[0:05] Hi, everyone. Welcome in. Today is April 1st. We are our community for we sort of do commissions meeting. And it is Monday, next, seven, with one. We begin with, uh, yes. So, uh, roll call, we have chairman, can you? By the share of words. Commissioner Eagle. Yeah. Commissioner headstrong here. Commissioner Jackson. As it commissioned or lost in for me.

[0:36] Commissioner Martinez. Commissioner

[0:39] Munivvi here. Commissioner

[0:41] Telles.

[0:47] Thank you so much and

[0:50] then I'll turn to our city of

[0:51] Chinese and pop of interest.

[0:54] No conference.

[0:56] Pop with us. Thank you. And now

[1:02] we'll go into a gender review and

[1:04] for agenda review.

[1:06] for a new business, eight, a, discussion involved with confidentiality agreement and code

[1:14] accepted.

[1:17] We will have that vote, but for eight, the discussion involved on the by-law, no, second, it is

[1:24] take eight, a, discussion involved on the confidentiality agreement and code of ethics.

[1:29] We will be voting on the confidentiality agreement, we will not be voting on the by-laws, amendment

[1:35] We're still under review by the City Attorney and so that would come back to us in the near future.

[1:43] In May, we'll have that.

[1:45] Just for you, we're looking at the agenda report.

[1:49] Are there any other changes to be agenda review to the agenda?

[1:57] Seeing none.

[1:59] We're going to go into the approval of the minutes.

[2:01] the candidates.

[2:03] So, we do appreciate you, Agenda.

[2:05] We just, we just, we're, we're not.

[2:07] I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm moving to the candidates.

[2:10] They're second.

[2:11] So, I have them.

[2:13] Thank you, Commissioner Lawson.

[2:15] And thank you, as Chair Frommins.

[2:17] Well, the work on, right?

[2:19] Chair, can too.

[2:20] Yes.

[2:21] Vice Chair Flores.

[2:22] Yes.

[2:23] Commissioner Eagle.

[2:25] Yes.

[2:25] Commissioner Headsstone.

[2:26] Yes.

[2:27] Commissioner Jackson, is absent.

[2:28] Commissioner Lawson.

[2:30] Yes.

[2:30] Commissioner Martinez.

[2:31] is of St. Commissioner Manny, excuse me, Mennati. Yes. And Commissioner Taylor is at. Thank

[2:41] you. And now I'm going into the chief report. Is there a representative on RTV, the chief

[2:48] online? Okay.

[2:53] Oh, looks like Captain Lopez will be joining us today.

[3:05] Captain Lopez. Hello, can

[3:07] Can everybody see it here, Min?

[3:09] Yes.

[3:11] Perfect.

[3:12] Thank you for having me tonight.

[3:14] I will be sitting in four chief Simmons,

[3:19] and I will be providing the tonight's update

[3:22] as far as our use of force summary,

[3:24] shot spotter activity, crime trim to the last 30 days,

[3:28] and staffing if I didn't say that already.

[3:30] So thank you for having me tonight.

[3:33] I will begin with use of force for the month of February.

[3:36] There were 11 total uses of force by officers and of those incidents, five involve body force,

[3:43] three involve the rap restraint system, two involve taser deployments, and one involve the

[3:49] canine contact. Turning to crime trends, citywide from March of 2026, Richmond recorded 121 crimes

[3:57] crimes and 420 property crimes for a total of 541 index crimes.

[4:04] Compared to February of 2026, violent crime increased by 53% and property crime increased

[4:12] by 108%. Compared to March of last year, violent crime increased by 30% and property

[4:18] crime increased by 67%. And near-date crimes are up 23% compared

[4:24] with the same period in 2025. To look more closely at the specific crimes

[4:31] increases, largely theft showed the most significant rise. It increased 209% compared last month

[4:37] and 121% compared to March of last year. Robert also increased 156% from last month,

[4:46] aggravated assaults increased 48% from last month and 26% from last year.

[4:52] Vehicle theft increased 45% from last month and 25% from last year, and vandalism also

[4:58] increased substantially, up 174% compared to last month and 79% compared to last year.

[5:06] And from a district perspective, all three patrol districts of northern, the southern,

[5:10] and the central districts saw increases in crime from in February to March.

[5:14] Southern increased from 110 to 235 incidents. Central increased from 82 to 139

[5:22] incidents and the northern district increased from 89 to 167 incidents. In the

[5:29] southern district, the most significant increase in categories with more than

[5:33] 10 reported crimes was larceny, which rose from 44 to 126. In the central district,

[5:40] in the same categories with 10 more reported crimes was lost in it as well from 19 to 58.

[5:47] And in the northern district, the most notable increases of categories with more than 10

[5:53] reported crimes was also lost in it, which rose from 25 to 88.

[5:58] And while some of these increases are significant, we review these changes carefully and do not

[6:02] rely on a single month alone to define the broader public safety picture.

[6:05] It is important for our staff to look at the patterns, repeat locations, and trends.

[6:11] We utilize the data provided so we can adjust patrol attention and enforcement strategies

[6:16] where it's needed.

[6:18] Next I'm going to provide a shot spotter report.

[6:20] From March of 2026, Richardson recorded nine shots fire calls for service, which is down

[6:26] from 16 reported in February, and that is a 44% decrease.

[6:30] compared with March of 2025, shot spotter calls, shot fire calls, I'm sorry, for

[6:36] service is down 40%. And during that same time period, shots spotter recorded

[6:42] 38 activations, which is down from 46 in February, and that's a 17% decrease,

[6:48] compared with March of 2025, activations were down by 5%. The department also

[6:54] documented five shooting incidents that occurred in March. That is down from

[6:59] 12 in the previous month in February, and that's a 58 percent decrease.

[7:05] One important note for the Commission and the public is that shot spotter activations

[7:09] and shots fire calls for service are not the same thing.

[7:13] A shot spotter activation is the technology generated alert of possible gunfire.

[7:19] A shot fire call for service is a call for service that comes through the public or come

[7:23] from the public and through our dispatch.

[7:26] Those two numbers will not always match.

[7:28] And in some cases, officers respond to shot spotter activation and confirm that there

[7:33] was no related crime.

[7:34] In other cases, community members will call in a shots fire call, and there is no corresponding

[7:39] activation.

[7:40] And that is why we evaluate both categories separately.

[7:46] Lastly, I'll update the commission on the department staffing.

[7:50] Currently the police department has 219 authorized positions.

[7:54] positions. Of those, there's 147 are sworn positions and 71 are civilian full-time positions.

[8:03] The department currently has 126 of those positions filled, including 7 trainees that are

[8:09] assigned to the police academy. That leaves us with currently with 21 sworn vacancies.

[8:15] We also have 57 failed civilian full-time positions with 14 civilian vacancies. Within our sworn

[8:22] One staffing picture, six employees are allowing injury leave, or sick leave.

[8:28] Four are on light duty, and two are administrative leave.

[8:31] Current sworn vacancies include one assistant chief, one lieutenant, five sergeants, and

[8:37] 14 officers.

[8:39] On the civilian side, the most significant shortage includes seven communication dispatchers,

[8:43] and three crime scene technicians, along with other key support positions.

[8:49] In closing, while we are seeing increases in some crime categories during the report

[8:53] of period, we are also seeing positive movement in areas like shots fire calls for service

[8:58] and confirmed shooting incidents.

[9:00] We will continue to monitor these trends closely and adjust words needed, and also keep you

[9:05] updated.

[9:06] And that concludes my report.

[9:08] And I'll answer any questions that you might have.

[9:12] Any questions from the commissioners?

[9:13] If you have any.

[9:14] Thank you, Commissioner Hexken.

[9:16] I'm sorry.

[9:17] All right, I don't know what Larson he is.

[9:19] Larson he's thinking about, yeah, just a certain type of theft?

[9:26] So there's two different types of thefts.

[9:27] You're going to have Larson, which is going to be under a certain $500, which is a Mr.

[9:32] Mena Larson, a Mr. Mena Petty theft, and you're going to have a grant theft, which is over $500.

[9:37] So that's from a business?

[9:39] No, it's from anywhere.

[9:40] It could be just a theft of you has something stolen from you, that's considered a Larson

[9:44] also.

[9:45] Okay.

[9:46] And then he said there was a decrease in robbery. Is there any particular neighborhoods that are seeing more robberies like that?

[9:55] So the robberies have gone up for all three districts, which is alarming.

[10:00] What we're trying to do is what we have our crime analysis technicians do is try to centralize where these crime trends are.

[10:07] And then we'll be do two things. It's a proactive approach for our patrol officers.

[10:11] They see the crime trends and kind of where the hotspots are and we activate our

[10:15] overall officers to those locations and then on our detected bureau side, they see the crime trends

[10:21] and where they're going and they look for trends, they look for modus operandas, if individuals are

[10:27] doing the same types of things and they look for clues in order to see if this is a crime trend,

[10:34] this is gang activity or is there certain suspect information that is the same that we can

[10:41] work on those leads.

[10:44] Thank you.

[10:46] Sure.

[10:46] Any other questions?

[10:47] Thank you.

[10:49] Welcome.

[10:50] Welcome.

[10:51] Thank you very much.

[10:52] Sorry.

[10:53] Regarding the use of workforce incidents, you mentioned that there was three that worked

[10:58] the rapid devices years and then one very keen.

[11:02] Can you specify as to why the rapid devices chosen?

[11:07] So the rapid devices usually chosen when there is a, you know, someone who is

[11:11] combatant, or someone who is kicking out windows,

[11:16] vandalizing, or causing a safety to themselves,

[11:20] or a safety to officers.

[11:22] And we need to transport them from different locations.

[11:25] The rap device has different uses for it.

[11:28] And so whenever a rap device is utilized,

[11:31] we always have a supervisor on scene

[11:33] to ensure it's put on properly and ensure

[11:36] that a supervisor's on scene.

[11:39] Thank you.

[11:41] Yes, our investigators will question as well.

[11:44] By our app device, do you mean the bulk of our app device?

[11:48] We consider this a rapid device.

[11:50] The specific game, there's different brands.

[11:54] But this is a rapid device that we utilize.

[11:58] And how long this is a rapid device?

[12:00] Oh, that's a great question.

[12:05] Let's see here, I've been here for 24 years.

[12:09] and I'm pretty sure we've had a wrappers trained device for as long as I've been here, but I'll have to go back and double check that.

[12:17] Thank you.

[12:19] Sure.

[12:20] Any other questions?

[12:23] Okay. We will move to public forum.

[12:28] At this time, I'm going to go ahead and move to public forum.

[12:31] Anyone who wishes to address the commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the commission,

[12:36] whether or not the subject is contained on this agenda as well as pertaining to the remarks of the chief of police may do so by filling out a speaker request.

[12:46] Down with the staff liaison or by raising your hand via zoom there will be a two minute time limit per speaker.

[12:56] subject to the chair's personal discretion.

[12:58] Our first speaker here in person is going to be for

[13:01] the outhandler, for the owner to have two minutes to see.

[13:04] And you may begin.

[13:05] Thank you both.

[13:06] So the three of you need to share the kind of two of the

[13:08] mission is for the director.

