Thread by @shayshinecastle

At Boulder City Council tonight, at least for a little bit. They're going to approve or reject the police oversight panelists tonight. boulderbeat.news/2023/01/14/pol…

They've scheduled 30 min for this discussion, which I think is optimistic. I imagine open comment will also be full of commentary on this.

For folks on Mastodon, I'll try to properly thread this so I don't overwhelm you, but no promises!

Patricia Holland (I think I got that right) starts us off, urging city council to approve the recommended Police Oversight Panel members.

"The selection committee and POP know best who should be on the panel. City council should trust (their) decisions."

Daniel Berg, from the police union: Members came here tonight on our own volition.

About 15 people standing up.

Berg: The selection committee has not provided explanation for how their recommendations comply with city code, as council instructed.

Union request that the item be removed from the agenda, and "request that the committee comply" with city code.

Jude Landsman, who was on the selection committee, speaking now: "Boulder seemingly did the right thing in 2019," but "since that day" Boulder has constrained the process.

City staff and city council "showed contempt" and "walked a thin ethnical line" in questioning the selection committee, Landsman says. "Respect our input." Let us do our job.

"How sad and telling that city council saw fit to question our competence and not their own," Landsman says.

didn't get all of what she said; will expand in the story.

Christian Kerr: "The language of your ordinance is very clear": candidates should not demonstrate bias or perceived bias or conflict of interest. At least 2 candidates clearly support defunding and abolishing the police.

"Perhaps you would explain to us that words do not in fact matter when it comes to a few highly political personalities. People are paying attention bc we don't trust you anymore," Kerr says. "While political activists absolutely have a role in society... "

They don't belong on a panel meant to oversee discipline of police, he finishes up.

I might have spelled his name wrong; apologies.

Darren O'Connor: You halted this process ostensibly to weed out progress. But the opposition to these appointments are full of bias: pro-police bias.

(That's a heavy paraphrase.)

"The union should not get a say in this," O'Connor says. The chief and deputy chief are getting interfering with the independence of the panel.

Correction to Daniel Bergh's last name: Bergh with an h.

I really miss the days when the city published a list of speakers online.

Emily Reynolds: "Evidence of bias against law enforcement is everywhere with Sam Zhang and Lisa Sweeney-Miran. ... How can it seriously be that (they) are being considered? Why would you deliberately put cop-haters on the oversight panel?"

"if you prefer an ineffective police force and lawlessness, vote them in," Reynolds says. "I'm not in favor of the NAACP or ACLU having any direct input whatsoever on city biz and appointments."

Michael Parish: "I'm here to urge council to approve" the panelists, "including the two folks who have been dragged through the dirt."

"Trying to find people without bias in any way about policing ... seems a bit silly to me."

Doug Hamilton: "Don't let yourselves be intimidated by a few people with extreme views ... or let the police handpick their own oversight members."

Disclosure: If it's the same Doug Hamilton, he's on the BBOP. But it didn't sound like him, so idk.

William McGrew in favor of approving the panel. "The panel has been affirmed, it's been affirmed again. I trust and hope that city council will move forward so they can get to the really crucial and important work of overseeing the police."

Jennifer Rhodes: "Having a police oversight panel filled with police antagonists and abolitionists" will further anger parents concerned about safety of their children.

She's part of a group of parents advocating for safe zones by schools. Says they filed an official complaint (or maybe lawsuit) over the POP issue, and failure to comply with the ordinance creating and guiding the panel.

Last speaker (missed her name — Cathryn something) also against approval of Sweeney-Miran and Zhang. "I'm worried about the state of our police dept to begin with. We've lost so many officers and are gaining few in return."

"Yes, we need accountability when something goes awry," she says. "But let's support our police department."

Katharine Hauge. Thanks, folks watching online.

They still do post names of speakers online! I quoted:
Tricia Holland, Daniel Bergh, Jude Landsman, Kristian Kerr, Darren O’Connor, Emily Reynolds, Michael Parrish, William McGrew, Jennifer Rhodes and Katharine Hauge

So those are the correct spellings.

City attorney Teresa Tate: "We did receive today a code of conduct complaint. That complaint is by an individual, not a group, as is required by the code.

