,
43 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
i can’t stay for the whole thing because the police civilian review board meeting starts at 6:30, but this meeting promises to be more boring and more normal than the one i just came from. 
if we’re being honest, i haven’t read the agenda
we are watching a powerpoint, friends.
we’re talking about a five year plan for the capital improvement program, although the city can only adopt one year of it at a time.
we’re talking about a five year plan for the capital improvement program, although the city can only adopt one year of it at a time.
it’s a little grainy, but the FY 2020 proposed project revenue is 50% higher than the 2019 - $35mil vs $23mil. the bond issue is up over $7mil.
the presenter says we’ll get to these differences.
the presenter says we’ll get to these differences.
some big but necessary projects next year — $3.1mil for renovations at the courthouse (it says general district court... is that being renovated, too or is this a mistake? big renovations are scheduled to start at the CIRCUIT courthouse next month)
some uncertainty at the table about whether the city is bearing the sole cost of a new parking structure downtown (there’s $10mil in this plan allocated for that project). the presenter says it’s still very preliminary.
i kinda miss this powerpoint from earlier today. the one i’m watching now is so normal and boring and full of numbers
there’s a line item for nearly a million dollars to put in new turf & lights on fields at darden towe park, which is jointly owned by the city & county. lisa green says lights would require a special use permit & none has been applied for.
today i learned the cost of the city broadcasting meetings on cable is paid for... by the cable company. but lisa green still has concerns about who even still has cable? and should we be focusing on newer technologies?
we’re finally about to move on to the second agenda item, but it’s time for me to relocate to get to the civilian review board meeting... back in the conference room around the corner i just spent the entire day in.
starting off the CRB meeting with public comment. a woman says she hopes the CRB will respond clearly to the city council that they have not received an appropriate response from the police chief.
board member josh says he doesn’t think the council was intentionally dishonest, that the chief did give them SOME information, but they only got a small slice of what they asked for. “it’s just plain wrong” to characterize what happened as them getting what they asked for.
sarah now addressing some factual inaccuracies about what we heard at city council last night.
the body is basing their goals around the resolution that council adopted forming the board — they need the data they requested to do research into how to finalize their bylaws.
“i’m not sure where the disconnect is,” sarah says. I ALSO DO NOT KNOW. it’s very frustrating and circular.
sarah says they met with some members of council, but the meeting turned out to be with many city staff, saying the meeting was ultimately mostly a meeting with the police chief. “there was no discussion of any collaborative effort”
the board was told they could not get the 7 years of data they requested (on things like use of force incidents, internal affairs appeals, stop & frisk, etc) because it was impossible to get. what they got instead was a pair of powerpoints brackney showed at council meetings.
mike murphy characterizing this as the CRB getting what they asked for & everything they needed to move forward is incorrect.
sarah says that as a public body, she feels they should make a public response to what happened at last night’s council meeting.
gloria recalls that chief brackney told them they should come back with a solution, not questions. but how can they possibly do that when no one will give them enough information to formulate solutions?
both josh & sarah are emphasizing that while the people’s coalition is doing good work, they are NOT the same body. the city can’t tell the CRB they’ve given information to PC or to jeff & assume that’s the same as providing it to their own city board.
“we should not be relying on a powerpoint presentation,” sarah says. that presentation has to be based on some actual data - why can’t they provide the data directly?
that data, ms rosia points out, is only stop & frisk data for the last few months. it’s hardly the 7 years they requested.
don gathers asks if they remember when he said early on that there are those in the city who want this board to fail. (he absolutely did say that. and it feels true.)
don says he appreciates the people’s coalition speaking out last night, but that he wished he’d known they planned to do that.
apparently the board is down a member (i’ve missed a few meetings - juan gonzalez isn’t absent, apparently, he’s resigned) & don is disappointed that the vacancy hasn’t even been posted on the city’s website.
an audience member points out that the department may fight them until the end of time on whether or not they can provide data from the past, but they should clearly outline the data they want collected & disclosed moving forward.
oh god the entire last hour was actually a free form public comment period? we haven’t yet started on the actual agenda?
sarah says if council wants to meet with the CRB again about the request they submitted, she thinks that meeting should be with the entire body & that it should take place in public. (i agree!)
hearing now from this professor who offered to help the board research best practices
i’m actually very interested in alternative models of community engagement but i just realized the headache i have coming on probably has something to do with live tweeting public meetings for the last 11 straight hours.
ms gloria talks about the difference, in her experience, in the police in this community over the years. when she was raising her kids, she said she knew who the police were. now she doesn’t know who they are & has doubts about whether they’d even come if she needed them.
we’re doing a role play here in frank dukes’ presentation, but ms katrina recounted a very real & very personal story about her son’s encounter with the police a few years ago. the work of this board is important to so many in our community. the stakes are high.
@ everyone who thinks they aren’t being disruptive when they whisper in a meeting or in court: SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU ARE NOT AS GOOD AT WHISPERING AS YOU APPEAR TO BELIEVE.
oh good, a representative from the local police benevolent association is offering the services of their lawyer, denise lunsford (who you may remember from her recent abysmal performance defending murderous nazi james fields)
“we don’t represent bad cops,” he says. he is framing their goals as the same as the CRB’s. we all just want better policing, right? 😒
“i think we’d be derelict in our duty if we weren’t monitoring what you guys are doing.” he says this cheerfully but that’s uh... kinda ominous from the cop union to the board trying to bring some oversight to the police.
“you guys, use her & abuse her. it’s on our dime,” albemarle county detective & PBA representative michael wells about the PBA’s attorney, denise lunsford.
board member josh bowers now addressing denise lunsford re: a letter she sent the board early on. she was concerned that the board seeking outside counsel would expose the city to liability & should not be allowed. he’s wondering if this offer is a change in that stance?
she says this offer is not her offering to act as legal counsel... but she could advise them generally on things like FOIA & police policy.
“cops don’t like bad cops,” says the cop.
then quit.
then quit.
this would’ve been more appropriate during public comment. he should’ve been called out of order & ejected for disrupting the meeting that extensively.
fyi the people who are being so loud and disruptive during this meeting are the off duty cops here to make sure this board doesn’t succeed at its mission of providing police oversight. weird!