[13:10] I am Twitter owner.

[13:11] I'm a member of the park by the neighborhood council.

[13:13] So thank you.

[13:14] I have a little bit of a report.

[13:16] So one of the issues that I have raised last month was

[13:25] But I've called it in a couple of times, but it has time better, but I would request

[13:30] if there be some actual patrol, especially long, because I live on 45-1 and the next one over

[13:36] is 40% of the law, so if there be some actual patrol in our net areas, that's how we're

[13:42] very helpful.

[13:43] So that's one.

[13:44] The other issue that I brought up was, and I probably didn't have a product that had a neighbor

[13:49] We're consummating about, we can't have to go about $7.11, so that would provide some

[13:54] context.

[13:55] So that in 2013, at the time, when we had our previous deed officer, one of the issues

[14:01] that we had raised was $7.11 has been an issue for quite some time because if he would

[14:05] be adding a random order and that, and that, that's me because I shot $7.11 the page only,

[14:12] and it doesn't feel safe for me to go over there to what business without getting there

[14:16] for somebody.

[14:17] So we have been, when I say we, the neighborhood council, and I have been trying to put pressure on some who have been clear through that.

[14:24] It has not been better, but I want to request that I have some extra control around that area.

[14:29] And then the final thing, and I'm before you take in those, is, is prostitution because we must track the neighborhood council president and I, we were coming back from an event.

[14:39] And we've seen a blade of the email, especially long, at 5M at Hall, and it would be great if we had some sting operations coming back because it would make that out of that quarter more visible.

[14:52] So with that, I'll give my time to Lisa Johnson.

[14:55] this.

[14:56] Moving forward now.

[15:02] Before we move on to our online speakers, we do have members. I put in the also the con now. We have one other speaker here sourcing. No worries and ask your Garcia. You'll have two minutes to speak. Thank you.

[15:31] has always been discussed in an open session,

[15:34] but that changed when boy Andrews took over

[15:36] the representative for the city attorney's office.

[15:40] And in terms of being done in closed session,

[15:44] especially in light of edits being made in the past

[15:48] during closed session that were not consistent

[15:50] with the facts of the complaint.

[15:53] Transparency is lacking and doing additional things

[15:55] in closed session is not acceptable.

[15:58] Thank you.

[16:01] Thank you, officers.

[16:03] All

[16:10] right, Lisa, you'll have two minutes to speak and you may begin.

[16:14] Thank you. Good evening, commissioners and investigator-servant.

[16:17] I want to connect with on the agenda tonight with a concerning transparency issue

[16:21] that the city attorney's office has refused to address.

[16:24] Tonight, the commission is discussing two new public case summaries in closed session.

[16:28] Even though those cases have already been reviewed and voted on by the commission

[16:32] and the findings and votes rid out to the public.

[16:34] at this stage the focus is on draft public case summaries and historically those have been

[16:39] done publicly. The shift now moved this process to closed session is troubling and we have

[16:44] precedent for why. At a public meeting on November 6, 2024, the final public case summary in the

[16:50] Kevin MacDonald case was read into the record after the commission voted to approve it in closed

[16:55] session. As was customary policy, a draft version had to exist, be circulated and reviewed by the

[17:01] commission before that vote. A public records act request reveals that someone submitted

[17:06] a request asking for the draft summary and who authored it. The city confirmed that

[17:11] Jerry III wrote the draft. Yet the city refused to release it claiming the record wasn't

[17:16] retained and that the public interest was best served by withholding it. That makes no sense.

[17:23] For standard plastic was for the draft to be emailed to the chair and circulated amongst

[17:28] commissioners and should exist within the city's email systems and be subject to retention

[17:32] policies. The city cannot claim the document was central to decision-making but somehow

[17:38] not retained it. Second, the public interest argument falls apart. This is not a confidential

[17:44] memo about a pending decision. This is a document summarizing a finding and vote already read

[17:49] into the public record. The public has a right to compare the draft and final versions and

[17:54] understand what change when there was no independent investigator present as he had already resigned.

[18:01] This lacks and reeks of a lack of transparency. It's very troubling and I urge the commission

[18:07] and investigator to return these discussions to open session where they rightly belong. Thank you.

[18:17] Thank you Lisa. Are there any other public comments online at this time for public forum?

[18:27] Thank you. Thank you. I have to look as appreciate you being here.

[18:29] Thank you.

[18:32] And now we're going to move into old business report on commissioner training.

[18:37] There's only one report from Commissioner Boston.

[18:41] Yeah, I, I shadowed officer.

[18:48] Ireland and tentative.

[18:50] He lived through glad your report to the wristman's panics, neighborhood council meeting.

[18:55] last Thursday evening, and in the way that I actually

[19:02] lived in British mathematics and so the first time

[19:05] I had attended my neighborhood council meeting,

[19:06] so that was very stressful.

[19:07] I stayed with the rest of the meeting,

[19:09] apparently the federal court was completed,

[19:12] and we've learned a little bit about my neighborhoods,

[19:14] so I appreciated that as well.

[19:16] Awesome.

[19:17] Thank you.

[19:18] I did a ride along.

[19:19] Yes, and we have it for the record as well.

[19:23] Thank you.

[19:23] So all of the write-alongs will be updated and uploaded to the website for transparency

[19:30] to meet the minimum requirements, those dates, and the dates will only be on the website.

[19:37] The summary is for an internal process for all of us, so thank you for submitting those.

[19:43] This will be the end of all business items, so we'll not be adding this to the agenda

[19:49] in the near future, because now we've all finished the train.

[19:53] Commissioner?

[19:54] I guess not.

[19:55] Hold on here.

[19:56] Last month.

[19:57] But can I give a-

[19:58] Do you want to share about use?

[19:59] Yeah.

[20:01] On February 50, 2016, I arrived at the police station at approximately 5.30 a.m. there was

[20:10] men with Sergeant McGill, Castalo, he greeted me warmly, gave me a comprehensive tour of the station

[20:19] during the tour he showed me the chief's office, the cabinet's office, the science area,

[20:24] the brake loans, and the cabinet's storage loans. He also took me to a rear building with a

[20:30] troll vehicle, the Philadelphia trucks, our house, it was helpful to see how everything was

[20:35] organized and how the police department operated the United

[20:38] States. Around 6.30 p.m. we began a patrol at the

[20:42] Sergeant. He was overseeing patrol operations while after being

[20:50] monitoring activity in the field. He showed me the equipment

[20:53] inside the patrol vehicle and explained how he tracked the

[20:57] locations and answers and communications with him real

[21:01] a time. During the shift, we responded to a call in the

[21:05] ambulance, but when banned, the victim had reported to send his

[21:09] van and the neighborhood. Before approaching the van,

[21:12] officers used the drone to survey the area for safety and

[21:17] safety awareness. They also deployed spike strips in the

[21:24] world, but in case the suspect typically. It was impressed.

[21:27] I was impressed by our coordinated and strategic operation worlds.

[21:33] I also worked together in a synchronized manner to save me apprehended two individuals involved.

[21:40] One of the officers even explained to me how the drone operates, which was very informative.

[21:48] The rest of the evening was relatively quiet.

[21:51] We control different areas of Richmond who in 23rd Street, nearby Back Street, Sargent,

[21:58] Castello, planning out areas of a prostitution activity as shifted.

[22:03] Up particularly near 24th Street, we also observed a few traffic stops before we turned

[22:09] into the station overall.

[22:11] I found a right-alone experience of me on a site in sightful, as a case known and cited.

[22:17] He gave me a better understanding of these seizures,

[22:20] coordination, and community patrol operations.

[22:23] I truly enjoyed experiencing it

[22:26] with gladly participating in another

[22:28] right along in the future.

[22:30] Thank you Commissioner Javasang.

[22:33] I encourage anybody else to reach out directly for

[22:35] their chief to continue to do

[22:38] by the loans with dispatch or with RPD officers.

[22:44] That's going to close the old business agenda.

[22:46] I've done in public on public business at this time see at this time we didn't want to have

[22:54] excuse me uh compliment for old big or some public comment for old business at this time

[22:58] please raise your hand and hit person you know perfect thank you we're going to move to

[23:07] agenda eight new business and this is the discussion and vote on the next identity and the

[23:13] A, this will not be for the bylaws amendments.

[23:18] And so, oh, that's a two in the singular Alex to share this and just introduce this item.

[23:28] Then we'll go back to clarifying questions, then public comment, and then our discussion.

[23:33] Sure, certainly mission bylaws, the non required mission is to formally execute a confidential

[23:40] financial aid agreement and on disclosure agreement, such a requirement would reduce the

[23:44] risk of unauthorized disclosure that might compromise investigations, reduce the city's

[23:49] exposure to liability and also increase public confidence in the commission.

[23:56] Perfect. Any questions? And this is generally a best practice. You can see there's a level

[24:03] of infections on the other by the laws, et cetera. But yeah, question.

[24:08] So if I understand correct people, we're really on today is whether to improve the case

[24:16] of the title and confidentialities on the reading.

[24:20] Just that.

[24:21] Just that.

[24:22] Another question I ask you.

[24:25] So the only things that are confidential are the email codes listed here.

[24:32] or are they the help on the code?

[24:34] They're told here are referred because they type what I brought, so you can refer to

[24:39] that.

[24:39] I mean, it's about some specific questions about what may or may not be, so I can try

[24:44] to answer them as best as I can out.

[24:49] So the main thing is we can't release the officer's name, so is there anything else specifically

[24:55] that you can think of?

[24:57] I just want to make sure I know exactly what it's supposed to know records and in details

[25:01] that in cases, unreleased body-worn camera footage, witness statements, investigative materials,

[25:08] anything like that. If you've discussed anything, it has to be very general, you know, like just trends

[25:14] that you're seeing that type of thing.

[25:19] Specific dates.

[25:22] Any other clarify questions before we go

[25:24] to flip it from it? Yeah, when I asked if there's a difference, I'm not seeing between paragraph 3 and 4.

[25:31] The

[25:37] wording of the first sentence seems slightly different, but it seems to be like a very similar sentence.

[25:53] Can I just share with my understanding?

[25:55] Yeah, it's three is saying that you understand the information.

[26:02] Sorry, is it the last two paragraphs?

[26:05] Or which?

[26:06] Three and four, right?

[26:07] Yeah, sorry.

[26:10] Okay.

[26:10] So they don't begin hiding pretty quickly.

[26:12] Right, okay.

[26:16] Never mind.

[26:20] They don't seem what they're saying, saying things.

[26:22] Yeah.

[26:23] Yeah, they are some of them redundant.

[26:25] If you want to move to amended.

[26:27] Yeah.

[26:27] I don't see what I would say keep the third.

[26:31] You can get rid of the four.

[26:32] Yeah, I was.

[26:34] Okay, fine.

[26:36] So that's for clarifying.

[26:38] Any other clarifying questions?

[26:41] Yeah, okay.

[26:42] Public comment?

[26:43] Yeah.

[26:43] Yeah. One thing I want to do is put on record the Commissioner Andre show the day to

[26:49] ride at 7.14 pm and then also Commissioner tell us a ride at 7.08 pm.

