an expansion of community engagement should also promote greater transparency and trust.

8.           The independent investigator model is appealing as it adds additional assurance of independence. The majority of the Task Force did not recommend this option. As an alternative middle ground between a resident AM and an independent AM, could a review panel of AM peers (city AM + AMs from nearby peer cities) improve the model, if at all?

The A/M hired would be expected to regularly confer with others in the profession to assess their performance and practices, and fully utilize the city's NACOLE membership, which includes access to a variety of resources and best practices.

9.           The proposed process mentions leveraging the Data Scientist (as proposed in 2020 Budget). Knowing that bias exists in both, data collection and analytic algorithms, how does the panel process address machine bias?

This concern for machine bias is already top of mind for the city's IT department practices and will be considered further by the future data scientist. While the Task Force has not directly conferred about this issue, they do expect this bias to be taken into consideration by staff during implementation.

The Task Force recognizes the foundation of police data collection methodology is rooted in institutionalized racism and white supremacy and carries existing bias and identify the need for an anti-biased approach to conducting analyses to mitigate the effects.

From: Young, Mary <YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 8:12 AM
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Questions/Comments for October 10, 2019 Study Session - Police Oversight

Dear Police Oversight Taskforce and Colleagues,

I would like to express my immense gratitude to the Taskforce, staff and facilitator for an amazing body of work accomplished in a very short time. Thank you for all of your time and dedicated effort.

I will, unfortunately, not be able to attend Thursday's study session, so I am providing my comments and questions ahead of time with the hope that you will have enough time to consider them.

The aim of this undertaking is to improve community trust of policing in our community, oversight of internal investigations and provide for continuous improvement and evaluation of police procedures and policies, all of this with the main intent of identifying and working to eliminate racial bias. I would like the outcome of this effort to be the best that it can be. To that end, I support passing an ordinance that codifies a preferred model, then extend the Taskforce's commitment, for those interested, in order to work out the many details left to address.

I support the Taskforce's recommendation and would appreciate consideration of questions and comments below.

Comments and Questions:

  1.  One of the functions of the Auditor Monitor is to recommend policy changes. The chart specifies that a potential next step could be a charter change to have Auditor Monitor report directly to the City Council.

     *   What are those pros and cons of this proposal?
     *   Concern: placing the Auditor Monitor under the direction of the City Council has the potential to politicize police policies. Please address.

  1.  For the Police Oversight Panel, it is recommended that, initially, the panel be selected by 2 Task Force members and 3 members of the community from specified non-profits.

     *   Did the Task Force Consider including members of the Human Relations Commission and/or City Council members as part of the selection committee? Why or why not?
     *   Who would select the community members from non-profits?
     *   What process is envisioned after the initial panel selection, that is, how would appointments be handled after initial panel is seated?
     *   Would the committee selection be a recommendation to council, why or why not?

  1.  The preferred alternative establishes the AM as a member of city staff. How does the preferred alternative ensure AM independence while recognizing that, as a staff member, a certain measure of solidarity with police staff will exist?
  2.  The proposal states that the Police Oversight Panel would recommend disposition, discipline and mediation. The proposal also states that the POP would receive only summaries of investigations.

     *   How can recommendations on disposition, discipline and mediation be made with review of only a summary of an investigation?

  1.  It is proposed that the POP would analyze police policy, data and suggest policy improvements and innovations to the chief and AM.

     *   What guidelines would exist to guide such analyses?

  1.  On page 14, the flow chart for the proposed complaint process does not show a feedback loop.

     *   Did the panel consider a feedback loop?
     *   If not, how could a goal of continuous improvement be incorporated into this flow chart?

  1.  How does the preferred model promote a culture of debriefing and community policing?
  2.  The independent investigator model is appealing as it adds additional assurance of independence. The majority of the Task Force did not recommend this option. As an alternative middle ground between a resident AM and an independent AM, could a review panel of AM peers (city AM + AMs from nearby peer cities) improve the model, if at all?
  3.  The proposed process mentions leveraging the Data Scientist (as proposed in 2020 Budget). Knowing that bias exists in both, data collection and analytic algorithms, how does the panel process address machine bias?
Thank you again for all of your hard work.

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

"All ethics . . . rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts . . ." - Aldo Leopold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20191010/ec157e2d/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Answers to questions from Hotline.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27001 bytes
Desc: Answers to questions from Hotline.docx
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20191010/ec157e2d/attachment.bin