Thread by @shayshinecastle

Alright: Main event. The FBI and #Boulder PD agreement.

To use BPD officers for the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.

"The decision to support the MOU is critical and many safety implications for our community are at hand today," Chief Herold says.

"I've only been in Colorado a short time," Herold says, "but I am increasingly" concerned about "homegrown extremism."

We have federal labs, gov't facilities, a vibrant LGBTQ community, Jewish and Muslim places of worship

"Boulder is a target-rich environment" for threats.

This agreement gives Boulder access to a lot of abilities, tools, intelligence that we don't usually have, Herold says.

Herold: "On a personal note, after witnessing the aftermath and tragedy of the King Soopers event, I can tell you firsthand without the support of the FBI and DOJ, the city of Boulder would have been completely overwhelmed."

We wouldn't have been able to provide high-level public safety to our community without their support, Herold says.

"We simply can no longer do it all ourselves," Herold says. This agreement "provides Boulder with a safety net."

"I realize today there are concerns of transparency and accountability," Herold says. "Our task force officer has been vetted by me and the FBI." He reports to me, and will continue to follow our department's procedures.

This MOU grants the city of Boulder federal charges and prosecutorial support that we just do not have, Herold says.

Says today's event — in which a suspect from California was apprehended here — reflects that support and what this MOU enables.

Wallach: Is Denver a participant in this?
Herold: Yes, that's where the FBI/DOJ headquarters are. We would become a part of that task force.

Wallach: Have any other communities done these MOUs?
Herold: They're too numerous to name.

"Most other cities, every agency that I'm aware of have an MOU of this nature," Herold says. CU is exploring one now.

Easier to name what cities aren't doing these anymore. Like Atlanta: themarshallproject.org/2019/10/31/why…

Joseph: What impact does this have for us as a sanctuary city?
Herold: None. "The FBI does not concern itself with immigration, nor would I allow my officers to get involved with immigration status."

Benjamin: What's the dif between the collaboration that's happening right now vs. what the MOU would do?
Herold: The officer receives the highest clearance rating as a municipal officer, so his access in real-time, they would set him up with technology here in the Boulder PD...

... he would have access to every federal database that the FBI has, Herold says. Which matters to timeliness.

Even the clearance rating "is a high achievement," Herold says. "We're lucky he has this clearance." She has one; one other Boulder PD officer does as well.

Herold: "We have refugees coming into Boulder. He has access to understand homegrown threats against ppl coming into our community from countries with terrorism threats."

"I just feel the work that I've done since I've been here is solidified in this agreement," Herold says.

Herold: I can walk down the hall and ask, is this a credible threat? And get the answer in minutes, not days. That counts. "It counted today" and it will count in the future.

Folkerts: What of the services we received today would have been withheld if we were not under this MOU?
Herold: None, but prioritization would be withheld. "And certainly our relationship that we built" informally "garnered us resources that I've never seen before."

"I have never seen such an outpouring of support by our federal partners, and that's bc we have worked so hard and we were working toward this MOU agreement," Herold says.

"I do believe we would not have seen the outpouring of support for our community" Herold says. "Other communities unfortunately just don't have this robust partnership that we do in Boulder."

Herold: "Just the advancement in technology that the DOJ brings... it's not comparable. For a mid-size city to have this partnership, and them to want to partner with Boulder ... it speaks to our relationship and the good things we're doing in Boulder."

Folkerts: It seems like the nature of what's being investigated (related to today) is requiring an FBI investigation.
Herold: The FBI is always going to be supportive of local agencies. The dif is that we have a partnership...

... The resources that we were given today, bc of this partnership, is much greater than what is given to the county or state," Herold says. We were able to locate the suspect quickly with drones, other stuff I can't talk about.

"This MOU is no dif than any other MOU that we enter with any agency around the state," Herold says. "It just makes life so much easier for a mid-size dept."

Folkerts: Is it conceivable that you would not be able to know what this officer is working on, since he would have higher clearance than you?

Herold: I would still know the general direction of the investigation. King Soopers is a prime example.

Carey Weinheimer: We live in an environment where we're seeing a large increase in domestic extremism, terrorism and cyber threats. "We wish we'd had this agreement in place years ago."

Weinheimer: "I can't stress enough how important this agreement is."