That complaint meets the surface requirement for launching an official process."

Tate: "This complaint alleges the selection committee violated a code of conduct in reviewing candidates and putting forward a slate of candidates."

"Bc this is a complaint by a resident, the process is for the city council to refer that complaint for investigation by the city attorney" or outside, independent counsel, Tate says.

Not tonight; Tate recommends next week.

Tate: "I say all of that bc certainly a pending complaint is something you should know about and consider" before approving or rejecting members tonight.

Joseph: "This is v complicated. You just mentioned the complaint, and you mentioned we can wait. So is our vote independent of this complaint or...? Can we vote and still go through the process" for the complaint?

"Or do we have to wait?" Joseph asks
Tate: "The code of conduct complaint, is not, no action on that is in any way dependent on whether or not council moves forward with this vote tonight" on the panel

Council's only role in the complaint is directing someone to do the investigation. They don't weigh in on the complaint itself, Tate says.

Brockett: I've not been through this process before, at least not recently.

He's been on council for... 6 years?

He asks for the steps. Tate reading from the code "to what pertains to this particular complaint."

"They can be initiated by the resident, accomplished by filing a sworn statement with the city clerk, setting forth the facts."

Next is investigation. "In all cases except a complaint by a city employee" the city council requests city attorney to investigate OR "in certain circumstances" the city attorney can "request special council appointment."

No procedure for the investigation in the code.

The findings have to be public, once the investigation is complete. Timeline is hard to say, Tate says, bc each case is unique. "It could be accomplished in a number of weeks. In my opinion, based on a v cursory assessment of this," it could be done within a month.

Brockett: "This is last-minute information for us." What is your recommendation?

Tate: Council has a variety of options. Vote, "knowing the investigation may or may not reveal info that bears on this."

"At this point, all we've got is we received a complaint," Tate says. "Lawyers tend to advise caution. Here, the cautious and conservative approach would be to postpone."

Speer: If there is a violation, what happens?
Tate: "I certainly understand the question. I believe the answer depends a lot on what is found, what specifically is found. It's v hard for me to speculate."

"A wide breadth of possibilities" exist, Tate says. If there's a violation, it could be that it doesn't have a particular impact on the recommendation, or it could have a really significant impact on the recommendation"

... including up to the finding "that the recommendation is legally flawed," Tate says. It's really hard to say.

Friend: What is the gist of the complaint?
It's public, Tate says.

Tate: Alleges that the selection panel failed to comply with the Boulder ordinance governing the qualifcations of panel members by disregarding the requirement that the candidate have no real or perceived bias or conflict of interest.

And also the requirement that the candidate has the ability to work effectively with diverse groups, Tate concludes.

Tate: Council has to order an investigation. "It's not discretionary."

Benjamin: This is "delicate, to say the least."
"If we were to approve the candidates, do we risk the work of the oversight panel, is that work in jeopardy if the investigation is to find there was a violation in that period?" Would it "nullify or undo the work of the panel?"

Tate: "I'd be happy to provide that legal advice" in private.
Benjamin: "That's a legal advice question?" OK

Joseph: Can anyone say what is going on with the panel, where they are, are they meeting?
Tate: "Under the code, it is permissible for POP members whose terms have expired to remain on the panel" until their replacements are approved.

So they can stay on, but they don't have to. We can't force someone to serve, Tate says.

Equity officer Aimee Kane: After Feb. 8, if the existing panelists don't want to stay on, we won't have quorum and cannot continue. "We can't guarantee they would be willing to do that."

Speer: Can we go candidate by candidate through the slate and approve some of them? So we don't halt their work?

Brockett addressing that: We could discuss and vote, we could continue it until the complaint is resolved, or some third course.

What is the will of council? Are we going to vote, or postpone?

Speer: To me what we heard about the nature of complaint, seems to be focused around the same thing we're deciding tonight: Was there bias in the process? I would prefer to move forward with a vote tonight, bc I don't see much of a difference.

Folkerts: If a violation was found, would that overturn all appointments, or just a couple?

Tate: It would v much depend on the findings.

Wallach: "It would be counterproductive to move forward and risk having our decision overturned."

