,
53 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
good morning from a special session of the police civilian review board. the meeting is being recorded by both the city and the people’s coalition, so hopefully the city won’t misunderstand a newspaper article and have a public meltdown this time!
it isn’t being broadcast, just recorded. if they really wanted to understand the work of this board, they could always try coming to a meeting but what do i know?
significant presence of both media and cops here in the basement conference room at city hall. the city staff member who usually attends these meetings (but was on vacation last week during the meeting the city got so worked up about) is here.
kicking the meeting off with community input. a woman thanks the board for their hard work, especially in the face of these attacks from the city government. a second woman echoes the sentiment.
“how do y’all feel about the press release,” and how do you think we should respond? asks board member ms rosia. she says she was concerned both as a board member and a community member.
“it took the city days” to correct their mistake (the original press release was put out friday, the correction was issued yesterday (tuesday).
ms rosia turns around and addresses daily progress reporter @nstoutDP and tells him to report accurately.
ms rosia turns around and addresses daily progress reporter @nstoutDP and tells him to report accurately.
i should clarify that i don’t believe nolan’s reporting about last week’s meeting was inaccurate. the headline was inflammatory, but honestly correct in spirit in my opinion. also, reporters don’t write their own headlines. the progress stands by the story, rightfully so.
ms rosia says “the local government is not holding up” their end of the bargain on transparency. she says the board isn’t unwilling to work with the police.
the board members feel like their hard work has not been valued.
the board members feel like their hard work has not been valued.
ms rosia says the board is trying to do something the community wants but
“it seems like what the community wants is not what the local government wants.”
(that may be the most succinct summary of the problem)
“it seems like what the community wants is not what the local government wants.”
(that may be the most succinct summary of the problem)
this is a recurring problem.
board member josh bowers says there are 2 problems with the city’s press release. first, it was inaccurate. that could’ve been easily remedied by talking to any member of the board. “it’s not the end of the world, they retracted it” (though he feels the retraction wasn’t enough)
but the bigger problem, josh says, is not the inaccuracy. even if every word had been correct, that isn’t how you talk about a teammate. they are a city board. they should be working collaboratively.
“rather than engage with us [...] they issued a press release.” he feels the press release called into question the integrity of the board members. he doesn’t feel that’s the right way to engage with people you’re allegedly partnering with.
board member sarah burke says exchanging blows with the city isn’t productive.
“the city made a promise by creating this board.”
the board is focused on systemic problems and will continue to do so.
“the city made a promise by creating this board.”
the board is focused on systemic problems and will continue to do so.
sarah says there are some things that need to be corrected for the record. she says the email exchange included in the city’s press release was incomplete & feels they should release the full exchange.
sarah says the CRB attempted to post the full email exchange between the board and the police chief & her scheduler... but the city controls all their communications & postings and they took down the documents. (that is deeply troubling)
josh bowers is not happy with the way the city’s press release characterized the difficulty they’ve had scheduling meetings with the chief. the city made it sound like the chief has been very willing to meet & the board has been the one having issues scheduling.
he echoes sarah’s sentiment that the entire email exchange should be posted. (technically they’re all public documents - anyone can FOIA these emails. why won’t the city allow them to post these?)
both josh & sarah have said they don’t want to get into an exchange of blows with the city, but that the record does need to be corrected. board member guillermo agrees - the board needs to get back to work.
guillermo says he is shocked the board wasn’t allowed to post their own statement to the website. (i am also shocked!)
josh says when he saw the press release on friday, he immediately contacted the city to tell them their information was incorrect and demand a retraction. he then wrote a response and asked that it be posted to the board’s website.
city staff complied with the request to post the response but it was quickly removed by city government. josh says he sent his statement to the press. he’s frustrated by the city’s response. the board should have sufficient autonomy to post information to their own web page.
the city is behaving in a manner that is just BAFFLINGLY INAPPROPRIATE. this is really outrageous. attacking the integrity of board members, attacking the press, hiding information, refusing to apologize... what is going ON?
sarah says she is disappointed by the lack of a real apology. not as a board member, but just as a member of this community. there is value in an honest apology. that’s been a recurring theme in this community for the last few years.
joyce from the people’s coalition in the audience asks if the police department has offered any date for a public meeting. the answer is no.
josh says heather hill stated in the press release that the city no longer wants the current CRB involved in negotiating the memorandum of understanding with the police department, so that public meeting is more or less moot.