[26:55] Thank you.

[26:55] I love that.

[26:56] And we'll go ahead and move into public comment on this item.

[27:00] This is going to be for a Sydney new business item A, Cordell Henry, your first speaker

[27:06] on this item.

[27:06] You'll have a few minutes to speak and you may begin.

[27:09] And so we didn't even share a few missions for the record.

[27:14] I had looked at the development for events.

[27:19] One of the things I wanted to mention about the regarding

[27:23] about the media.

[27:25] And so I was looking at it and I wasn't in it.

[27:28] So, and I don't know from experience,

[27:30] but I'm like, it did.

[27:32] Suppose that the media did as a commissioner of our line

[27:36] know a sort of particular thing, they have a right to say, I cannot disclose that, hey,

[27:43] so I'm just being mindful. So I'm like, I look at it and I'm like, and the media does have

[27:49] a tendency to have, whether they call it out, as far as you know, a specific case. And so,

[27:54] you cannot disclose it, so you're lacking that confidence here. So, I do want to give

[27:59] So, hopefully it gets voted on and I believe in that.

[28:04] Thank you for the interrupt.

[28:08] Our next speaker here in person is going to be asked to regard to it.

[28:12] The two minutes to speak and you may begin.

[28:14] Thank you.

[28:15] I'll see our CEO, Richmond resident.

[28:17] Black C, the confident chat agreement and code of ethics item.

[28:23] But it being sponsored by Marisol Cantu is worried from.

[28:26] She has commented publicly about several cases before the CBRC jeopardizing the ability

[28:34] to hold those officers accountable if necessary.

[28:37] This is like Donald Trump establishing a code of ethics around the FC files.

[28:44] Just go to make a sense.

[28:46] Marisol Kento has shown a several time that she cannot be trusted with delicate CBRC information.

[28:52] She revealed sensitive information about the angel on tunnel case on Facebook days after

[28:59] a training where the commission was taught the importance of keeping everything confidential.

[29:05] She clearly needs to be removed from the commission for damaging the ability to hold officers

[29:11] accountable.

[29:13] Thank you.

[29:14] Thank you, master.

[29:17] Okay, we're going to go ahead and move on to public comment online again.

[29:21] This is going to be for new business item A. Our first speaker is Lisa.

[29:26] You'll have two minutes to speak and you may begin.

[29:29] Good evening commissioners.

[29:31] I want to thank investigators Serifin for putting this critically needed item on tonight's agenda.

[29:35] It's long overdue and the commission needs a real and effective way to remove commissioners in a timely manner

[29:41] when they commit clear ethics violations or demonstrate bias, because that conduct undermines

[29:45] the integrity of the commission and every sustained finding of issues.

[29:49] I am equally concerned that commissioners must be held accountable if they withheld key

[29:53] information on their CPRC applications or made false statements on their form 700s, including

[29:59] being who they're.

[30:00] Our employer is, as has been the case, by commissioners can't do in Martinez. The public has a right to transparency and honesty from anyone serving in this role. As such, I will continue to call for their immediate resignations from the CPRC, as well as any other commissioner who is a member of reimagine Richmond until this is appropriately addressed. Commissioners can't do in Martinez sit on the reimagine Richmond steering committee, an organization with a well-documented anti-police bias that creates an unacceptable conflict of interest.

[30:29] The record also shows a pattern of bias decision making, including the September 2024th vote

[30:34] in the Kevin Macdonald case, in which commissioners Cantu Martinez and Lawson voted to overwrite

[30:39] the findings of the district attorney and trained investigators.

[30:43] That failure of process and impartiality led to the whistleblower resignation of CPRC

[30:48] investigator Jerry Three and mandatory training for the commission.

[30:53] Yet the events that followed after the August 4th shooting of Angel Montagno showed that

[30:58] But training apparently did not stick.

[31:00] Before any investigations were complete, officers' names were leaked to the press, Commissioner

[31:05] Cantu then publicly said the officers need to be locked up in charge before a single

[31:10] investigator had finished their work.

[31:12] Reimagined Richmond followed with demands for firing and criminal charges.

[31:16] That's not in partial oversight.

[31:18] That's advocacy disguised as a verdict.

[31:22] The DA later cleared both officers and Reimagined Richmond once again rejected that outcome.

[31:28] them. Please have them resign immediately and resolve this time. I'm sorry, do you see

[31:34] your time of sleep is up at this time? Are there any other speakers online for public comment

[31:42] at this time? That completes public comment. Okay, move on to discussion votes. Yes. I have

[31:50] a question. So it's not heard by English, but it's a question of the content of the green.

[31:56] Is there, was there any discussion or is it really all appropriate to include disclosures

[32:02] of contents during closed session, like Brown and Violation Center, just like, so we

[32:11] wouldn't follow you to the laws that are listed here, but I know I'm, you know, I'm also

[32:17] penalized or removed, and we should accept an issue in the past, but it proves that one

[32:24] a man paragraph two to say add including violations with the ground on something like that.

[32:31] Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. I was absolutely going to respond to the commissioner

[32:36] of law soon and said, what if not necessarily follow them there.

[32:40] Oh wait, no, it's not a process in law soon. I think everyone's at like official duties as a

[32:45] CVRC commissioner or any duties, I think that would include it, but if you want to get specific,

[32:50] and that's also fun for paragraph two.

[32:54] I would actually like to make the

[32:57] I'm going to make that permission for me.

[33:01] Do you mind that I'm going to ask you the same thing?

[33:03] Engle?

[33:04] I'll try it up.

[33:05] That maybe we should get rid of paragraph four,

[33:08] and then for paragraph three, we add the word

[33:11] I understand and agree.

[33:14] So that we are all understanding and then we also

[33:19] movement to the fact that we know of it, that we're getting ourselves into it, and then we are a fall in agreement.

[33:25] I'd like to suggest you instead of bringing information.

[33:30] For no, there are a four, and then keep going.

[33:34] I thought it was just a bit with this thing.

[33:37] It's interesting.

[33:38] What?

[33:39] It was room full of information.

[33:42] Yes, it was room full of information.

[33:43] Yes, and then additional events, number also as I understand it.

[33:49] I understand him pretty.

[33:51] I understand him pretty.

[33:52] And then adding official duties as a CPRC commissioner in paragraph two,

[34:02] or we can play

[34:05] many of our Chinese, anything related to diversification of the business.

[34:10] I don't think that's confidential.

[34:14] No, I don't think that's why I mentioned that, if a commissioner also wanted to specify specifically on any grant liabilities or workouts that are happening between they've been closed session, then we can specify that.

[34:29] I would say yeah, maybe suggest commissioner obligations under the brown or something like that.

[34:34] Okay, yeah, so like somewhere.

[34:39] Let's see.

[34:42] And another class is always different.

[34:45] Some I go to a new semicolon.

[34:48] Or a.

[34:50] Can you say anything?

[34:51] I'm sorry.

[34:51] Commissioner obligations under the brown.

[34:55] Can we just add for it to another sentence?

[34:58] Well, second for him.

[35:00] Again.

[35:01] or either audio, slash radio recordings, and any, whatever,

[35:06] related with stories.

[35:08] That would be fine.

[35:10] Thank you.

[35:11] It was absolutely fine.

[35:12] I would say, like

[35:19] we just said, it was very interesting.

[35:21] Thank you.

[35:22] Thank you for, for commission, for any commission, for any commission

[35:27] obligations.

[35:28] We didn't grant that.

[35:31] It's awesome.

[35:34] I'm interested in changing games around the city attorney expressing the written.

[35:41] What's the set of see written permission to disclose things to something around.

[35:51] Oh, yes, three.

[35:53] Yeah, three.

[35:54] To something around offensive information, we're going to be disclosed, except that's required

[35:59] by law, or by commission legal counsel, or discriminatory records custodian, or as

[36:05] otherwise permitted by the commission policy.

[36:09] As of that, it means that I would like, I would be interested in, and I have to see,

[36:14] turn from the wrong person to society.

[36:17] And then the second part that I would like to see is that the commission, right now,

[36:25] I wasn't having a meditermination body.

[36:28] I believe it goes to the mayor, right?

[36:31] And so I do that.

[36:32] The language should reflect that.

[36:34] That's the reality of things.

[36:41] So the confidentiality agreement,

[36:46] we've gave Channis.

[36:50] Oh, and the confidentiality agreement was wrong.

[36:53] No, no, no, no.

[36:55] So it's staying.

[36:56] You're in a termination.

[36:57] Oh, immediate termination.

[36:59] Yes.

[36:59] The last pair, immediate.

[37:03] I don't understand.

[37:04] Does it?

[37:04] That what it was meant?

[37:06] A commission with fails.

[37:08] And then after the head struck me.

[37:09] Oh, yeah.

[37:10] And then you wanted to ask for a record.

[37:12] Was good.

[37:13] So this is right.

[37:15] When the second paragraph we're going to add all the precautions.

[37:17] Like under all the codes that we're not even.

[37:20] That's just.

[37:21] I mean, this.

[37:22] So you think that would be public record or available for.

[37:25] public record would be available for discussion. Yes, I think we need to talk about this immediate

[37:39] termination because we brought up a valid point there because if I did what we should say is

[37:45] recommendation to the city council for immediate termination or something like that because we can't do it.

[37:59] Yeah, so the language would be,

[38:02] if I have a disagreement,

[38:05] will constitute a recommendation?

[38:08] Grounds for the recommendation, yeah.

[38:10] To grant for the recommendation.

[38:14] To the City Council for the immediate termination.

[38:21] I think we should just run a moving meeting because

[38:23] by the time we take it to Council,

[38:25] it's an early meeting,

[38:26] we'll get on the agenda.

[38:28] We can take the sweets to get on the agenda.

[38:31] So cost two rounds, one recommendation to city council, or termination.

[38:48] Okay.

[38:50] Are you keeping track of all the changes?

[38:52] Because I'd like to hear the whole thing read before we vote.

[38:55] Because there's several things that you want to say.

[38:57] Yes.

[38:57] I have two.

[38:58] I think I need to go.

[38:59] Three.

[39:01] Or I need to go back to yours with the city attorney.

[39:04] you write something really beautifully. Could you give them an entrance?

[39:08] Sure.

[39:09] You said, agreed, and they can have a challenge.

[39:11] So, we're not divulged, we're just going to get to anyone for any purpose without expressing

[39:18] consent.

[39:19] And we're giving the three not four.

[39:25] So we just need to get the ass sentence, yeah.

[39:29] And we can sign, understand, and the three not to disclose.

[39:33] Yeah.

[39:34] Yeah.

[39:35] So I guess where it starts with, especially on the rise, confidential information may not

[39:41] be disclosed as required by law, as authorized by the Commission's legal counsel, disignate

[39:50] a record or disignate a record still in it, or as otherwise permitted by adopted Commission

[39:59] policy.

[40:04] adopted and she calls the commission policy.

[40:11] What would be an example of that adopted?

[40:14] It's not only concerned, but it needs to be something that's within the law.