He said a lot more but I couldn't hear a damn thing, but I think it was about maintaining quorum on the POP.

Yates: Maybe we could continue this until next week, since we're going to direct the investigation to continue then. That would give time to determine if existing members could remain on the panel.

One of those members is here. She's raising her hand; she may be recognized and speak, or maybe not.

Joseph: What's the precedence for complaints halting council business? Has this happened before?
Tate: "This was as last-minute for me as it was for you. ... I don't yet know the history of that."

Tate: No one in the city attorney's office is "aware of a similar complaint against a board/commission/body" under the auspices of council.

"I suspect this is unprecedented."

Friend: This process has been poor. I'm disinclined to stall this and delay it and put the current panelists and potential through "more drama." On the other hand, we are hearing from a lot of folks that there was bias.

A neutral, third party weighing in might help, she says.

Brockett: "I would hate to proceed and then have a cloud and then have things potentially go badly in the future. Once we get a judgement on this, I think we could proceed free and clear."

"I'm reluctantly willing to postpone." Since the process won't take too long. "We owe it to the community and the panel to get this done."

Benjamin: I think it's appropriate to heed caution from Tate but also find opportunity to continue the work. "Hopefully the current folks would be willing to do that for a relatively finite time."

Tate: There is a question about this quorum issue. The POP is, like, the only city group that doesn't state in its rules what a quorum is. Typically, it's half + 1. What we don't know is if vacant seats count.

"I think it's an unanswered question."

"We may be stating there will not be a quorum" when that may or may not be true, Tate says. "I'm frantically researching."

Speer: If we absolutely cannot find another way, can we at least move forward with other applicants?

Winer: I was one who wanted to push this back in December. I watched every interview. ... "Now, to have this info and have to make an immediate decision is not what I want to do."

"I don't want to start picking and choosing, bc my problem was more with the process and the structure than it was with the individual people," Winer says.

Friend: One of the panelists whose term is expiring is not willing to stay on, per a text.

"We expanded this panel bc they're so overloaded with cases. Even if they technically have a quorum, they're still going to be overloaded if we delay."

Folkerts: "I feel like we've in some way already expressed a lack of faith in the selection committee." I'm not willing to put the POP through more delay.

Speer: Our attorney mentioned this was unprecedented, what we're about to do. How is this going to impact us in the future. Will we hold up all our future decisions in the same way if a community member puts forward a complaint?

Brockett: "I would in no way be attempting to create precedent."

Benjamin: "It seems like the goal posts are moving." There was a quorum issue, now there might not be.

"It's worth knowing if we are or are not running up against that quorum issue," Benjamin says. A lot of the motivation was not impacting the work of this group.

"We're learning stuff right now, on the fly."

Joseph: I hear our city attorney and we hire her to give us good advice, and she's given us great advice. For the most part I do defer to her expertise. My issue is, there's no prior precedence. I'm worried ppl will think, 'Oh, let me complain, and I can postpone work of council.

Yates: "There's a lot of things we don't know tonight. This hit us all just in the last hour or two." Makes a motion to continue this for one week. That will give time to sort out the quorum issue, existing members staying on, etc.

That will turn next week's study session into a special meeting, which they need to do anyway now for the complaint.

Friend: I'm not going to support it, bc we already know one panel member is not staying on. That won't be any different next week. "If we want to wait until the end of the investigation" we should do that. If not, we should vote.

Wallach: I think what we'll know next week is the quorum issue. "With or without a quorum, we're asking a lot of these panel members that I don't think is fair. That's why we expanded the panel."

Folkerts: Postponing is a decision bc it sets the precedent that action can be halted by "an un-investigated complaint."

That's a majority to continue: Benjamin, Winer, Wallach, Brockett, Yates

So we'll pick this up next week.

Speer: "Criticizing a biased system is not biased. Naming the racism in all our systems is not biased."

As she speaks, all the police and supporters standing up and leaving.

We should be careful not to confuse criticism with bias, she says. It's a fact that the institution of policing has long discriminated against many groups, including people of color.

Nearly everyone in chambers leaves. Just a handful of people left.

That's it for this and me tonight.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks.