A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee. A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-19.
We got everything all right. And then under pending. We have no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screen. All right, Councilwoman CdeBaca, what would you like us to do with this resolution? Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to postpone consideration of Resolution 732 Monday, August 5th, 2019. And I'd also like to request a courtesy public hearing to be held on this item on August 5th. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Resolution 730 on the floor for adoption? I move that resolution 19 dash zero 730 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman CdeBaca, your motion to postpone. I move that consideration of Resolution 730 be postponed to Monday, August 5th. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions and or comments by members of Council on this postponement. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Do I? Is this where I get to comment on why? So I'm actually pushing this out because I think that we need time to let the community weigh in on what this appointment means on a nomination committee that really is responsible for overseeing a very important entity in our government. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, I wanted to kind of give a background on how this particular ordinance came about since I was intimately involved in this appointment. So for those who aren't quite as familiar with the Citizen Oversight Board, I'm going to read from our website on on exactly what it does. And the Citizen Oversight Board consists of nine citizens appointed by the mayor and City Council to assess the effectiveness of the Office of the Independent Monitor, to make policy level recommendations regarding discipline, use of force and other policies, rules, hiring, training, community relations, and the complaint process to address any other issues of concern to the community. The S.O.B., the Monitor, the executive director of Safety, the chief of Police, the sheriff or the fire chief. And to review and make recommendations as to closed internal affairs cases where the findings were not sustained as appropriate. So I know my colleagues and maybe some of you in the audience will remember and maybe Councilwoman, can you can remind me the date as the months fly by. But early this year or late last year, Councilwoman Kennedy each and then Councilman Lopez and myself put forward an ordinance that was then passed by city council to strengthen the role of the independent monitor, as well as strengthened the purview of the Citizen Oversight Board. The main thing we did for the oversight board was to increase the board from seven members to nine. Now, previously, those seven members were all appointed by the mayor. The change to the ordinance make it so now. Four Appointed by council, four appointed by mayor. One is a joint appointment in order to set up a process by which those appointments would be made. We also created the a nomination committee for the Citizen Oversight Board that would have be a three member board, one council appointee, one mayoral appointee, one joint appointment. Should a vacancy in the CLB or on the CLB occur? The first appointee would be a council appointee. The next appointee would be a mayoral appointee. Until we go through eight appointments, the ninth would be a joint appointment should a vacancy occur. The ordinance specifically requires the nominating committee to seek from the Citizen's Oversight Board itself what they need. Do they need a lawyer to fill a particular role, or an accountant or someone with specific safety experience? Then the nominating committee must, by ordinance, put out a public call and compile a list of three candidates to be given to the appointing authority. Should that authority, either the mayor or city council or as a joint appointment, not find any of those three applicants sufficient? They can reject that list and request a new list from the appointing authority. So how how specifically did we get here today? Well, not long after the ordinance was passed, we had a situation where I believe there were three openings. There would be well, I think one actual vacancy on the board, and then the two new members that raised the total board number from 7 to 9. We got word from the CLB that they were very anxious to get their nominating committee formed and operational so they could get up to their desired new strength. Councilwoman Kennedy and Councilman Lopez were other occupied at the time and asked me to lead that search, which I agreed to do. Both the interviews that were held were conducted by me, along with our legislative staff member and a representative from Councilwoman Kennedy, his office, the S.O.B. itself. Through the board President Katrina Banks provided us a list of and I don't have it in front of me. I'm remembering six or eight members, six or eight previous board members that they suggested would be good candidates for the. A position, one of which was Mr. Sherman, who we're considering this evening. We reached out to the individuals on the list. We had two responses one from Mr. Sherman, one from another designee. At the same time, council also put out a call through some council newsletters. We received two responses from the newsletters I interviewed, along with the others that I mentioned before. I interviewed the two previous CLB members and decided against nominating the others who had applied because they had no no experience with the CLB, no additional board experience. And I think while they may make good candidates for the board itself, I felt for the nominating committee that it made sense to have people who were intimately knowledgeable about the functions of the board and would be able to know and know what to be looking for. If I had been dissatisfied with the two candidates who responded from the board, I would have gone back to the CEO by asking for additional suggestions from from the board itself. Let's see here. Yeah. So as I said, I interviewed both board members, recommended Mr. Sherman as the council appointee, recommended the other candidate as to be considered for the joint appointment. So that's how we got here. So with that in mind, Madam Secretary, Madam President, pro tem, I'm finished with my comments. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. I just wanted to underline perhaps a few of the points made by my colleague, Councilman Cashman. First of all, it's improper to call this body an oversight body. The nominating committee has no oversight functions whatsoever. It is simply a screening committee that is its role. Its role is to recruit and screen. It advises neither the mayor's office, the safety agencies, the S.O.B.. It has no advising functions whatsoever. And the ordinance is quite clear on that. So it is not an oversight body as a recruiting body. The key question that members of the S.O.B. had is how is a group of people who have never served on this board or isn't aware of it? How will they know what to tell people? So if someone says, How much time does the board require? Or What are the typical things we might be doing? When might we hear from the community? Is this a controversial position? How will it feel to be in this role? It was really important to this job that someone who had served on it and had experience would be a part of this. And that was a commitment we made to look for folks with that experience. I will just say to a little bit, so so not an oversight body, it's a screening. It also does not select members. Be very clear, as Councilman Cashman described, it provides a slate. We will be the decision maker of the council appointment. The mayor's office will be the decision maker of that appointment, and we will decide correctly. So this body has, frankly, a lot of work and very little power. Might be why we didn't have a lot of applicants for it. But we also, again, we're emphasizing this need for experience. We do have a number of new members elected to council. And so just to talk for a minute about process, the way that we try to find folks for boards and we try to get input is we let folks know when there's vacancies we ask folks to take a look at. And then we also ask folks to take a look at names when they're on consent. That might have been hard for members of this body who are just taking office. So I want to acknowledge, but it is really our ideal process that we have these conversations in a way that's respectful because they're in some ways like a personnel decision. Right. I do respect that individuals may have, you know, their own conscience, that they need to vote about how they feel about individuals. But because we are now being faced with the potential for a postponement and a request for a public hearing, I will just share that. I do not believe that is necessary in this case. I believe that the qualifications were very clear. The two the three concerns I've heard from from those who've emailed me or communicated with me. One, most folks believe this is an appointment to the Citizen Oversight Board. It is not. So I've clarified that. Secondly, folks have asked about conflict of interest. The nominee for this position has no contracts related to safety or safety oversight that pose any conflict with their ability to screen applicants and recommend them. And third, the applicant or the nominee has significant experience not just serving on the COB, but actually coming to the city council and advocating for stronger oversight in a specific area like, for example, body cameras. So for those who've said to me, I'm afraid that appointing this person might not be in our interests because they might be too favorable to the mayor's office. There's simply no evidence of that, because in their role on this job, this nominee actually advocated publicly in our body for stronger oversight that happened in a prior council. So I recognize that folks who may be newly elected might not know some of that history. So I'm sharing it now for the record that there are both qualifications, experience and a proven record of being a strong voice for police accountability. That is what I am looking for as the co-sponsor of the ordinance that created this. I am looking for someone who has experience with police oversight and strong standards and a willingness to look for those who have those same strong standards. I have received no facts that that is in any way that there's any anything to undermine that that sense of independent oversight. For me, that is the key value that we as a council need to represent with this appointment. Is this person going to find people who believe in strong oversight? And if I have evidence of that, it's an appropriate appointment. So I will not be voting in favor of the delay tonight. I hope some of the history might clarify questions that folks have had. And in the future. I also hope that folks will pay close attention both to announcements of openings for boards as well as to the consent agenda so that they can raise these questions, you know, in a way that doesn't put individuals through, you know, a floor discussion, again, realizing that that would have been hard to do it in this particular time period. With that, I thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. I don't think that this is an issue or a question of qualifications. I think this is a question of access and consolidated power. We know that recently an article came out about the three lobby firms that essentially run this city and CRL happened to be one of them. Roger Sherman is a well known member of S.R.L. and and has recently led the opposition to 300 where we know that there are incredible police violations and we're actually selecting someone to nominate people to oversee that entity. I think that's very problematic and I don't think it's about him making a decision of letting the people that are nominated onto the board. I think that we know people know very limited groups of people. And with the context that Mr. Sherman has. I still. Am doubtful that he is someone who would be nominating or recruiting and screening the appropriate set of people for this role. I think that what you mentioned earlier about him having prior experience on the Citizen Oversight Board is valuable and that could that information could be transferred to a nominee or a person for this position through an orientation interview. It doesn't have to be him nominating people and recruiting them. And I also think that recycling people who have been in these spaces is another form of consolidating power. We should have somebody who has safety experience or direct connections to community that demanded this role and this board. And I think that to many people up on this stage have received campaign contributions from him to vote tonight in favor for him and not under the illusion that this is an unbiased vote. And so if people are going to vote yes for this appointment tonight, I think that you should make it clear whether or not you've received campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman or S.r.l.. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I want to go a little bit farther further than councilwoman coinage and suggest that those who oppose this appointment should simply vote no on the on the resolution and rather than postponing it for a week. The sole reason to postpone for a week would be to hold an unprecedented. Courtesy hearing on an individual in all my years. And Councilman Ortega may be able to speak to this. In this room, I have never seen a courtesy hearing called for the sole purpose of bringing people in who would raise issues that have nothing to do with the appointment at hand. It would raise issues, in fact, that are tangential and would would speak to the criticisms of CRL and Roger Sherman's activities. As Councilwoman PANITCH pointed out, his service on the S.O.B. prior to this and his advocacy for strong civilian oversight powers, and the preference that Councilman Cashman spoke of, that the members of the selection committee, the nominating committee, rather, not selection. The nominating committee should be people who have had experience with the system in order to give us the best qualified candidates should should determine how we vote. Tonight, I would oppose the motion to postpone it for the sole purpose of holding a one hour hearing where we have a parade of folks coming up to talk about issues they have with Cyril's other activities. I think that's an abuse and a misuse of the council's time and. And I strongly recommend against it. Thank you, Ms.. Madame President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Two questions of parliamentary procedure. So if we postponed, will this go back to committee? And I apologize. I'm new here. Just one question. Number one, I don't know to whom I should ask that. We'll go ahead and have Kirsten Crawford, our city or our council secretary makhija. To postpone the consideration of a resolution would just postpone it to council. You would actually need to re refer it to committee in order for it to be sent back to committee. Great. So that second question of parliamentary procedure, if we vote against the postponement, will there be opportunity to comment before voting on 0730? We were mostly mostly doing comments right now just from the fact of the conversation here. But, Madam Secretary, I'll defer to you. Yes. So you would be. Right now we're commenting on the postponement. If the postponement were to fail, then you would have another opportunity to comment on the resolution itself, because then you would vote on the. Resolution itself immediately after. Thank you. All right. Councilman Cashman, were you? Yes, I think there were a couple of things I had meant to mention before. One is kind of in line with my colleague's comments about contributions. Since I was so intimately involved with this process, I wanted to be very clear. My name was included with a number of my council colleagues as having received contribution from Mr. Sherman. That did not happen. The article has since been corrected by David Sachs there, where there was a check on my one of my financial forms that was mis entered and the the it was $100 payment was actually from a friend of mine with the same last name and a different first name. The other thing is I wanted to just say a little bit more about why I found the nominee suitable for for the post. As we've talked about, you know, he has the experience on the board, but he was vetted by the CLB chair in reference to providing his name as, as a suitable candidate. Speaking with another individual who worked intimately with the candidate in his time on the S.O.B. and presented him as a very aggressive candidate in in search of increased powers for the for the board and as well as for oversight by the Office of the Independent Monitor. So I left those out of my original comments. I apologize for that. And I as well will be voting no on the extension, because I think this chamber tonight provides an opportunity to to express whatever views our colleagues have. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Pro tem. So it's really given power to our lobbyists as term limits. And the fact that, you know, the changing the ever changing players of of people that sit in these seats means that, you know, first term lobbyists know more about how our city works than than, you know, people first coming in here , unless you've been part of the city system and understand how it works. When I ran for city auditor, the applicant ran. Some actually worked for my opponent. And over the years, we've, you know, become friends and have had to work together on many, many different issues. And I have received money from CRL, I've received money from lots of different organizations and individuals because it takes a lot of money to run citywide to get elected. But that doesn't mean that anybody owns me. And, you know, when the fire department was working to put the issue on the ballot, to have the employees from Denver fire live outside of the city, the first time around, when they endorsed me, they gave me the maximum amount they could, and I opposed that. Years later with the fact that our housing situation had started to climb drastically and it was becoming harder and harder for firefighters, police officers, teachers, other people to live in our city because of the cost of housing. I supported putting that on the ballot and the voters passed that. So I think the fact that we have lobbyists that play a very strong role in many of the issues that come before this body doesn't doesn't mean because they've given us money that any of them on us control our votes. I certainly look at issues on a case by case basis, and that's how I make my decision. It's based on the merits of every issue that comes before us, not who put it forward. You know, who wants me to vote, which way I will vote on the merits of the issue. And on tonight's issue, this is very clearly one where the individual will take names, many