[40:19] I'm wondering, for example, seeing other commissions and statements on like a

[40:23] billing viral or a sudden face to the public, just stating that they would be doing a fair

[40:30] and partial investigation, for example, and that's all for the record for the community to know

[40:38] that the commission's handling this, that they're going to be investigating and thoroughly and that

[40:43] it's going to go through a fair process. So we don't have a policy like that, but I've seen

[40:50] other issues exactly. That's one example. I don't know if other folks have other examples.

[40:56] I guess the picture of that letter which is if you could adopt a policy author as a release

[41:03] of a control formation and to the extent that policy passed under this non-scosure agreement

[41:12] you were able to release information violation of law without any consequences.

[41:19] But if you press, if you put more, what's the net?

[41:24] And would it get any state to go through our legal counsel?

[41:27] It has to be approved to go to the legal counsel.

[41:30] So we're liable for making that.

[41:34] Well, yeah.

[41:35] If you're really does matter, but it's disjunctive.

[41:39] So it's four.

[41:40] So if you do one, two, three, or four,

[41:44] or anyone of the four options

[41:48] would present a vibe of that to the same information.

[41:53] So if it's in fact a contingent policy

[41:57] that authorizes the release of confidential information,

[42:00] you could hang your hat on that hook, as we say,

[42:04] to release what is otherwise confidential information.

[42:07] So the only way to kind of soften

[42:11] and the IPAL Sea of the Commission item, the fourth one,

[42:18] would be to make it conjured, which I think

[42:21] throws the whole thing out the window, which is one, two,

[42:23] and three, man, four, which is, it becomes

[42:27] a student's student's dream.

[42:31] I mean, that seems like a lot of hooch to go through.

[42:36] Comshire, Engle, and Lawson, and then Hextreme.

[42:38] Oh, sorry.

[42:39] OK.

[42:42] So my question is about the need for this particular change.

[42:46] Like are we mentioning a situation because it currently has written, it says, except when

[42:52] I was the right person, I was the author, it's used to in writing by the city, it's

[42:56] not this.

[42:56] Which then gives us that legal covering that I hate when we're told to do that, thanks for

[43:00] it.

[43:01] Are we mentioning a situation where the city attorney office disagrees with us and says we

[43:08] People do not keep you that blanket covered.

[43:11] You need to have some other blanket.

[43:14] Just, I mean, in regard to me, we should create that.

[43:16] I don't know how you feel comfortable.

[43:21] Personally, I'm a personal liability on the line

[43:24] against the advice council.

[43:26] Like, I prefer to have it, you know.

[43:30] Again, I prefer to have it, I prefer to have that advice

[43:33] and also having the writing.

[43:33] So I know a couple of engineers.

[43:37] So, for example, if required by law, I don't want to have to go and get permission to do something that I'm required to do by law.

[43:48] I don't think the city attorney's office needs to tell me that it's okay to do that.

[43:53] So, I think we don't, I like adding that.

[43:56] And then I don't know about the custodial records part.

[43:59] Can you give an example of how that would work?

[44:03] What do we need to get that approved by the city attorney?

[44:07] Because I don't think required.

[44:08] I don't think we need to inherit the city attorney.

[44:11] But prove us to do something that's, you know, we have to.

[44:14] Report the laws also a little bit subject interpretation.

[44:17] And that's a thing I'm concerned that some people may have.

[44:20] And want to at least run it by the commission in turning it the very least.

[44:38] I think it's an example of different bodies within the city that hold that responsibility.

[44:48] But it's probably not.

[44:50] If it's enough just to have commissions legal counsel in the card by law.

[44:55] Or if we adopt a policy as commission.

[44:57] You

[45:00] I think they're saying that the part about adapting a policy as a commission is not viable. If they're in the right situation, two advice and a big limitation of imagination here, but in a win-win, you might be required to buy a law to release what could be confidential information. The only thing I think of is if you were to vote or if you were subpoenaed. And both of those cases,

[45:30] is, you should most certainly know men

[45:33] the city and church is on this.

[45:37] So I tend to agree with the sentiment

[45:40] that it's kind of a sure-fire attack yourself

[45:44] if you just seek legal counsel advice,

[45:47] because then we can advise us to whether

[45:49] it is back to root fire in the good law that we're on.

[45:54] Yeah, it's a stressful job on our half for that reason

[45:57] because we also become with these determinations

[45:59] as to compliance or violations.

[46:06] So I think that the quality of seeking legal counsels say, if you ever have any questions,

[46:15] please always reach out to legal counsel.

[46:21] So what happens if we have an issue with the legal counsel that we think they need some

[46:28] I mean, a deal.

[46:30] But you can't play with that.

[46:33] There's a lot more situation where

[46:35] person you're seeking advice from is no longer trustworthy,

[46:39] but it's something that you do.

[46:41] I'm just pulling out a hypothetical situation

[46:43] where you don't want.

[46:45] So I guess that would require going to someone else

[46:48] in the city of Teresa office or how would that work?

[46:52] Yeah, you know, if there's ever a concern

[46:53] with the legal counsel that you have,

[46:55] I mean, myself, you could always move in

[46:57] and these areas are currently having concerns.

[47:00] It may have turned to Shannon Moore,

[47:02] and to put her on the other side of the issue

[47:04] of the concern and the issue of a certain rate of assault

[47:07] and review.

[47:12] We don't take concerns or issues in that regard,

[47:19] so if there are any issues or any perspective issues,

[47:23] can we have any more certainly review it?

[47:26] Are we on top of it right now?

[47:27] And if we're talking about something else and I just want to keep us so good and do it.

[47:32] I was asking about that when we say city attorney does it mean that it has to be our legal

[47:41] move about the one where the said message is so it doesn't get us to stop.

[47:45] My recommendation would be to keep it to the city attorney's office for the commission and turn.

[47:50] So you have two options to go to to clarify.

[47:53] 5. So we can add or the question or the submission. And I think that covered up that war is a final right? Yeah, I mean, we tend to kind of describe the two same function, but did reaching the 2's.

[48:14] Okay. Yes. Can you read what we have so far just so we can. Yes, and we'll program it.

[48:20] Yeah. So the first paragraph stays completely the same. It's on public record. It's in

[48:28] our document. I'm not going to read it. Is that okay, Huxrin? Yeah, okay. The second paragraph,

[48:37] it will be confidential information includes piece officer records, personnel records, protecting

[48:44] under penal code, I'm going to move, 8-3-2.7-8-3-2.8,

[48:55] semicolon information governed by the piece of access bill of rights,

[49:00] under government code 33-0-3-3-3, semicolon, including and not limited to internal affairs materials, criminal investigations, body one, camera,

[49:14] semi-colon, other audio video recordings, semi-colon and commissioners and commissioners

[49:27] obligations under the grant.

[49:33] That's the second paragraph, yeah. I don't think

[49:36] there's a semi-colon at their body-worn cameras because I think it's body-worn

[49:40] camera or other audio video recordings. That's one thing. Okay, it's a word of words in there.

[49:47] Okay. Before the new clause. And then the new clause. It will be the summer code. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

[49:55] And then move to third paragraph. Shifting from I agree to I understand Annie Carey not to disclose

[50:07] those released or share confidential information that segment

[50:10] expressed authorized to do so in writing by the City Attorney's Office, or

[50:18] commissioners' council.

[50:21] That won't be the end of that. That was when there's

[50:24] commission council. Yeah, commission and commission council, either way is fine.

[50:28] So we're not leaving. We took out the required by law, said this required by law.

[50:35] I haven't got to an extent.

[50:38] So we didn't include that addition?

[50:41] Oh, no.

[50:42] So where was that?

[50:44] That was one of the recommended additions that we pulled back on.

[50:48] Yeah, we pulled.

[50:48] I thought we did.

[50:49] Yeah, you know.

[50:49] Because the installation.

[50:51] Yeah.

[50:52] Yeah.

[50:53] It's a brand new unit.

[50:54] It would be the definitions.

[50:56] Well,

[50:59] So, we'll be by the city and for your office for the commissions from, or you want to

[51:06] tell me?

[51:07] The commission's legal counsel.

[51:09] Okay.

[51:10] The commission's legal counsel.

[51:20] The next sentence stays the same.

[51:26] We are removing the entire board for paragraph.

[51:31] The final paragraph, I understand in a way that I'm failure to comply with this agreement

[51:36] will constitute grounds for the recommendation to city council for a termination of my position

[51:44] as a commissioner of the CPRC.

[51:50] Should we specify where's going to the

[51:53] additionally? I think that's the facility will come into the bylaws. I mean, okay,

[51:58] we've done that. I'm sure if I have, which is going to draw out the entire process. Okay,

[52:02] I don't like that.

[52:03] No.

[52:04] Okay.

[52:04] Going to the mayor.

[52:05] It has to have been a mayor.

[52:07] That's recruitment on that.

[52:09] Um.

[52:11] Councilor, is that.

[52:12] Is that.

[52:13] Can you get all that?

[52:14] Yeah.

[52:16] I also agree with the.

[52:17] That was the second.

[52:19] The last six, which is a.

[52:21] In terms of enforcement.

[52:23] The body has contemplated that.

[52:25] Yeah.

[52:26] And I wouldn't like.

[52:26] Just for folks to know.

[52:27] Would like this to be institutionalized.

[52:29] In the.

[52:30] Or intimate as well.

[52:31] So when we.

[52:32] bring them back. The biolosses are short-term, you know, short-term goal for us to move this through

[52:41] with to hold each other accountable, but then for us to institutionalize it, it should be changed

[52:45] should or it's amendment itself. So both will be coming back in May. Commissioner Losses.

[52:52] I think we haven't known any more about that.

[52:54] No.

[52:55] No one there is changing that.

[52:57] I think it's sessions.

[52:58] This sounds not.

[52:59] Hold on a minute.

[53:00] Hold on a minute.

[53:01] Sorry.

[53:01] That is only a chance.

[53:04] You know what?

[53:04] We didn't know what number had been for.

[53:06] That would be a chance.

[53:07] It doesn't matter if there was no other

[53:09] Allen's work there in your end.

[53:11] Yes.

[53:11] Okay.

[53:12] I'm still working on your end.

[53:14] Yes.

[53:14] Okay.

[53:15] Okay.

[53:15] I'll entertain an emotion.

[53:17] So I move that you include the confidentiality

[53:21] confidentiality in the members' blood agreement as I'm in

[53:23] differently to review by the chat.

[53:26] Oh, it's okay.

[53:29] No.

[53:30] Sorry.

[53:31] You think so?

[53:32] We'll go ahead and go.

[53:33] It's a roll call.

[53:35] So we'll start when Chair can soon.

[53:37] Yes.

[53:38] Vice Chair Flores.

[53:39] Yes.

[53:40] Commissioner Engel.

[53:42] Yes.

[53:42] Commissioner Hakesdram.

[53:43] Yes.

[53:44] Commissioner Jackson.

[53:45] Yes.

[53:46] Commissioner Lawson.

[53:47] Yes.

[53:48] Commissioner Martinez.

[53:49] Yes.

[53:50] Commissioner Bonit.

[53:51] Yes.