“if any member of city leadership has issues with the bylaws,” josh invites them to work collaboratively with the board to resolve those issues.
sarah says she has sent emails to city officials inviting feedback on the bylaws.
sarah says she has sent emails to city officials inviting feedback on the bylaws.
sarah says they’ve received no feedback. the city told they’d have feedback to the board ahead of today’s meeting. in an email last night, council said they were “not in a position to provide meaningful feedback” in time.
sarah is reading, verbatim, the email the board received last night. i’m puzzled by the city’s timeline here... they are requesting meeting times with the board after the expiration of 5 of the 6 members’ terms but are refusing to extend those terms.
vice mayor heather hill’s email requests a joint session sometime in may. sarah is concerned they won’t have enough time between a may meeting and the expiration of their terms at the beginning of june to do any meaningful work.
the board members are suspicious of the timing of the decision not to extend their terms. the announcement was part of the friday press release.
ms rosia’s term as a board member expires in july - so for the month of june (when heather proposes the board present to council), she will be the only member of the CRB.
guillermo is trying to get them back on track to get the work done. he says they need a “time based” rather than “date based” schedule - tell council they will schedule a may joint session and they need a month from that date to work.
sarah says she’s confident they as a board could do their work in a month, but they are reliant on people outside the board - that limits their ability to control the timeline.
it’s upsetting that the board is trying to beg and scramble to get work done on an entirely unreasonable timeline when it would be incredibly easy and cost zero dollars to just give them more time.
josh says “there are lots of statements being made” by officials and candidates for office “that there are problems” with the bylaws (he’s obviously referring to lloyd snook’s statement that the bylaws are illegal) & invites those people to clarify what they mean.
(i’ve never seen snook at one of these meetings? i could be mistaken because all old white guys look the same to me, but i’m pretty sure he’s running his mouth on a dais without actually engaging with the people working on this)
the board clarifies that they appreciate @MPayneCville’s support for the CRB and he is not the candidate whose comments they are concerned about.
ms katrina says the board has asked for their meetings to be televised & believes this would solve some of the issues with “he said she said” about what goes on at them.
josh bowers returns the conversation to address snook’s comments that the bylaws are “illegal.” the board has had multiple meetings with the city attorney and he has shared no such concerns.
he acknowledges that city attorney john blair said there are elements of the bylaws that are more appropriate for a city ordinance, but he never said there were any glaring legal problems with what the board proposes.
it is 11am on a wednesday in a small basement conference room and there are two TV cameras, a newspaper photographer, and nearly a dozen community members.
this city is invested in the work of the civilian review board.
this city is invested in the work of the civilian review board.
ms rosia, who also serves on a committee for the unity days events this summer, says that’s something to look forward to, saying it won’t be another summer of hate.
the board needs feedback from council. they need to know what kind of funding the city would support. they need answers before they can finalize anything. this process has to be open and collaborative.
sarah says one thing she heard from other boards is that it’s valuable to have an attorney at CRB meetings to ensure the board is complying with laws about confidentiality - keeping everything public they can, and correctly going into closed session when necessary.
josh bowers implies the community needs to put pressure on council to give the CRB more time.
sarah: it takes two council meetings to pass an ordinance. that’s at least a month. the timeline the city gave the board doesn’t work.
sarah: it takes two council meetings to pass an ordinance. that’s at least a month. the timeline the city gave the board doesn’t work.
if the city is asking the board to work on board business after the expiration of their terms without extending those terms... there is no legal requirement that those meetings or communications be public. this seems to present a serious transparency problem.
they are putting these people in a very weird situation that seems to me may be illegal.
after a brief recess caused by a coughing fit, sarah is updating the board on the meeting she had with two city councilors last wednesday.
“it seems like a lifetime ago,” says josh (i agree!) that meeting left me feeling optimistic about council’s support for the CRB’s mission. 48 hours later, they issued the press release that made it appear they are trying to kill the board.
(i’m hopeful this wraps up in time for me to get lunch before i have to be in court at one...)
the audience sang happy birthday to ms rosia, whose birthday was earlier this week. i think that concludes the meeting!
there is a lot still up in the air, but a lot of it depends on the city’s response to their requests for feedback & meetings. the CRB’s next meeting is may 14. they’re trying to schedule a joint session with council for early may.