Speer: "Do we have to accept it just as it is?" Can we modify it at all?

Jenn Fraser: This is a boilerplate, standard MOU offered to over 200 agencies. But we could do an addendum that would require working with the FBI and their attorneys.

Herold: "The substantial parts of the MOU won't be mitigated, but I'm sure there are areas even I would like to tighten up."

Friend: We've received concerns from members of the public. There were police dept who stopped doing the JTTF with the FBI over transparency and accountability issues (from the Marshall Project). Did they rejoin? Are there still cities not participating?

Herold: "Prob several agencies move in and out of these agreements for various reasons. I'm sure that across the country there's been issues. I can just tell you that the issues that concern me will be addressed."

Officers will wear body cams, for instance.

The FBI didn't allow that on its officers, even if the home agency required it. But they're moving toward body cams, Herold says.

(Undercover ops don't count, per Colorado law.)

"As long as our officer is part of the JTTF, they will follow our policies and procedures," Herold says.

Fraser: Federal agencies are phasing in the use of bodycams beginning on Sept. 1, 2021.

Herold: It would have taken our team 6 weeks to investigate the King Soopers crime scene. With the feds, we did it in 4-5 days. They brought in dozens of people and stayed for 3 weeks. "It's remarkable the amount of resources they can bring to a community."

Fraser: The resources can be people. They can be labs.

Friend: Per this article, and I hate to rely on this one article, but the FBI *prohibited* dept policy from being followed. If we can add that explicit language into the MOU to *require* BPD policy to be followed, let's do that.

Stephen Redfearn: We spoke with the FBI today, and they assured us that the officer will always follow our dept procedure, even up to — God forbid — a deadly force situation.

Moving to the public hearing, which I will tweet, but gonna use this chance to explain just what TF we are talking about. I didn't have time before.

So you prob understand this allows a Boulder PD officer to join the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, which apparently comes with high clearance.

FBI *may* compensate for OT, via another agreement, the MOU says. Not necessarily guaranteed, as I understood it.

Lots of community concern (and national concern) about what the FBI task force gets up to. Especially around anything terrorism, which post-9/11 became the cover for the largest infringement on civil liberties in the modern era.

These days, tho, there are concerns about surveillance, racial profiling, monitoring of Black Lives Matter protesters, etc.

There are also concerns about body cams, as mentioned, and liability. The Marshall Project documented those well (link above).

Per the MOU: “BPD acknowledges that financial and civil liability, if any and in accordance with applicable law, for the acts and omissions of each employee detailed to the JTTF remains vested with his or her employing agency. However, ...

... the Department of Justice (DOJ) may, in its discretion, determine on a case-by-case basis that an individual should be afforded legal representation, legal defense, or indemnification of a civil judgment, pursuant to federal law and DOJ policy and regulations.”

Darren O'Connor: "The more FBI changes, the more it stays the same."

Going over past/current FBI targeting of "Black extremists" (civil rights leaders), Muslims, activists

"We need to know that our local law enforcement is overseen by local gov't," O'Connor says. "This Black History Month, the Boulder County NAACP branch urge you to vote against entering into the agreement."

Lis Marasco: In the event of misconduct, it's unlikely they could be prosecuted locally... or by an elected official at all.

Colorado recently decided to no longer allow qualified immunity for officers. This officer wouldn't be bound by that.

"The Constitution gives states rights for a reason," Marasco says. "We deserve to keep those rights."

Missed the name of this speaker (and it's not on the screen) but she says that this moves Boulder *away* from its work on reimagining policing.

Again, missed the name, but I think Ryan Harwood. "The v same FBI that you are considering partnering with tonight tried to kill Martin Luther King, Jr. and were successful in killing Fred Hampton, the leader of the Black Panther party."

And more recently the FBI created a new category for terrorism called Black extremism after protests in Ferguson and other cities after police killings of unarmed black ppl.

Dang, not seeing any names for these speakers on the screen. I'm sorry! The city used to publish a list, but they don't anymore. (That I'm aware of)

But another speaker going over recent FBI surveillance of peaceful protesters. "I don't trust them to stop," this person says.

And the accountability measures are "a pinkie promise."

"There is no lawful mechanism to hold these officers accountable under state and local regulations," they say.