of which actually come from us doing outreach to our community. And that's what happened with this particular application. There was, you know, quite a bit of outreach to community and not a lot of names that had come forward in. Councilman Cashman, you could probably speak to this in terms of the length of time that that was the lag between how many notices kind of went out in that outreach to community. And typically, you know, through our newsletters, they go pretty far and wide, but not everybody wants to serve on an unpaid board because that's what this is. And this is hard work and it's very important work that needs to happen in vetting people who will serve on the Citizen Oversight Board, which, by the way, is one of our more diverse boards in the city that reflects age as well as the ethnic diversity of our city. And I, for one, will continue to make sure that that board is reflective of the population of our city. And I will be voting for this to move forward because I think it's important that we have a seated body that can help us vet those names that are then referred to us and to the mayor, where we make the final decision based on the names that are submitted to us. It doesn't mean that they're handpicking anybody to be on that on that citizen oversight board. They're simply vetting names to refer to us. And then we make that final decision. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca back up. Thank you, Madam President. I want to respond to my colleague, Councilman Flynn's comment about setting an unnecessary precedent. I think with our recent elections, we set a precedent that really was saying to this city that we want more checks and balances and accountability. And so I don't think it's unnecessary or inappropriate to ask that community be more extensively involved in these processes, especially because this is our opportunity to represent our constituents. We're not here to vote how we want to vote because we feel like we're here to represent our constituents. And that parade of folks that you mentioned are our constituents. And they should have the opportunity to raise any concern about any nomination to any committee or any appointment. And that's what I believe we're here to do. And any college recruiter across the country will tell you that who's. Recruiting is. Important. And we should take note of best practices when it comes to recruiting. If we really want people who represent a diversity of experience, experience in these spaces. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Seen no one else in the queue? Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please. CdeBaca I. Black no. Flynn. No. Herndon. No. Hinds no. Cashmere. Carnage, no. Ortega No. Sandoval No. Sawyer Yes. Torres No. Madam President? No. Oh, sorry. My mind was showing up drunk. Who's been. Get that. I'm sorry. No problem. I hit the road. But you have ten days to ice. Ten days? The postponement of Resolution 730 has failed comments by members of Council on Resolution 730. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem I. I want to, I guess, first disclose that I did accept $2,000 from Roger Sherman. It was after the runoff. So I he also donated $1,000 to the incumbent and $1,000 to another candidate who maxed out to just about everyone in my race. I want to thank you, Mr. Sherman, for all you do for Denver. As people who followed my campaign know I was a citizen lobbyist of the capital before getting elected to Denver's perfect tent. It was my role to educate legislators on the merits of my bill and explain why it makes sense to move that bill forward. I participated in the political process. Like all of you who are here tonight and all of you who write or phone our council office or attend our meetings. And now that is now that I'm an elected official, it's my role to make decisions on what I believe is best for Denver and Denver's perfect tent. It doesn't mean that I'm supposed to know everything. And instead, part of that role is to get as educated as I can on each issue that comes before a council and people like Mr. Sherman help me to in that education. I firmly believe in that principle. I also firmly believe that it's my responsibility to have a healthy understanding of the role of an influencer like a lobbyist, just as I should have a healthy respect for the lobbying. I should also have a healthy respect for second sourcing, anything that that the lobby presents, just to make sure that I have a balanced viewpoint. Some feel that some people feel that city council doesn't provide an independent review separate from the executive branch. As one District ten resident reported on April 11th and as already referred to earlier the same article, it is sometimes difficult to know where the city ends and the lobbyists began. So thank you, Colorado Public Radio, for that comment. By the way, if we move this bill forward, I believe we're hurting our perceived impartiality with Denver residents and we injure the perceived impartiality of an oversight board designated designed to be independent. Crow is the lobbyist, the largest lobbying firm in Denver, and Mr. Sherman is the managing partner of zero. We have 700,000 residents in Denver and another 300,000 people who come to Denver each business day. I think this is an opportunity to find someone who's less connected with municipal politics. I believe this is an opportunity to demonstrate that there should be a distinction between where lobbying ends and where the city begins. So in closing, I'll say this together. Denver, we can do better. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to disclose that even though I voted this down, I did not accept or receive any money from Roger Sherman or Sierra. But I also am new in this role, and I want to respect my colleagues who worked really hard to get a new oversight board. And I acknowledge your work. And a lot of times when you are new on the council and you're new into government, you have to look at those who came before you. And I know I stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. And so in that, I was vacillating back and forth as I was sitting here. And I do respect my colleague from Councilman. Can you and Councilman Cashman and Councilman Lopez, because at that time I was working for the Denver Fire Department when this ordinance was coming through. And part of the ordinance was going to impact actually some of the fire department in the work in that arson division. So I was well versed on that because the arson division, they carry guns. And so I just want to thank my two colleagues and thank everyone on this day for having a very robust decision, a discourse like this. And I think it actually does bring awareness to what's going on in city council. And also, I also do know and acknowledge that it is very hard to get people to want to sit on boards. It's time consuming. It's a lot of responsibility. And I saw these notifications personally go out three different times. And for that to go out citywide and only have to nominate, people want to come and join that board. I think we have to respect that process. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. In the spirit of full disclosure, I did also receive campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman. I have only known him less than a year, and it was directly related to campaign discussions about the future of my district. My background is includes direct worked with boards and commissions in the city and including the predecessor of the Office of the Independent Monitor's Citizen Over Oversight Board. I was first hired on just to staff the Public Safety Review Commission 18 years ago. It is incredibly important and difficult to find volunteers who are diverse, who effectively represent communities, who are committed to the demands of the boards and commissions they sit on for anywhere from two to upwards of 5 to 7 years, depending on the Border Commission. I recognize the work that my colleagues have done to create a screening committee and to find the people to fill that committee that know and have experienced the work. Recruitment is also our responsibility as council members and direct. Responsive and direct. Connection to our residents to find people to sit on the sea lobby and every other board and commission. 130 across the city. It's important for our residents. It is important for their leadership and it's important for their voice throughout the city. So when these recruitment announcements come available, it's important for all of us to get that word out and find people who are committed to that service and for them to apply and to serve. I'm also dismayed that only two people responded to this one. This is a really challenging one to fill because you're looking for very specific information, and I honor and respect the work of my colleagues in the past few months to do that and will also be supporting this this resolution. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. So, in the interest of all honesty, I actually did not accept a contribution from Mr. Sherman, but accidentally reported that I did so by apologies, Mr. Sherman, for that. And it was nothing personal. I just made a commitment to my constituents that I wouldn't take contributions from big developers during the campaign. And so it was, you know, nothing personal at all. Just your connections to big development was sort of a gray area. And I think that you would probably do a fantastic job in this role. If it were up to me personally, I would absolutely support you in this. But I believe that my constituents put me here on the dais because they are ready for change. And so I am going to vote against you for this because I think that that is what my constituents want me to do. But I want to thank you for your engagement in our community and for all of your hard work. And I would like to ask you to continue that in some other capacities, because I think you're doing a great job. And I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments today. I know that it's a difficult conversation to have. The city is in a in a tough place right now where we are having some some very big discussions about some very deep divides in our community. And it's hard to stand up here and stand up for what you believe in when it's something that maybe most of your colleagues don't agree with you on. So, you know, I just want to thank all of you for your your fortitude and your thoughtfulness and all of your your, you know, votes, however, and sticking with whatever you you believe in. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I just wanted to add that within the last week of posting about this, I've had multiple people inquire about how and when this position was made public. And I'm sure that if it were at all possible, we could get other people to respond to the call to serve. I do know several people who would gladly serve as volunteers. And so if that's the issue, I think you have a new council and new opportunities to engage people who have not been engaged before, who deeply want to serve our city. So please consider that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, your backup. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to also talk about Councilwoman Sawyer's comment about constituents. We we received a lot of communication about this particular nomination, and we vetted each person to see if they were in District ten or not. 100% of the correspondents that reached out to us in District ten wanted me to say no. So, again, citizen lobbying, this is what this is where you also get to to participate in the political process. Mr. Sherman lives in ten, and I didn't I was so awkward. I didn't know if I should reach out proactively. But then we looked at the that the the people who weren't in town and who provided comments to the district in office, 100% of them also asked me to vote no. So no one has has reached out and lobbied in favor of 19 0730. So I just want to point that out as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Seen no other speakers, Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 730, please. Black. I see tobacco. No. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Her name. I. Hinds name. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sawyer. Nay. Torres. Hi. Nine eyes, three knees. Nine eyes, three knees, nine eyes. Resolution 730 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on this next. Next one. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. My question is regarding the use of the almost $2 million to provide eligibility determination for our TDS live program. I just want to know a little bit more about how this $2 million is going to be spent.