[53:53] commissioners. The missioners fell it. Yes, excuse me. So we're voting to approve the confidentiality

[53:59] and non-disposure agreement. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. We'll be moving in

[54:06] to the discussion and vote on the CPRC viral amendment, adding an organizational affiliation

[54:12] that's burdened to your amendment for the commissioners. I'll have to approve the submission and

[54:16] and feet to introduce, then we'll go into clarifying questions, publishing them in the

[54:21] session.

[54:27] I'm probably going to give them a little bit of that in the recent phase.

[54:56] Oh,

[54:59] yeah, so I need for follow-in to the mission of transparency, or the vision of affiliation

[55:07] just folder. We've got our lab.

[55:11] That's what we want to do. I'm going to read on. Yeah, so

[55:16] that's in this division. Transparent. We all have a affiliation disposal and orders of

[55:21] remote transparency and maintain public funds. We've commissioned our community one. Holy

[55:26] community committee to disclose in leadership role for service. Our affiliation and organization

[55:33] of policing, public safety, and it can see my policy matters.

[55:38] For purposes of this state, an ablation pulls formal interest in the roles of that membership,

[55:43] advisory conditions, volunteer leadership, board service, employment,

[55:47] consulting relationships, or any other bond with the rigid commissioner,

[55:50] participant efforts, leadership, advocacy, or policy work for the organization

[55:56] related to policing, public safety, or criminal justice management.

[56:00] So, such enclosures should be provided at the time of appointing our reinforcements in the commission annually thereafter,

[56:07] where matters before the commission may be recently related to an organization which,

[56:11] with which a commission is affiliated, the enclosures still be made public,

[56:15] even taken upon the submission of the commission's official records,

[56:19] important to applicant transparency over the being departments of the city of Virginia County Board.

[56:24] And I think in this exercise of preventing commissioners from participating in the mission activities

[56:28] unless otherwise required by law applicable with the interest of regulations.

[56:34] Adapted in quotation, this membership can affect the final approval by majority of both the

[56:39] commission and it is.

[56:40] Dolly noted public meeting, a fire voucher and the membership will be incorporated to the

[56:45] official bylaws of the community public report review commission, meaning maintain as part

[56:50] of the commission's governing documents.

[56:55] questions. Any clarifying questions?

[57:04] Yes. I think that when you say related to policing,

[57:12] public safety, advocacy or policy matters. Advocacy could be anything. I think you want

[57:20] I want to make sure that the somehow focused on matters related to what we do, so policing.

[57:29] I'm so sorry.

[57:30] Go ahead.

[57:31] Yeah.

[57:31] That sounds like sort of a substitute type of argument.

[57:34] We should get into action.

[57:35] Okay.

[57:37] Okay.

[57:39] I mean, clarifying questions on the list.

[57:43] I mean, I think clarifying questions from Commissioner Lawson sort of remains for me.

[57:48] the clarification I would see is there an emergency

[57:52] will benefit to this list of organizations,

[57:54] would this cover any organization you put in

[57:58] volunteers here was essentially,

[58:00] so they all sort of advocate something.

[58:02] Those are the latest policies,

[58:04] but would they mark the one on Justice Manage?

[58:07] Yeah, but the line that Commissioner Lawson was asking

[58:10] about is the last nine of the first paragraph that says

[58:14] affiliations with organizations related to

[58:16] for me, St. Romana,

[58:18] Publicity, please comment,

[58:21] advocacy for more policy matters

[58:24] and that we're being

[58:25] the extension of everything

[58:27] except for all of the people at parties.

[58:29] So that would mean that you're saying

[58:32] an organization related to advocacy.

[58:34] Yeah.

[58:35] Any type of that.

[58:36] He's not going to eat advocacy.

[58:38] So you're saying you're full of transparency.

[58:40] OK, so you're saying it wouldn't be

[58:41] just police matter,

[58:42] you're not going to be out of the city.

[58:44] So how do you eat that, for example?

[58:46] Yeah, almost this.

[58:47] A flower there.

[58:49] Yeah.

[58:50] That's a big clarifying question.

[58:52] Okay.

[58:53] And any other clarifying questions?

[58:55] Now that we understand.

[58:57] Is that it's any advocacy?

[58:59] Okay.

[59:00] Let's go ahead and have a comment.

[59:01] Okay.

[59:02] This time we're going to move into public comment.

[59:04] This is going to be for new business.

[59:06] I B.

[59:06] We have our first public comment here in person.

[59:09] Cordell.

[59:10] Henry Cordell.

[59:11] Do you have two minutes to speak?

[59:13] I think you made the game.

[59:16] Thank you Nicole, so getting here and getting care, and to a commissioner that worked

[59:20] at Cornell and remember the Richard Redness.

[59:23] So, thank you as commissioner of that view for this grand design and board.

[59:27] As everybody's meeting for a long time, I really know how outline, you know, like the

[59:33] being transparent because everything is like a kind of whole line, she pointed out.

[59:39] So I don't know if I can go到底.

[59:41] that I think it looks, how it is, is that it depends

[59:44] on what the outcome is, for the information.

[59:47] So, if whether you're not to vote on it or not,

[59:50] that's a key wall.

[59:51] So, with that, I will give my time to Lisa Thompson.

[59:55] Thank you for the animal.

[59:57] So, for who wants to come in on time.

[1:00:00] We have another hearing person, Oscar Garcia. You'll have two minutes to speak and you may begin. Thank you. Once again, I'll start our

[1:00:08] CF, which is like Long Richardson resident.

[1:00:11] I and others have stated in multiple CPRC meetings

[1:00:15] that Marisol can't do regarding Martinez.

[1:00:18] Made over $10,000 from reimagined Richmond

[1:00:21] for their most recent reforms, 700 forms.

[1:00:24] The CPRC ordinance clearly states that missions

[1:00:27] are not to be paid while serving on commission.

[1:00:30] I also find it troubling that in June of 2024,

[1:00:34] are the reimagined Richmond task force,

[1:00:36] Marisol Cantu did not disclose her income on reimagined Richmond.

[1:00:41] Yet a few months later she disclosed her reimagined Richmond income once she was part of the CPRC.

[1:00:49] This seems to indicate that Marisol was paid by reimagined Richmond to join the commission.

[1:00:54] I also recommend documenting that Floyd Andrews was part of the Richmond Progressive Alliance

[1:01:00] along with commissioners Carlin Martinez, Dan Lawson, and Marisol Cantu. Thank you.

[1:01:07] Thank you.

[1:01:10] We'll go ahead and move on to public comment that we have online or first speakers. Lisa, you'll have two minutes to speak and you may begin.

[1:01:20] Good evening commissioners. I want to thank Commissioner Menifee for bringing forward this item.

[1:01:26] The CPRC application clearly states that applicants are to disclose all fraternal and

[1:01:34] or civic organizations to which they belong.

[1:01:38] A failure to disclose this represents a failure on the applicants part, as well as the

[1:01:43] mayor's office in reviewing it when they interview the candidates.

[1:01:48] A fraternal organization is defined as a group that is formed based on a common bond as with

[1:01:54] social or academic interests. A civic organization is defined as a community-based group, club, committee,

[1:02:03] corporation, or any other group of people acting in concert, which is composed of people who are

[1:02:09] members thereof on a voluntary basis. What is lacking in this item and is much needed is that applicants

[1:02:18] and chosen commissioners should have to reveal who pays them.

[1:02:24] You are forbidden from taking money to serve on a commission or board in the city of Richmond.

[1:02:31] You cannot be paid to be on that board or commission.

[1:02:34] And there are clear examples of it being not transparent when members on this commission

[1:02:43] belong to reimagine Richmond and are paid and it's very difficult to say that you are

[1:02:50] not serving on that commission as part of that paid role.

[1:02:54] That's a violation of the ordinance and it's a violation of city policy.

[1:02:59] And until this commission actually addresses this, just saying that your member of a fraternal

[1:03:05] organization or civic organization does not go far enough and I sincerely hope that Commissioner

[1:03:10] or another commissioner will make an amendment

[1:03:12] to this item tonight or to bring forward a future item.

[1:03:16] That demands that commissioners reveal

[1:03:18] not just their organizations, but who pays them.

[1:03:21] Thank you.

[1:03:25] Lisa?

[1:03:29] Okay, our next speaker is seeing me for this item.

[1:03:32] It's going to be Benjamin.

[1:03:33] You'll have two minutes to see.

[1:03:35] Please, you may begin.

[1:03:40] Bentary of President of the Richmond Police Officers Association.

[1:03:45] Not very surprised at hearing some of these things.

[1:03:48] Unless it's nothing new to us and this is why the police officers don't consider the

[1:03:54] Commission a legitimate body or a legitimate part of the process and this is the issue

[1:04:00] that we have.

[1:04:03] It is, it's for me, concerning, that, and it's here's this kind of credibility and then

[1:04:10] the events of the CDRC that, you know, Commissioners applicants are those who are, you know,

[1:04:16] You know, in this body are being funded, supported, or politically backed by

[1:04:20] active organizations with the existing agenda, the police department, and the

[1:04:26] public has right to know that and how much they get paid and all that.

[1:04:29] People will risk when to serve transparency, real transparency, and they deserve to

[1:04:33] know when individuals serving on this commission are really independent decision

[1:04:36] makers or whether they're connected to organizations that are hard to

[1:04:39] make up their mind about police officers, the incidents they're involved in, and

[1:04:42] the outcomes before any evidence is actually reviewed.

[1:04:45] We have raised this concern at Nazim, and I don't expect people who are bought and paid

[1:04:52] forward to care about that, but it is an issue that is going to have to be raised into

[1:04:57] the public light, because oversight is supposed to be fair, it's not supposed to be an ideological

[1:05:02] project, it's not supposed to be a platform political activist, it's supposed to be a system

[1:05:11] where it is fair and speaks for the community so that's what we need to have the POA and

[1:05:20] officers and sergeants you know again we think the way we think because of the issues

[1:05:25] that continue to plague this commission thank you.

[1:05:36] If there are no other public comments at this time online this will conclude public comment

[1:05:42] for this item.

[1:05:43] Thank you very much.

[1:05:44] Okay, so now I'm moving into the discussion and both.

[1:05:49] Yes, Mr. Flores?

[1:05:51] So, first and foremost, I do support transparency and support and disclosure.

[1:05:59] No international conflicts of interest are there.

[1:06:03] I think that just a general report is based on treating the felonetional organization or immediately.

[1:06:09] I've been a meteorologist since 1999.

[1:06:14] and it doesn't mean that I can't not be biased.

[1:06:18] It doesn't mean that I don't know how to weigh facts fairly.

[1:06:20] I don't know how to follow the law.

[1:06:21] I know how to do all those.

[1:06:23] But this is making it seem like people

[1:06:25] that are advocates, committee organizers,

[1:06:28] or even organizations that may have issues

[1:06:30] or trying to hold police accountable

[1:06:32] that they cannot be fair.

[1:06:34] And I think that, at least since I've been here

[1:06:37] and I've made the two police investigations,

[1:06:40] I've been seeing that come up at any time.

[1:06:42] So yeah, so I think it's it's a problematic on the general board.

[1:06:51] On the second, on the last page.

[1:06:56] My name is Harold.

[1:06:58] So you're being one of the first paragraph I was confused about the part where it says advocacy or policy matters I know it's now here.

[1:07:09] It has a specific disclosure of requirements on the last page, and there it does say that

[1:07:17] each of this flows anything that relates to, you know, it has a more nuanced explanation.

[1:07:27] And so advocacy organizations relating to policing or justice reform, that's I've never been.

[1:07:38] So that's a separate attack, yes, so the two different lines, oh okay, so we can pick

[1:07:45] them.

[1:07:46] Yeah, is that how those, the idea is that the big one because I think this one's a little

[1:07:51] more clear about what specific things and I also want to say the commissioner for us that

[1:07:58] if you need to say these are in part of an organization, that to me does not necessarily

[1:08:03] we mean that I think that you are biased in hearing if you're part of an organization

[1:08:08] that is in favor of criminal justice reform.

[1:08:12] And so I don't think that there should be a problem of listening if you actually are

[1:08:17] a member of that organization of SensorLinks, which is my long-standing and then a question

[1:08:26] page.

[1:08:28] Yeah, it's one point out that what was brought up by, I think, every one of the public

[1:08:38] speakers was that there hadn't been already transparent dispositions of financial interests

[1:08:46] and organizational affiliations.

[1:08:50] And I understand that depending on your political viewpoint, you might not be happy that somebody

[1:08:56] else is a member of some people you don't agree with, but the fact is that you know

[1:09:01] that their members had room because of what it was. And so it sounds like this is an effort

[1:09:08] to sort of like sort of produce people for their affiliations with groups that they've already

[1:09:12] exposed, you know, to some allies, make them, you know, like continue to refurbishially repeat

[1:09:19] their affiliation with them as if they've done something wrong, but they've already spoken.

[1:09:26] Yeah, that was my question, if you just for understanding was, if there was already like

[1:09:31] the reforms of a conflict, and when you do reapply their application, if there are those

[1:09:38] two public records, this was like, I would say, I just wanted to ask if there was any difference.

[1:09:52] And so it would go further and then that commissioner Engel and sorry, okay, and yes, we

[1:10:05] was disclosed during the application process and that's posted on the City Council of

[1:10:10] Gen.

[1:10:10] Is that where it would have been disclosed?

[1:10:12] No.

[1:10:12] And that's 4-700, just a couple of minutes.

[1:10:15] I mean, maybe 2-5.

[1:10:19] And the commission action.

[1:10:21] So I'm a favor of transparency.

[1:10:24] And I don't see why it should be a problem

[1:10:26] to disclose that part of the organization,

[1:10:29] if we are part of the organization.

[1:10:33] So it's not okay.

[1:10:35] So someone can tell me why there is a reason to not disclose it,

[1:10:39] then I don't hear any arguments against it.

[1:10:46] I was going to find out, also, as was brought up by Commissioner Stextram and Engel,

[1:10:52] when we were going through my questions, is that this, what I think the proposed here

[1:10:59] actually is overly broad in terms of like any organization that's related to advocacy

[1:11:08] or policy matters is included in this.

[1:11:10] And so like, you know, like I think it's pretty much every organization we've done that exists, you know

[1:11:17] So like if you didn't disclose that you remember the path for the democratic party or that you signed a union card

[1:11:22] It worked or whatever you know like now like you've done something wrong. Like it doesn't it seems like

[1:11:29] Overleading pieces and especially since all the like the appropriate disclosure to sounds like I've already made and and discussed and known by the public

[1:11:41] I was building on what I think Commissioner Wilson is saying in response to the question

[1:11:46] I hear from Commissioner Hextramal, no correct to defend this interpreting that I think

[1:11:51] that we all agree transparency is an inherent good, but we also agree that confidentiality

[1:11:57] sometimes is very good as we've just passed amendments trying to protect important stakeholders

[1:12:03] confidentiality.

[1:12:04] So for me, yes, obviously, we want a lot of things to be transparent, and we also want

[1:12:11] some things to be called fashion.

[1:12:14] And a extra moment of anything.

[1:12:16] Okay, so if I have two things to say for some, Dan, there's a second.

[1:12:22] Well, we're not discussing that one.

[1:12:24] I thought we were discussing both of them to try to play the very best part of which.

[1:12:35] So I think this looks more clear, and it doesn't, it's not over yet, and as far as transparency, the reason we are not, we are confidentiality is because we are legally required to.

[1:12:49] I think we need absolutely as much transparency as we are legally allowed to do.

[1:12:55] And this year's link we allowed to do, so I think we should do it.

[1:13:02] I'll show you how many say I was going to say it.

[1:13:05] Okay. Is there no?

[1:13:07] There's no implication also that this disclosure would be any kind of like

[1:13:12] grounds are pushed to get someone off.

[1:13:14] Either it's just transparency for like an extra push for transparency.

[1:13:19] Beyond what's already available to the public.

[1:13:24] Just a response to the question.

[1:13:26] Like to me, it does seem like there's things like what I don't see in a list of disclosure

[1:13:31] requirements on e-needed replacements, which is something that has come up for commissioners

[1:13:38] who have been out of the commission before, is people who have received political donations

[1:13:43] from the police unit.

[1:13:45] We help people in the group who have received a check from our POA president of Ontario,

[1:13:52] was signing back in $2,500, here you go.

[1:13:55] And that was not as close to any.

[1:13:57] I mean, to say that was disclosed in terms of, like,

[1:13:59] political data and donations are all disclosed

[1:14:01] in public documents, but it wasn't disclosed

[1:14:03] as any part of our commission disclosed.

[1:14:06] And I don't see that listed here.

[1:14:07] And I see that, like, all of the things

[1:14:10] that we are discussing are things that actually have been

[1:14:12] disclosed.

[1:14:13] People do disclose that.

[1:14:14] And I think that it's much more problematic for someone

[1:14:17] to be receiving the check for themselves,

[1:14:20] ourselves, you know, for the political, you know, ambitions, and never disclosed with

[1:14:27] that big consideration to have to list something like that.

[1:14:30] We can immediately see if you have any money to any of our checks from organizations,

[1:14:37] you can add that in a minute.

[1:14:38] I think that would be a good idea to make or educate that in a minute.

[1:14:42] Add that to the thing as well.

[1:14:44] And I also have a question because it seems to me when we're filling out the

[1:14:48] on occasion to join. People think that we're listing every single one of the organizations.

[1:14:55] We're going to. I don't think we're required to list everything. I think the

[1:15:00] You know, you list some, I never thought I was required to list everything, you know, part of my neighborhood council, do I need to put that down on the, on the farm unit, when I small of life of the, to be a commissioner? I mean, I didn't know we were required. So, so I'm not certain if, and I think that those are not, you have to look at the agenda report in order to find somebody's application. Yes, you can do that.

[1:15:29] but it's a little bit bothersome so I mean I just don't see how this hurts anybody to mean

[1:15:37] transmission. That's a really good question so like if somebody is an officer of their local

[1:15:44] neighborhood council or a member of them that mean to my reading of this that would be a non-profit

[1:15:56] other community organizations engaged in public safety issues.

[1:15:59] Yes.

[1:16:00] So their worship is going to be?

[1:16:01] Yes.

[1:16:03] And so if you didn't disclose it, then being violation of commissioner policies.

[1:16:09] Yes.

[1:16:12] Any more discussion?

[1:16:14] Or is there a motion on the table?

[1:16:16] I have a question.

[1:16:17] Is this on par with other police commissions or is this the one voted beyond?

[1:16:25] I think the one is one of the San Diego has not in similar, I see in the paper, can you look it up?

[1:16:32] I believe that was going to function.

[1:16:34] It's going to be a kind of bio-aubing event.

[1:16:40] But we can add our data bio-aub,

[1:16:44] so the capital is there in that information that has this type of bio-aub.

[1:16:51] You know, I love the notion of the top of that. Yeah, I'm not moving.

[1:16:56] But I'm pretty sure that they're out there.

[1:16:58] If you want to do a good Google search.

[1:17:00] And I would like to move the tables as they should.

[1:17:03] I'm going further on the search or style in the pond.

[1:17:07] Do I understand this policy exists?

[1:17:10] Or is there a representative agency?

[1:17:12] I'm going to say the top of that.

[1:17:13] Is there a second for that notion?

[1:17:17] If there's not a second, it's going to die.

[1:17:20] No, no. I was.

[1:17:23] You had a different one condition or Martinez. And then Jackson and Sarah's actually remarkable.

[1:17:31] So.

[1:17:33] I was just interested and I remember when, when,

[1:17:43] the condition began to transform and change,

[1:17:48] You know, we had like 10, 15, 20 people here, you know, with signs and, you know, just

[1:17:58] saying that is the police for whatever, and I would want to, and I always thought, what

[1:18:02] partners they, you know, because they seem like they were all binds together, they came

[1:18:07] from the same resource, and I was wondering if there's, you know, there's anybody in here

[1:18:13] affiliated with the people that all the people that were scared of me, you know, the first, you know, things we get to change in the board.

[1:18:25] You went over the business thing in Milo?

[1:18:28] Yeah, yeah, that was never disclosed.

[1:18:30] Excuse me for a question, meaning right now, there's no problem.

[1:18:34] If there's any affiliation with those groups that came here for maybe even one or so,

[1:18:47] there's any affiliation.

[1:18:49] Because it seemed like they were all together.

[1:18:51] about the therapy?

[1:18:53] Sure. Mattiness.

[1:18:54] I'm getting tired from the motion too, I'll take a bow.

[1:18:57] Oh, I've done that.

[1:18:58] What is the motion?

[1:18:59] Does somebody make the motion? It's your...

[1:19:01] Again, I don't know if you like to make the motion...

[1:19:03] I don't think...

[1:19:06] What if I can't make the motion?

[1:19:10] Yes. Because it seems like there's two different things here.

[1:19:13] There's the first one and the second one.

[1:19:15] I love the list board.

[1:19:17] You're narrow, yeah.

[1:19:18] that clearer and on their own or focus.

[1:19:22] So I think maybe I would like to request

[1:19:26] that you can pick one or the other at least vote to approve.

[1:19:38] Do you want to table it and come back?

[1:19:40] Yes, I'm going to be more.

[1:19:43] Does my motion, I would like to restate my motion

[1:19:46] and be able to sit here because I was more involved.

[1:19:49] Is there a second?

[1:19:50] If there was a signing, we could vote on it.

[1:19:53] Yes.

[1:19:55] I mean, if they also were signing the motion and just needed to choose one.

[1:19:59] Yes.

[1:20:00] So, I mean, if you need to choose one that you want to have a question from home.

[1:20:05] You know, you don't think that we should be as transparent as can be, you know?

[1:20:11] I understand.

[1:20:16] We should be as honest and as transparent as we can be.

[1:20:21] You know, if we, if we, good organization, I mean, we all know, you know,

[1:20:29] especially if it pertains to, you know, maybe discriminating against the police

[1:20:36] department or being biased in this police department.

[1:20:41] So I think that's how we make our decisions.

[1:20:45] I'm going to do a quite good order.

[1:20:46] There's a motion on floor.

[1:20:47] Do you have a motion?

[1:20:48] Yeah, I like it.

[1:20:49] I do want to allow you to mention about receiving payments from other organizations to the state promotion clearly for the council.

[1:21:01] What is your wish? I would like to motion to approve the attack at number two.

[1:21:07] And I'm going to add the decision.

[1:21:10] I did mention a lot of things and it's just called

[1:21:16] to a famous one, organizations listed.

[1:21:20] That wasn't what I said.

[1:21:21] Okay, that's your notion, is there a second?

[1:21:24] I'll say it.

[1:21:25] Okay, problem, conflict.

[1:21:27] Oh, yeah.

[1:21:28] Sorry.

[1:21:28] Could I need to put a statement on that motion tonight?

[1:21:31] Just to direct the commission's attorney

[1:21:35] to incorporate attachment to into the commission's

[1:21:39] Because I think where it goes could be material, I think we should be done by.

[1:21:47] So the motion is to grant the council.

[1:21:49] Yes.

[1:21:51] Which one?

[1:21:52] Yeah.

[1:21:52] We'll be standing up side.

[1:21:53] Okay.

[1:21:54] So we want to commission to a full attention number two.

[1:21:59] And by law of the schools are payment received from any organization or board or on our family.

[1:22:07] I can keep on saying that you're directing the city attorney all the way to Black City.

[1:22:14] Yeah.

[1:22:15] Drinking the city attorney to incorporate attachment to into the violence.

[1:22:19] Oh, I agree.

[1:22:20] The city attorney to attach it.

[1:22:22] If I want to attach it, I'm going to give it a volume on.

[1:22:24] I mean, but then the additional minutes.

[1:22:26] We're going to do it.

[1:22:27] I mean, we're going to solve the payments.

[1:22:29] But we know that they shouldn't do it all differently anyway.

[1:22:34] Do you agree with that?

[1:22:36] Okay.

[1:22:36] No, sure.

[1:22:37] Okay.

[1:22:38] Yes, so we'll take a roll call up. I'm right. We have chair can too. No

[1:22:44] By share for us. No

[1:22:48] Commissioner Dingo no commissioner headstrong. Yes commissioner Jackson. Yes

[1:22:54] Commissioner Lawson. No

[1:22:57] Commissioner Martinez

[1:22:58] Commissioner Mnipi. Yes, and commissioner tell us

[1:23:04] Okay, so this

[1:23:08] This was voting on the chief care seat by the House and then adding an organizational

[1:23:15] affiliation from San Diego party for commissions did not pass the vote was 6 to 3.

[1:23:23] Yes, 6 to 3, 6 to 3, yes, thank you.

[1:23:27] And now we're going to go into discussion and vote of the secrecy meeting time and location.

[1:23:35] So, if this is an agenda item, we've talked about this before, it is to move into City Council

[1:23:42] chin berms, to have a bigger space, to be more inviting, to be a vice officer, to invite

[1:23:47] other subject matter experts, more community members, residents, and plaintants, etc.

[1:23:54] And as we continue to grow our staff, the department, we have aligned already with the City

[1:24:03] clerk panel of Christian gave the options, did a thorough review of all of the possible

[1:24:10] times that could be available for the city, process reference that with city council meetings,

[1:24:17] etc. And the second one saying is the date that is available and since many people on this

[1:24:26] commission are available at the time it will be 7 o'clock. The location will be city council

[1:24:31] changes to the other thing here. Any clarifying questions on this agenda?

[1:24:42] After clarifying questions, we're going to put it down.

[1:24:45] And one of the next questions.

[1:24:47] Sure. Okay. So on this item, I just did my review and realized that over the next

[1:24:53] upcoming year, we do have dates that are second Wednesdays that will not be

[1:24:57] available in the council, which is starting with July 8th. November 11th, which is a holiday,

[1:25:03] and January 13th of 2027, just to put that on record that those dates are unavailable,

[1:25:09] and just whatever you guys will, of course, can't do anything about the holiday,

[1:25:13] but with the plan that's for the other two. Another two, July and July 8th of 2026,

[1:25:18] and then January 13th, 2020 said, okay, different helpful. Okay, that is so

[1:25:28] thoughtful. Thank you so much.

[1:25:32] Any other questions?

[1:25:37] All right, so a couple of comments on this item. This is going to be for a new

[1:25:41] business. I can see our first speaker is going to be for Dale. If there's anyone

[1:25:45] online that would like to make a comment on this item to be

[1:25:48] praised your hand at this time. The quarterly you'll have two minutes to speak.

[1:25:52] You may begin. Thank you, folks. So feeling again, Chair,

[1:25:55] I'm through a commission for the rectified and plural in the line.

[1:26:00] Now, when I was looking at this, I have, I said,

[1:26:04] it's hot because I've enjoyed being in this line.

[1:26:07] I've enjoyed it. But as Chair, I'm too

[1:26:10] agindicated to give you a bigger space because

[1:26:13] because the chambers is more common because there will be a guard there and all things like the chambers, that's one option, but the other choice that I had was the shimaru, because other commissions of at use that one for every is something like that beautiful, that's another choice, you know, the shimaru and it will have the owl capability, so I think like, yes, we can have it in the chamber because it's more spacious and

[1:26:42] What is your own room which is even better so why don't you talk about this and I'll say this.

[1:26:48] This room it is nice though but because of the information that I've used this room so

[1:26:52] but you need a bigger space that way it's more convenient so that way moving forward

[1:26:58] to say the chambers is more of a progress goal.

[1:27:01] With that I'll give my condimentary.

[1:27:05] Thank you Cordia.

[1:27:06] Okay.

[1:27:09] If you're time to speak, you have two minutes and you may begin.

[1:27:13] Thank you.

[1:27:14] You've been to your President of Richmond Police Officers Association.

[1:27:17] I think that's great.

[1:27:19] Moving into the city council.

[1:27:21] Just make sure you guys up your budgets when you're doing your re-imagined

[1:27:24] Richmond and paying activists to come in here so that you can get enough people to fill the chamber.

[1:27:29] Thank you.

[1:27:29] I'm

[1:27:35] going to put some in there so that the seats to say explicit to the agenda item and respectful.

[1:27:41] We're going to move on into the session and vote. Yes.

[1:27:45] I really want to appreciate fine-strung bodies for bringing us up. I think for the long time,

[1:27:52] we have been waiting to become more formal and we've currently already been moving into the city

[1:27:58] Constantine Firstborn provided that for my lady. Oh my God, I'm sorry. That's how it's

[1:28:04] kept worse. Yeah, she said too much there. Oh, sorry. I'm in a row. I think it's also

[1:28:20] one. I think when we have had these meetings currently in the past, as well, we have been

[1:28:26] to be able to have a book just kind of even serve up a table, which I think that's very

[1:28:30] formal for us.

[1:28:32] So we'll get a few people to write it down, back in the day that we need people to come

[1:28:35] up to the dice, and then they might say, I don't know what that is.

[1:28:40] That's right.

[1:28:41] I just have one question because one of the nice things about the chambers is that there is

[1:28:50] a shaman in the back where we can go for flow sessions, which like the city council does

[1:28:55] for the info sessions and so people don't have to leave the room while we're in closed session

[1:29:02] but I just I do know that if some one commission that meets in there but from

[1:29:07] that I've checked on their it's the Shimada commission but they're on first Wednesdays and says so

[1:29:15] I think it's probably available but I wouldn't maybe to just don't like that I think it has a

[1:29:23] and that we can check with the city of Berk to see if it's available.

[1:29:29] Yeah, and then we'll reserve.

[1:29:30] Yeah, we'll reserve both.

[1:29:33] That's how we can do it.

[1:29:35] Yeah.

[1:29:35] Okay.

[1:29:38] Kushner, Martinez, and Larson.

[1:29:40] Oh, sorry.

[1:29:41] Larson.

[1:29:42] I just want to know that you should make a motion.

[1:29:46] Yeah.

[1:29:47] Can you improve that you know that?

[1:29:48] Yes.

[1:29:49] I would like to make a motion.

[1:29:51] and this is off the changing day right here in the tank.

[1:29:54] I would like to make a motion that we adjust our dates for

[1:30:00] So you'd be artists to meet the second, boom, say it once, still 7, p.m., and the neighborhood,

[1:30:08] I don't know if you mean the city council chambers as well as in the Shimbland or room.

[1:30:14] Second.

[1:30:16] Lowell, we are Chair Canton, Vice-Ferrett-B reduced Board, Commissioner Engel,

[1:30:29] Commissioner

[1:30:29] Martinez. I'm sorry. Yeah. Oh, Commissioner Minimity. Yeah. And Commissioner Talvez. Yes.

[1:30:37] All right. So this is voting to move the CPR. So the same Wednesday of every month at 7 p.m.

[1:30:43] in the city council chambers. This has the motion has passed. And we'll review the extra bottle

[1:30:54] So what we'll do is we'll work with the city attorney to see when the soonest song that is.

[1:31:00] There's always a little bit of time paperwork announcements that have to go on to the websites on our gender reports.

[1:31:09] I mean to be updated all of that and also translation services that will need to be included in a budget item.

[1:31:16] If we want to use the translation services out there.

[1:31:19] So there's some of the physical pieces that will be moved on the back end and if they

[1:31:24] move into county into like a budget, I never mean what kind of to the machine to

[1:31:30] vote.

[1:31:32] Great.

[1:31:33] So we will let you know if it's going to be an A or if it's going to be an A, we'll have

[1:31:37] to check the city work.

[1:31:40] Perfect.

[1:31:41] Commissioner Martinez will say that's not it, but that was the title of the machine.

[1:31:44] Yeah, thank you.

[1:31:45] Perfect.

[1:31:46] Okay, so we're going to do reports from the missionaries and staffs as we already did

[1:31:51] right away.

[1:31:52] So we're going to do the missionaries.

[1:31:54] Sisters in solidarity do have a quick work for us.

[1:31:57] Yes.

[1:31:59] Maybe unless we're at the Sisters in Solidarity that was by itself and Commissioner Engle and

[1:32:08] Commissioner Jensen.

[1:32:09] and it's great when I'm asking us for a part,

[1:32:14] and thank you so much for showing it to me.

[1:32:18] Okay, so do you have an essay about how these boys

[1:32:21] are going around the world?

[1:32:24] Oh, probably, I probably don't have these things,

[1:32:27] but you can even change one of these.

[1:32:30] They're going to be one of them.

[1:32:33] They encourage a lot of interaction with people, so.

[1:32:39] But there aren't a lot of people,

[1:32:40] I think it's a lot of different organizations

[1:32:42] that only happen to happen to us.

[1:32:45] I don't know, what do you guys think?

[1:32:47] I don't think it's an engineering method.

[1:32:52] I would say a ten feels like a good estimate.

[1:32:58] It gets well.

[1:33:01] It doesn't require good people to do it.

[1:33:04] And there's not a classroom or English in fact.

[1:33:07] How do they even ask the winners to do a good part of it?

[1:33:10] So they gave two months of the language they came in

[1:33:15] with the, you know, tickets, with the number, and then they just do the number size.

[1:33:20] Okay.

[1:33:22] Great.

[1:33:23] Are there other workforce around the...

[1:33:27] I'm not sure it's going to end up with ours.

[1:33:29] So, just for folks to know, we have a seat with a mile.

[1:33:33] That's coming up.

[1:33:34] And it's going to be in four.

[1:33:36] It's May 3rd.

[1:33:37] It's a Sunday.

[1:33:38] It is before our next commission meeting, which may be moved to the second Wednesday of the month.

[1:33:44] So, I'm interested to see if there's any volunteers for that so that we can be ready with

[1:33:51] five.

[1:33:54] Okay.

[1:33:54] I will also go.

[1:33:56] I need a double tennis medal, because I am scheduled to do so, see, I will go to the

[1:33:59] Is this on the agenda?

[1:34:01] This is a report.

[1:34:02] We don't need to go on this.

[1:34:03] This is a report for it back.

[1:34:04] Okay.

[1:34:06] I'm sorry.

[1:34:06] Do we need to do that?

[1:34:07] It's not an action.

[1:34:08] Yeah.

[1:34:09] It's not an action.

[1:34:09] I don't know.

[1:34:11] We're not voting anything.

[1:34:13] Okay.

[1:34:13] and now. Thank you. I'm getting volunteers. I could volunteer in the afternoon. Okay,

[1:34:19] perfect. So we will coordinate schedules and our team as well. It is Sunday, May 3rd. We will also

[1:34:29] have June 10th in June as our 3rd outreach event that we've approved. So it's hard to even

[1:34:37] We will be voting on the product record that we will be going to these.

[1:34:41] Any other volunteers?

[1:34:42] Thank you.

[1:34:43] I'm going to chill out one of the ones specifically going to.

[1:34:47] Let's hadn't come, you know, with people, you know,

[1:34:50] wanting to decide by time.

[1:34:52] Perfect.

[1:34:53] I thought that she would move also that.

[1:34:54] Okay.

[1:34:55] And I will be working with the chief so that we are close to our

[1:35:00] if you're stable and hopefully utilizing the water and samples to think of that.

[1:35:08] And I'll work with you on any of the materials, correct.

[1:35:14] Any other reports?

[1:35:16] I have a question question now.

[1:35:18] I'm wondering if I would have counted on how many complaints are remaining,

[1:35:24] like sort of in the queue or whatever,

[1:35:27] I mean, that would mean to be investigated.

[1:35:29] It will be here in the future.

[1:35:31] Sure.

[1:35:32] I don't have an exact number.

[1:35:33] I can give you a rough number right now.

[1:35:35] Okay.

[1:35:36] I think it's something about 29.

[1:35:39] Now you've had 10 complaints of our for 2026.

[1:35:42] And they're based on six different incidents.

[1:35:45] It's not actually like 10 different complaints.

[1:35:47] So there's six last year, there's 22.

[1:35:50] We've heard a few of the ones from 2025.

[1:35:53] And from 2024, there's 11, and we've heard several of those

[1:35:56] to. So, just a bit probably. Thank you. Any other staff or agenda items? Okay. Great.

[1:36:10] We are going to now... Anything from staff? I'm sorry. Any reports? Alex, anything?

[1:36:17] Great.

[1:36:20] We're going to move into closed session, but we need to do public comment prior to closed

[1:36:24] session.

[1:36:27] Right? So we're going to go ahead move into post. Comment we have

[1:36:32] Cordell Hinder here in person if you have to comment online please raise your hand

[1:36:36] at this time. Cordell if you'll have two minutes to speak, you may begin.

[1:36:40] Thank you. That's a good thing again, Chair. Now two visitors. I was a former

[1:36:45] vet, that group of units would be here on time. But I wanted to hear what

[1:36:51] great he has to say so for that we have come on here to reach one of them. Thank you

[1:36:58] Cordero.

[1:37:02] All right. We said your updates. You'll have two minutes to speak. You may begin.

[1:37:08] Good evening again commissioners and investigators, Sarah Finn. You know, I just want to reiterate what I

[1:37:13] said in open forum that it's very concerning that the public case summaries on items that have

[1:37:21] have already been reviewed, voted on, and read out on the public record, are being discussed

[1:37:27] in closed session when this is historically always happened in public, and the reason

[1:37:32] why this is so troubling is because what happened with the Kevin Macdonald case, and that was

[1:37:37] the first time when that was done, and it was done when there was no investigator present.

[1:37:45] There should not be any changes to a document that was drafted by an investigator without

[1:37:54] another independent investigator present in the room.

[1:37:58] Ever, that should never happen.

[1:38:01] There was accusations of bias and ethical misconduct, and he resigned.

[1:38:07] He provided that draft summary before he left.

[1:38:10] He was discussed in closed session and it was changed based on what City Attorney

[1:38:17] Floyd Andrews said when she came out in public. And when you read that

[1:38:22] document there is bias in it. So who made the changes? What changes were made?

[1:38:31] And if we don't have that type of transparency, everything the community is

[1:38:35] advocating for is thrown out the window. So when you've already voted on

[1:38:40] something and reviewed it in closed session. And now you're merely reviewing a public document

[1:38:48] that's already been discussed. It should happen in public, not in closed session.

[1:38:53] And I'm going to reiterate why another point. Y'all just voted six to three against transparency.

[1:39:00] And you're mirroring what this RPA for City Council members did when they voted against an

[1:39:05] That's an effective investigation.

[1:39:06] Do you want to order?

[1:39:08] I don't know.

[1:39:08] Is this the old closed session?

[1:39:10] Yeah, it is.

[1:39:10] It's been off the topic.

[1:39:12] Okay.

[1:39:13] We're at time.

[1:39:16] I already said this time you, um,

[1:39:18] the two minutes is up.

[1:39:19] We'll go ahead and move on to the next talk with speaker.

[1:39:22] Then you will ask two minutes to speak and you may begin.

[1:39:28] Thank you, minister.

[1:39:29] President of the Richmond Police Officers Association.

[1:39:31] I want to address the, uh,

[1:39:33] closed session and the Brown Act.

[1:39:35] The government code.

[1:39:36] or the 495, 4.3 is unambiguous.

[1:39:40] The public has a fundamental right to address

[1:39:42] the legislative body.

[1:39:43] On any item within that body's jurisdiction

[1:39:46] when that's being discussed,

[1:39:47] it's not a courtesy extended by the chair.

[1:39:50] That's a statutory right guaranteed by California law.

[1:39:53] Chair can manage time, can maintain decorum.

[1:39:56] You cannot silence lawful public comment,

[1:39:59] because the content is uncomfortable and convenient,

[1:40:02] or critical of this commission.

[1:40:04] I'm talking about close-session. This is your process problem. You guys can't even let people speak.

[1:40:11] I don't understand how. In the city attorney, could you chip in please?

[1:40:16] Could you finish your point, Mr. Jerry? Thank you.

[1:40:22] I continue to remind people we're not in Russia.

[1:40:30] Again, just because something is not convenient or

[1:40:34] don't want it to be discussed by the chair or members of the commission. If it is in

[1:40:41] the scope, it is fine. For some reason, that seems to be a problem with the state order.

[1:40:48] And so it's a proper plan is not needed to do with this one in the post session.

[1:40:52] It's got one public summary in the post session.

[1:40:55] I have a question. I have a question.

[1:40:58] I forgot about the grant. I have a question.

[1:41:00] Well, it was these session closed session, the deteriorate of your information.

[1:41:05] If you're not the chair, attorney, can I get my time back?

[1:41:09] We have a point of order.

[1:41:11] If there's any specific public comment about the closed session items,

[1:41:15] or any concern with the closed session items,

[1:41:18] I think that's related to closed session items,

[1:41:21] but if we're going to be going out on tangents,

[1:41:24] there's no tangent about the Brown Act.

[1:41:27] Okay, again, I'm trying to talk about the legitimacy of closed session public comment.

[1:41:33] Okay. Okay, the attorney, do you have California drink?

[1:41:38] Okay, could you go ahead and put 30 seconds up to 30 seconds and Mr. Chair, if you could please

[1:41:43] keep your comments related to the specific closed session items or closed session items

[1:41:49] is generally even that being referred, thank you, and required.

[1:41:56] Okay.

[1:41:57] And then, sir.

[1:41:57] Okay.

[1:41:58] Thank you.

[1:41:59] Again, close session comments on things that are going to be discussed, where, regards

[1:42:05] to meeting confer, regards to how people conduct themselves in close session, that matters.

[1:42:13] That is not something that can be just trampled on, you know, a nauseam.

[1:42:18] The commission exists to serve the public, so I hope you do that in closed session.

[1:42:24] In the moment when it begins to control what is public and what is allowed to say, it is

[1:42:28] in verb, its own purpose, whether it's in closed session or not.

[1:42:32] So, again, before you go into closed session, I'm formally calling on this body to reaffirm its

[1:42:38] commitment to lawful, open public comment and to ensure that everyone on this commission

[1:42:44] operates in the boundary of the law.

[1:42:46] thank you. I do apologize mentioning your time is up at this moment for public comment

[1:42:54] that we can put the comment on this side. Thank you. And so we'll be moving into public comments,

[1:43:02] and I'm just going to public and move them so we can close the session.

[1:43:15] We'll close the session

[1:43:16] and all that you need to spot.

[1:44:00] Thank you.

[1:44:01] We are back from our closed session.

[1:44:03] We've been here a part out from our commission attorney.

[1:44:08] From closed session regards to CPRC case number 2025-11,

[1:44:16] commissioners voted unanimously to accept the report

[1:44:20] as presented from the investigator.

[1:44:24] With regards to the same case number 2025-11,

[1:44:27] then, mission is voted unanimously to accept the investigators' findings, exonerated

[1:44:39] unnecessary force, and exoneration of excessive force, with regards to CPRC in case number

[1:44:50] in 2025-15 commissioners voted unanimously to accept.

[1:45:00] The report as presented with regards to the same CBRC case number 2025-15 commissioners voted unanimously to accept the investigators' findings of exoneration for unnecessary force and unfounded funding of discrimination as for the case summaries.

[1:45:26] I'm sorry, didn't we vote to amend the report?

[1:45:34] Let me go ahead and restate that.

[1:45:36] Thank you, Mr. Lawson.

[1:45:38] With regards to CPRC 2025-15, with regards to accepting the report as presented,

[1:45:48] commissioners voting unanimously to accept a report within an amendment to page 6 of the report to remove some template language that was added, erroneously.

[1:46:01] and the findings are unanimously held for the same case.

[1:46:08] I'm going to thank you, Commissioner Lawson.

[1:46:11] For case summaries, CBRC case, case of 2024-11,

[1:46:18] the commissioner is voting unanimously with the exception of Mr. Jackson,

[1:46:22] Lawson, and Martinez, who have stained to accept the case summary as presented

[1:46:28] with regards to gay summary related to CBRC 2024-8 commissioners voting namously with the exception of

[1:46:38] Commissioner Jackson, Lawson, and Martinez, each of whom is abstained to accept the case summary as presented.

[1:46:47] And with that, that is the summary of our full session.

[1:46:51] Thank you.

Community Police Review Commission 4-1-2026

Agenda

Transcript