OK, I've got some names thanks to readers watching on YouTube.

Mary Faltynski was the one with the comment about reimagining policing.

The last speaker was Carl Perez.

Not doing the MOU wouldn't prevent the FBI from investigating terrorism, Clara O'Brien says. This is "a danger to nonviolent activism. Protect the First Amendment rights of your residents" and don't sign the agreement.

Austin Bennett: "This agency spent the 90s trying to charge crunchy granola-eating hippies chaining themselves to trees as terrorists."

This MOU "would be bringing a wolf into the henhouse."

Hannalore Gerling-Dunsmore: This has historically been used against activists for progressive causes, while heavily armed far-right groups organize without consequence.

Gerling-Dunsmore: "I believe most ppl supporting (the MOU) are acting in good faith. But they don't say good intentions pave the road to heaven."

Jude Landsman, from BoCo NAACP: "While I'm thankful that if we need them, to know the FBI can come ... and I'm sure there are instances they would protect populations I care about, or myself... it does not seem necessary to have an MOU."

"It's hard enough" working on transparency, accountability and trust with our local police, Landsman says. "To ask now that we can trust that the FBI can come in... I urge you to look at the history of the FBI in regards to Black activism."

Michael Parish: The FBI has a bad history, including in Boulder with Los Seis.

boulderweekly.com/news/los-seis-…

Or for another source: latinohistoryproject.org/primary_source…

Sam Becker brings up the question of if this officer will be subject to our independent oversight panel and monitor? (Seems unlikely.)

Jake Brady: Portland has twice withdrawn from their agreement, most recently in 2019. Oakland withdrew from theirs. Multiple reports across the country have found violations of human and civil rights and targeting of POC and other marginalized groups.

Reject this MOU, Brady says, or at the minimum, have the Human Relations Commission and Independent Oversight Panel study this.

I've been informed that an earlier speaker goes by Perez (not Carl Perez, as their name was displayed). Sorry, Perez! I must have missed that when you said it.

Missed another name, but this person reminding council that the FBI under anti-terrorism work, surveilled protesters of the Iraq War back in the day.

Which I just so happened to be thinking about today, listening to this episode of You're Wrong About: iheart.com/podcast/1270-y…

Good reminder that federal leadership/politics always determine what constitutes a threat — not local leaders. Prob hard to find many in Boulder who think the Iraq War was a *good* idea.

"Boulder should join like-minded cities" in rejecting surveillance and this MOU, says Joshua (whose last name I missed; sorry!)

Up to our last speaker. All opposed. (Not surprising, since this was super last minute and anyone who comes out will likely be highly motivated.) Still notable. We'll see what council does with this.

"We need to listen to dissent, not criminalize it," says the last speaker (whose name I would love to see if anyone can send it to me!)

Speer: I don't think it's Chief Herold's intention to cause harm. The intention is to keep the community safe. AND this MOU wasn't vetted with the folks and communities who have experienced harm from the FBI. "There is a justifiable lack of trust here."

We have the identity of the last public speaker: Mylene Vialard

Speer: Who pays for this officer's salary?

Herold addresses Speer as "Doctor" (bc she is): My understanding is it requires 16 hrs per week, which Boulder pays for. The DOJ pays for everything else (and possibly overtime).

Speer: It's important to note the huge lack of trust, particularly with POC, activists, protesters. "I would love for us to think about what can we do within the context of this arrangement."

Speer suggests "specifically getting feedback from communities that have been harmed by the FBI."

Speer also mentions ANOTHER agreement with ICE coming up in a few weeks... so prepare to do this all again.

That's currently scheduled for Feb. 15

Speer: Can we explicitly prohibit this officer from monitoring protests, or other similar measures, to address community concerns?

Herold: "Since I've been here, my police reform agenda has been robust. I have worked tirelessly on accountability and transparency. There is nothing I'm not willing to share."

"Yes, I'm willing to put guardrails on all of these MOUs. But I can't help but ... I was listening to people talk. So, I just, in all fairness, there was an event just recently that I attended..." Herold says. Talking about the NAACP photography exhibit, I believe.

Herold saying she had to work with the FBI related to that. "This road goes both ways. The terrorism that I'm concerned about is white supremacy. ... Some of the groups who spoke tonight call me and ask for FBI intelligence (and) protection."

