Thread by @shayshinecastle

Yates: I'm going to be voting against the moratorium for the Police Oversight Panel. POP has not asked for this; when city attorneys advised that a council moratorium would be legally safer, several members said they wanted to send a message, comparing it to a strike.

They're gonna keep working on previously accepted cases, Yates says, keeping them busy through September. And ordinance changes will be read in early October.

Yates: "I have to ask, what happens if the POP ordinance changes recommended by the independent consultant are not acceptable to some or all of the members. We already know some requested changes are unlikely to be accepted by council."

Yates :I'm concerned about the precedent that a council moratorium could set.

"By capitulating to the POP's refusal to work, is council signaling" to our 20 other boards that it's OK for them to stop work if they don't like council's actions?

Wallach: "It's unclear if we are doing this for the benefit of the POP, which doesn't wish for this, or the benefit of city council? It sends a rather bizarre message. You can go on strike, refuse to perform the role for which you've been appointed, you can leave important work..

... undone, but don't worry, there will be no consequence to that."

"Frankly, I would just let it lay and move forward on the ordinance provision."

Joseph: It seems that maybe just two members are requesting this...? Or is it from all members?

Unclear if she's referring to members of council or POP.

Wallach: To my knowledge, members of POP are not pushing for this. They are explicitly rejecting it. "I'm not sure why we're taking these steps to say 'No, no, you're not on strike.'"

Brockett: We did get emails from the co-chairs, less requesting it and more stating that they thought it was a good idea, since council brought it up. We are hearing from additional council members that this is welcome.

Wallach: Why did they go from not wanting council's permission to now being OK with it?

Brockett: There is some distinction between requesting something officially and welcoming some action.

Friend: I think there's something to Yates' point about ripple effects. Is there a counter-point to the suggestion that we just let it lie? What's the downside to letting them be on strike, without an official moratorium?

Friend: I think we owe it to the public to answer why we'd do it another way.

Erin Poe, city attorney: It was not the recommended course of action. This is unprecedented. We are in the position of having services required by ordinance that at some point won't be delivered.

Poe: A moratorium is "to cure the legal defect of what is promised by ordinance vs. what we can deliver right now."

Like I've tweeted before: it's legal cover for the work stoppage.

Yates: At the meeting, the POP was very clear about why they didn't want council's permission to stop work.

Folkerts: If work had to stop for another reason, like a shortage of members to make quorum, what would we do in that situation?

Poe: Planning Board has a mechanism to call back former members to have a quorum. Other boards, we'd have to come to council with an emergency ordinance to appoint someone.

Folkerts: There isn 't a fallback mechanism other than appointing someone?
Poe: Correct, not for most boards.

Benajamin: The complaint we have to investigate, how long can we wait to order that investigation? Can we wait until the new rules are in place, making it null and void? Or is it anchored in the existing ordinance?

A reasonable amount of time, Poe says. It would be up to a court to determine what reasonable would be in these circumstances. Waiting until October might be too long.

Benjamin: There's a v unfortunate circumstance that this panel will not get to weigh in on. We had a use of force that ended in death. "They put themselves in a position to not review one of the more important ones that are out there." That's unfortunate.

Poe: No complaint has been received about the shooting death. So they're not set to review it. If a complaint comes in, they could still accept it and review it.

Winer: Why did the co-chairs ask for a moratorium?
Brockett: The co-chairs each sent us emails. I'd refer to those. I don't have them right in front of me.

Friend: "I came in v prepared to just vote yes and move on. We've had a lot of POP discussions in the last 6 months. Yates made a pitch that landed with my legal side; I don't want to set bad and unnecessary precedent."

Friend asks if council can revisit this and not vote tonight; Speer says she doesn't love that.

Brockett: "The purpose of this is to remove the threat of legal action while they're doing the work of revising the ordinance." It might prompt additional complaints or lawsuits if we don't pass this tonight. I would love to move on and let the panel do its revision work.

Wallach: "I would let it sit from 90 to 120 days. I'm not overly concerned we'll be flooded with a slew of litigation."

Yates: Could we shorten the time for ordinance changes? That way we could let it lie, but it wouldn't lie for as long.

NRV: There's a schedule that includes engagement. I don't want to speak for them, "but I can't imagine it is going to be a significantly accelerated timeline."

It has to be reviewed by city attorneys, the panel, it's got public engagement to go through, NRV says. Then council.

"I think it is a rush that is already on a timetable that is accelerated," NRV says.

Yates: I think we should vote tonight instead of delaying. We may draw another code of conduct complaint for failing to act on a code of conduct complaint.

Speer makes a motion; Brockett seconds

This is on the consent agenda, so they're voting on more than just this, but the motion carries, with Wallach and Yates voting against the moratorium.

Via emergency vote, there is now an official moratorium (legal time-out) on the POP accepting new complaints for review, through Oct. 20

Maybe the first moratorium of this council...? I feel like they had one early on, but I've forgotten. Anyone remember?

They were much more popular on past councils. So much so, that I asked Brockett and Yates about it in 2019 when they ran for re-election.