Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-2021 MINUTES SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ON EQUITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSION REGULAR MEETING – June 10, 2021 A regular meeting of the Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity & Inclusion was held on June 10th, 2021, via Zoom telecommunications. The meeting commenced at 5:34 PM. Roll Call PRESENT: Natasha Tripplett, Rameet Kohli, Isabella Helene David, Kathy Avanzino, Eman Tai, Clifford Brown Jr., Matthew Aini, Beatriz Ballesteros-Kogan, Martha Orozco, Brittany Jacobs (alt.), John Stefanski, Paul Hudson, Rodas Hailu. ABSENT: 1. Call to Order Assistant to the City Manager, John Stefanski called the meeting to order at 5:34 PM. 2. Public Comment Mr. Stefanski called for Public Comments. There were no public comments made. 3. Action Items 3.1 Approval of Minutes from May 27, 2021 Community Task Force Meeting Motioned by Member Aini to approve the minutes with an amendment to remove “Dyrell Foster” from the Roll Call section. Seconded by Member Tripplett. Minutes approved as amended. Member David joined the meeting at 5:36 PM. 4. Reports 4.1 Review Draft Final Report of Policing Recommendations Mr. Hudson reviewed draft Final Report of Policing Recommendations with the Task Force. Mr. Hudson asked for questions and edits. Member Tripplett commented on TC-1, reiterating that her ad-hoc group expected these trainings would be mandatory and asked that clarifying language be added. Member Kohli commented on P-1, asking that the word recurring be added to the community educational workshops. Member David asked if there were any other recommendations on training. Mr. Hudson mentioned there were recommendations that the City Attorney did not provide alternate language for, and the ad-hoc committees also did not provide alternate language. Members David and Tripplett discussed adding the recommendation on asking DPS to be trained in the critical decision-making model. Mr. Hudson clarified that this would not be considered training, but rather a standard of performance for policing. Member Jacobs asked if the recommendation could fall under P-2 Member David commented on the critical decision-making model to add more training. Mr. Hudson clarified who the Task Force wants to advocate to in making this change in the critical decision-making model. Member Brown confirmed agreement to make the recommendation to the Sherriff’s oversight board and inspector general. Member Jacobs commented on the name of the commission in P-1, the Police Reform Advisory Commission. It was determined that the name of this commission came from Member Aini. Member Jacobs asked the committee if they had any discussion around this. Member Tripplett recommended removing the word “reform.” Member Jacobs also commented on the Sheriff Oversight Board and Inspector General under accountability and asked if the original recommendations to DPS and ACSO should remain in the event that the Sheriff’s Oversight Board doesn’t happen quickly. She asked if a recommendation should be added in the meantime to have this conversation with DPS. Member Kohli commented in agreement with Member Jacobs. Mr. Hudson commented on this and asked the Task Force members about the changes they made based on the City Attorneys comments. Member Tripplett commented on the recommendation in P-2 to add DPS, Sherriff’s office, Sherriff’s Oversight Board and Inspector General. Mr. Hudson reiterated the comments of Members Jacobs, Kohli, and Tripplett. Members Jacob and Kohli recommended adding language that says “in the time leading up to the creation of the Sheriff Oversight Board and Inspector General Position, the City recommend ACSO and DPS to study the items included in this recommendation for P- 2.” Mr. Hudson called for any additional changes. Member Kohli mentioned that recommendations C-1 and C-2 were from another ad-hoc group. Member Orozco asked about the specificity of recommendation C-2. Mr. Hudson clarified the detail on this recommendation. Task Force members commented on C-2, providing “guidance on when the cards should be issued. Traffic Stops and other similar interactions with members of the public.” 4.2 Review of Draft Other Recommendations Mr. Hudson reviewed recommendations from the Task Force on the Dublin Inclusion Project recommendations. Member Tai discussed the DIP recommendation on Sanctuary City. Member Tai recommended adding a recommendation around requesting data on compliance with ACSO General Order 1.24. Member Jacobs asked about the collection of data for the recommendation on Sanctuary City. Mr. Hudson clarified if the City Council creates the commission, they should be able to direct the data collection. Member Jacobs asked how the commission is able to collect data on ACSO. Mr. Stefanski reported that staff would work with the Sherriff’s office to collect this data and publish on a public facing platform. Member Jacobs asked if the City would have to request that this information be shared with the commission. Mr. Stefanski reported that this should be structured similarly to the data transparency recommendations. Member Tai asked about defining advocacy in ancillary documents. Mr. Hudson clarified that if this is not already included in the documents, the ad-hoc groups would need to provide this language. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Stefanski discussed adding language to the recommendations that were not as clear. Mr. Hudson reviewed the DIP Recommendations. Task Force members asked to remove the word Reform from Recommendation 1. Member Tripplett commented on Recommendation 2 clarifying about the non-police affiliated community-based organizations. Member Jacobs commented on the Independent Police Department wording and approach to public safety for the outcomes of Recommendation 3. Member Brown asked Member Jacobs for clarification on the assumption of creating an Independent Dublin Police Department. Member Jacobs clarified that there are more than two options and wanting to study the recommendation around the future of policing in Dublin. Member Kohli suggested language around allowing for additional options to study. Member Tai suggested adding the advantages and disadvantages of ceasing the contract, by providing police services, either establishing an independent police department or exploring other public safety options. Mr. Hudson discussed DIP Recommendation 5 and asked the Task Force to provide clarity on what they would like the recommendation to be. Member Brown commented on no decision being made around the hiring freeze. Member Orozco suggested adding more licensed clinical social workers who can handle trauma. Member Ballesteros- Kogan commented on recommendation 5 asking if there was a way to communicate using available funding for hiring public safety personnel that are unarmed, trauma workers. Member Tripplett commented on this recommendation being supported in the Task Force Recommendations and suggested not recommending a hiring freeze, but if there is a hiring freeze, this should be included in the advisory commission’s purview. Member Kohli commented in agreement with Member Tripplett and suggested wording asking the advisory commission to conduct a study to evaluate if additional police is needed. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Stefanski about the ACSO contracted number of Police. Mr. Stefanski reported that the number of police officers is based on the level of service determined by the City Manager and Chief of Police. Member Tai commented not feeling confident moving forward with this recommendation. Mr. Hudson asked if the Task Force feels strongly about not addressing this recommendation. Member Jacobs mentioned the discussion around sending tickets in the mail for minor traffic violations. Mr. Hudson discussed the recommendation from Member Jacobs and discussed drafting a recommendation on the language she sent if the Task Force was in agreement with the recommendation. Mr. Hudson suggested reducing the number of interactions. Member Tripplett asked who would be using the technology and if citizens privacy would be violated. Member Tai commented on avoiding too much Closed Circuit Television monitoring around the city and suggested setting a goal and not explicitly saying how we get to the goal. Member Avanzino commented on the cost of creating cameras or having non-police personnel to issue these tickets. Mr. Hudson asked if Member Avanzino agreed with Member Tai’s recommendation to set a goal and allow the commission to identify ways to reduce the number of interactions between the police and community. Member Orozco suggested minimizing the number of staff interaction. Mr. Hudson clarified that this recommendation suggests that the goal is to minimize the interaction with any police. Mr. Hudson called for consensus around Member Tai’s recommendation. 4.3 Review of Draft Introductory Language for the Final Report Mr. Hudson reviewed the draft introductory language for the Final Report and asked the Task Force Members to review the language. Member Jacobs discussed the pre-amble and the goals, values, and key points the Task Force would like to communicate. Member Jacobs asked for agreement and discussion around the goals of the preamble. Mr. Hudson discussed adding city staff and everybody to the values and priorities of the Task Force. Member Ballesteros-Kogan suggested changing wording from reducing police to reducing police interactions. Member David suggested changing the language to redistributing instead of reducing. Member Brown commented on supporting increasing supports and services, but not in support of reducing police. Member Aini suggested changing the wording to reevaluating and rethinking policing. Member Jacobs suggested an option of taking out reducing police wording. Member Tripplett commented on finding ways to celebrate the community's diversity. Mr. Hudson commented that it sounds like the Task Force values diversity and suggested adding language to say finding ways to celebrate the City’s diversity, advance equity and belonging in Dublin. Member Orozco commented on adding transparency and communication as a value. Member Tai commented on adding increasing community support and services and rethinking and re-evaluating policing. Member Kohli commented in agreement with Members Tai and Aini. Member Aini suggested adding police transparency and accountability. Member Jacobs discussed the key points in the preamble. Mr. Hudson discussed the points listed. Member Jacobs added the goal of aligning with updated mission/vision/values that the City of Dublin operates under. Member Jacobs discussed the ways of operating and a need to adapt. Mr. Hudson suggested adding language addressing the short time frame to do this work. Member Jacobs discussed the public safety points, the ACSO contract with short term recommendations and long-term recommendations. Mr. Hudson asked for discussion and thoughts from the Task Force. Member Orozco commented on adding the understanding that currently the data is limited regarding policing, traffic stops, ethnic backgrounds of organizations that received funding and current staff. Member Tai mentioned there was not any metrics for preventative measures. Mr. Hudson recommended not wordsmithing the whole preamble, but the key points. Mr. Hudson, Mr. Stefanski, and Ms. Hailu discussed addressing scope and limitations and recommendations from the ad-hoc groups. 4.4 Review and Comment on the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar Mr. Stefanski reviewed the upcoming dates on the proposed agenda planning calendar. The next Task Force meeting would include approval of outstanding minutes and review of the final draft. Member Kohli commented on potentially having a conflict on the June 24 meeting date. Member David mentioned she may have a conflict on the June 24 meeting as well. Member Kohli asked about each ad-hoc group having a presenter as representative at the City Council meeting on July 20. 5. Other Business Mr. Hudson asked about guidance on expectations for the presentations on July 20. Mr. Stefanski reported that the ad-hoc groups should provide a high-level overview and give a summary of the high-level items. Once presenters are decided, Mr. Stefanski reported that they could do a prep session prior to the City Council meeting. Member Brown asked if the meeting will be live. Mr. Stefanski reported that the meeting will be a hybrid meeting with Zoom and in-person option available. Member Tai asked about presenters and if they should be in-person of via Zoom. Mr. Stefanski reported that presenters should plan to be in-person. Mr. Hudson suggested reviewing the details around the drafted recommendations and provide any recommended edits. Member Kohli asked about coordination between the presenters. Mr. Stefanski reported creating an ad-hoc group for the presenters. Member Kohli asked about Q&A and if the presenters should be the only ones addressing the Q&A. Mr. Stefanski reported that the presenters should be the only ones addressing Q&A, but that Seed and Mr. Stefanski would be available. Member Tripplett asked about Q&A and if the Councilmembers would be the only ones asking questions. Mr. Stefanski reported the City Council would ask questions and there would be some circumstances that public comment questions are addressed by the City Council. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 PM.