"I know that policing fails at the local, state and federal level, but I am trying my best to correct those. But I need support from the federal level. Bc we are facing real threats" to civil rights in Boulder, Herold says.

Wallach: I think we need to have perspective. This is an agreement for part time of one officer that we can terminate at will, with 60 days notice. "If we don't like we see, we have the right not to continue our participation."

Wallach: "It's not an agreement to terrorize activists and people of color. I don't want to activate political doctrine over the realities of today's world. Is there anyone here who doesn't believe there are" domestic white supremacist terrorist groups who would do Boulder harm?

Wallach: I'm also concerned with the "micro-management" of Boulder's police. Are we going to oversee the training of her officers? The disposition of officers on the street?

Most of the words of the MOU are "inconsequential ... who pays for what," Wallach says. "I think we should be getting out of the policing business."

Benjamin: "Are any of us hydrologists or climatologists" to gauge the flood mitigation work of CU South? That's a "slippery slope."

Benjamin: The test of a good partnership is can you amend the boilerplate MOU? "I think it's appropriate to have that dialogue. To take an MOU and say 'take it or leave it,' that's not a partner."

Friend: I would love to know if the officer would be subject to Colorado law around immunity / punishment after misconduct.
Fraser going into a super detailed explanation but says this: There would be state implications to any misconduct, even when acting as part of the JTTF.

Herold: And the oversight task force would review any misconduct as well.

Herold: "I'm confident" with the state laws, local policies and "the FBI has a really strict accountability matrix as well" that "your concerns would be addressed."

Herold: "This is my big fear is that we do have a target-rich environment for white supremacists and far-leaning right groups, and I'm trying my best to get a handle on that and respond accordingly."

Friend: I don't think any of us want to make our community less safe. I'm just trying to look for ways to improve it and make sure we're not giving more than we get.

Herold: What's good for Boulder, is that when I receive a phone call from doctors in charge of women's health — which I've received numerous times — I can walk down the hall and ask is this credible and how long do I have to respond.

"That's what the FBI is offering Boulder."

Herold: "I'm not interested in protests, I'm not interested in violating anybody's civil rights. This really comes down to trusting me to keep this community safe. This is another robust tool that I would have to keep this community safe from domestic terrorism."

Herold, in response to Friend q about liability: If the officer is acting within the scope of the law, he will have protection of the feds and local authority. Obvs if the officer is intentionally doing something intentionally wrong, he would not.

Fraser: "There's more protection here for the officer, but the liability would remain the same for the city."

Teresa Tate: There is opportunity for representation from the DOJ. So it's another layer.

Winer apologies; she's suffering from a migraine: "I appreciate the passion and compassion of the people who spoke tonight. Those 20 ppl but they're not the entire community. Many didn't realize this was happening tonight. I do appreciate the comments."

"We did only hear from one side," Winer says.

"To me, the biggest fear is right wing extremist," Winer says. "In my synagogue, we have to have security. ... If Herold says we need this for reasons of technology and speed, we should support her as she makes those guardrails as (Speer) was talking about."

I'm reaching out to the community to be cognizant of these threats, Winer says, and to trust our police chief who has tried to make changes with us.

Joseph: "I get a sense that we can respond to the threats in our community ... without the MOU. They are already helping us automatically." This has not been vetted by our oversight task force. It should go there first.

And we should hear more from the community, Joseph says, though I appreciate those 20. They educated me.

"I can't see myself as a council member green lighting this process in any way without community support."

Speer: I'm hearing folks say we need to trust the expertise of the police when it comes to those issues. "We have folks in our community who are experts in the oppression that has come from our history of policing and how we do law enforcement."

Betting this with the broader community would help us bring ALL types of expertise to the process, Speer says.

Folkerts: While I agree this public comment does not reflect the entirety of our community, this group made quick adjustments to their lives to be here and speak on something they care about. That's important to recognize.

Folkerts: Will we have access to reports with statistical information about who in our community is being looked at under this agreement? Not specifics, but demographic info. Like we do when ppl are pulled over. Will we have any ability to review who is being targeted?

Herold: I would have to talk with the FBI on that point. I can speak in generalities about places. If it's a long-term investigation, I'm sure I could get some information. I could not get you info about the reason why, but I could get general information.

Fraser: Some of this info could be sought through a FOIA.

Herold: If it's our officer, it's going to be captured in our data anyway.

Weinheimer: A lot of this is investigative work, gathering info from dif sources. It doesn't involve direct contact with ppl.

(I don't think that's what she was asking...)

Folkerts: "Assuming protecting our civil rights are not conflicting but" parallel concerns, I'd like the Human Relations Commission to look at this, and the oversight panel.

"Given that the FBI keeps much of its work secret, it's deeply concerning to me."

I captured like a fraction of what she said (it's late) but that's the gist.

Wallach doesn't want the HRC and oversight panel to look at this: "Not every decision requires that a slew of committees" look at it. "This is not a tool of oppression. It's a tool for safety."

We've hired one of the most progressive, reform-minded police chiefs in the country, Wallach says. She asked for this. "I would not be in favor of sending this out to a group of people so they can chew it to death."

Wallach: "This is a council decision, I'm not even sure it should have been a council decision. It's an ordinary course of business."

(Please someone bookmark that tweet where Wallach is against committees for future use. We're gonna need it.)

Brockett suggests an explicit clause that the officer will be bound by Boulder policies and procedures. It's not in there yet. Also wants annual reports about the task force's activity. Maybe a public version and then a more confidential version to council...?

Herold: "Those are all reasonable, and I would support those."

Yates speaks. He doesn't want to send this "to other residents, bc that's all they really are. They have no more expertise in policing than we do."

"This is an agreement that prob didn't need to come to us," Yates says. "We have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of agreements each year."

"At the end of the day, our police chief is someone we hired to protect our community," Yates says.

Would approve agreement with Brockett's suggested changes.

Friend: Why don't we incorporate this into our reimagining policing community feedback? I don't want to vote tonight. Let's incorporate revisions and then bring it back.

Speer: "I don't think this is something I can support without input from communities who are not represented on this screen. We've heard from communities. They've been terrorized by law enforcement. I don't mean this personal against you, Chief Herold."

"We're talking about keeping people safe in our community," Speer. "We've got some of the most vulnerable people telling us this doesn't make them feel safe. This makes them feel less safe."

Speer: "I don't see it as farming things out to committee to die a slow death. We don't have the expertise among us. We are coming from a certain perspective. When we have ppl telling us they don't feel safe, we need to listen to that."

Joseph, in response to Wallach's comments that committees might kill it: "If it is, so be it. If they say we should not move forward, it would harm people, then we should not move forward."

"Somehow we find this to be crucial to our community and it deserves the same public engagement as everything else," Joseph says.

Yates moves to approve the motion contingent on suggested revisions. But Brockett wants to do a straw poll on 4 options:
- Deny
- Approve
- Approve with Amendments
- Send it to community groups

Majority want to approve this tonight with revisions: Friend, Winer, Brockett, Yates, Wallach, Benjamin

Surprising.

Or get it revised and *then* approve, perhaps. But that's not how I understood it.

Speer: Does the racial equity tool apply here? Thinking about engagement.

NRV: I appreciate the conversation. Holding two truths: Safety of the community and years of historic distrust, with a chief that I trust.

One amendment I'd make to that: It's not JUST distrust. It's years of ACTUAL harm and abuse.

Anyway, NRV: It's one of our goals to use that racial equity tool more often this year.

From Brockett and Friend, it seems like we could *still* get feedback on this and have groups weigh in (and maybe use the racial equity tool) and then if the recommendation comes back to undo the MOU, council could do that.

Yates moves again to approve the MOU with aforementioned revisions. Wallach seconds.

Friend: I would like to see the agreement again.

Yates offers another motion: I move to approve the agreement with the amendments and council see it AFTER it's signed.

"It is a terminable agreement, so if we hate what you wrote," we can undo it. "But I don't need to see what you write."

So council will vote on an agreement, trusting that their revisions will be in there but not actually seeing it.

Brockett: We would not be approving it if it did not include those things, bc that's not the motion language.

Correct, Tate says (city attorney)

Friend: I'm not sure we can get the FBI to agree to what we want. What if they don't?
Herold: I won't enter into it if they don't.

6-3 vote gives Herold authority to enter in agreement with FBI
Folkerts, Joseph, Speer opposed

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks.