Recommendation to Authorize Interim Chief of Police In Consultation with the City Manager to Implement Pending and Future Updates to the Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. (Police 3111)
Recommendation to authorize the interim police chief of police in consultation with the city manager to implement pending and future updates to the Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be curt with best practices and statutory requirements. Okay. And who's presenting on this one? We're promoting this stuff now. Okay. There's quite a few coming on, so. All right. I see Alan Cohen from city attorney's office. I see Brian Foster from PD. I see Captain Jeffrey Emmett from APD. You need a bigger screen. Yeah, this is good. And John Lee from the city attorney's office. And we have the acting interim chief Randy fan. Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Please feel free to. And you take them themselves, correct, madam Kirk? Correct. Yeah. So whoever is taking the lead on this, uh, Mr. Cohen, is that you, Mr. Shin? Okay, we want to keep things moving, so don't make me guess too much. Just stand up or speak out. And the floor is yours. Madam Mayor. That's me. Randy Cohen, the interim police chief. Good evening, Chief. Good evening, mayor and council. In June of this year, Council directed that no change be made to the APD policy manual without bringing the changes before Council for discussion. The Department has a longstanding contract with flexible to create, maintain, update and publish a policy manual for the department. As part of their service. Flexible provides regular updates to policies to their over 8000 client agencies. These updates are a result of their ongoing review of changes to federal law, state law, court case decisions, and changing best practices in the field of public safety. Tonight we present to you 16 policies that have been identified by like support for updating. The reasons for these particular updates vary from grammatical and formatting formatting fixes to compliance with changes in law. The proposed changes were reviewed by department staff. Civil War also forwarded to the City Attorney's Office for additional review. Of note, the use of force policy is included in the 16. The proposed changes reflect the intent of the California Legislature in the passage of separate several recent bills, including Senate Bill 230. Senate Bill 230 created a government code Section 7286. The department is required to comply excuse me to fully comply with Government Code 7286 on January 1st of 2021. These updates proposed tonight will bring us in compliance. Staff is requesting council implement the proposed changes to the 16 policies. Staff is further recommending that I be given the authority to, in consultation with the City Manager, implement further updates as necessary to ensure the Department complies with law, including case law, and follows best practices. It should be noted that staff, including myself, recognizes the council's and the community's concerns as it relates to the change and implementation of department policy. Further, we are committed to working with the City Manager to ensure council is informed before policies that have the potential to significantly impact the community are changed or enacted. Of course, I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Too thin. Anyone else want to add anything either from the department or from the city attorney's office? Okay. So before we go to our public comments, are there any clarifying questions among the council? Councilmember Pelosi, your hand. Chief. Ben, thank you for your presentation. I had a couple questions. The state law says that we need to be in compliance by January 1st. Is your understanding that we need to have. It's not just the policy, correct. We actually have to have it implementation ready, meaning that training needs to be updated and everything in order to be in compliance. Yes, that is correct. Of course, we have to have the policy, but of course we need to promulgate it as well, which means we have to be able to distribute it and ensure that our staff understands it and is able to follow it by that January 1st deadline. And I know that there's a number of different policies, obviously, that need updating. Probably the one that's going to be, or I would assume have the most feedback would be the use of force policy. And my question relative to that is, was there I know I know and appreciate the the citations and the changes on the policy . To your knowledge, is there any changes in terms of the training and techniques that are going to be occurring in conjunction with this policy? I can tell you that the department has been engaged in training actually this month discussing the changes to the recent changes from the California legislature, including Senate Bill 230. We've just held off on the actual particulars as they relate to the Alameda Police Department with regard to this policy. So we're waiting, of course, for this to be enacted to to kind of finish that training. But in answer to your question that has been happening, we have been implementing these things, again, as best practices and of course, following the law as necessary. That's all my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Villa, any other clarifying questions from the council? As I said, you're not quite. Thanks. And I sent a couple of these ahead of time, so hopefully you're not surprised. But I'm wondering if we can get a little discussion on first. There are changes to the shooting at moving vehicles. In my understanding. My memory is that in June during the eight can't wait discussion council, not formally but fairly with with consensus said that we did not want to see a shooting at a movie vehicles policy, but the policy that it's coming forward for change actually does allow that. And I'm wondering if we can talk about how how that decision was made within the confines of our previous discussions. And then further, my reading of the policies related to kind of high speed pursuit seems to loosen up the ability in my reading. And I'd like to understand I'm not sure that's the intent, but I'd like to understand how we thought about that. Knowing that high speed pursuits are in urban areas and residential areas like Alameda are not generally a very good idea. It struck me as odd that we are kind of making it easier for officers to make the decision to pursue through our streets at higher speeds. To answer your question is with regard to the. Like I just like clarification if that was the intent or if that's something that we need to go back and look at. And the changes to shooting at moving vehicles policy and high speed pursuits in urban areas. Yes. Chieftain, are you going to take that? Yes, ma'am. So starting with the shooting at moving vehicles and let me just start by saying I share your concern about shooting at moving vehicles. Rarely is it an effective police tactic in reviewing. Obviously, I was here in June, but in reviewing the council discussion on the eight can't wait. And this particular issue came up. It was also brought up that unfortunately there's been a bit of a phenomenon worldwide and in a few instances in the United States where vehicles were used as a weapon in terrorist incidents. And so the discussion, as I understand it, was to allow in that rare circumstance, the ability for a police officer to attempt to stop the vehicle as the driver in the vehicle, as the weapon intent on hurting people and killing people. So our our our training, as I understand, from staff, continues to be that this is, again, not an objective tactic in general to get out of the way of moving vehicles. But again, with this narrow application, we do not want to remove the ability and again, Alameda having such as the 4th of July parade in these high profile events where large groups of people gather, giving officers the ability to protect them. Sorry. And then the high speed Internet areas that that's somewhat different than shooting at really vehicles, correct? Certainly accidents. Yes, ma'am. So that's in reference, of course, to the vehicle pursuit policy, which is also included in the 16. And there were significant language changes mostly to bring us in compliance or rather consistent with the state post peace officer standards and training or governing body for training so that our language was consistent with their language. I talked about it with staff we don't see. I understand how that might give the appearance that somehow we loosened the rules. We don't believe that we've loosened the rules. In fact, that we believe we continue to have a very narrow policy. There has to be some room for discretion, for supervisor intervention, of course. But as a general rule, we don't we don't pursue and we would prefer not to have pursuits here in Alameda. So if, again, we believe that the language is consistent and has not changed the standard that we hold our officers to, but we're willing, of course, to have a further discussion. Alex. Thank you, Chief. And was that all for you this year? That was for now. Thank you, Kelso Brody. Thank you. I have a question regarding 468, which was the First Amendment related. What? We'll see. And then it's in for 68.7 and a page five. I noticed there was a discussion about oleo resin capsaicin, which is pepper spray. I thought I recall that the council gave a direction that if we were ever called for mutual aid, that our officers would not be the people using pepper spray against residents or in demonstrations in other cities. Is that is that something we can put in here? I personally don't like pepper spray at all, but we didn't give direction on using it in Alameda. I'm afraid on this one because I was a government official before. And these are clarifying questions now about this, Jeff, before we will get into discussion, deliberation. But your question, Counselor Brody, is. Why didn't we not or we aware that we had that discussion? In a way, is it not in there? Yes, I recall tear gas. Did we also. I'd have to look back at meeting notes. Okay. And then the second question was. The next paragraph. You know, it kind of goes into some discussion about demonstrations and some people being innocent and some people that. Becoming violent and, you know, treating people differently. Is there a reason why that was taken out? And if so, are we still going to have some type of way to make sure that, you know, protesters that are not violent are not targeted? Yes. So my understanding is that those elements are covered elsewhere. And certainly we would not use force against nonviolent protesters because they would not we would not legally be allowed to use force on those who are not breaking the law or otherwise. Falling under that definition. Okay. Well, thanks for those clarifications. I'm finished with my. Okay. Councilmember, decide anything from you. Okay. I think I got everybody right. Okay. So no further council clarification questions. Now, how many public speakers do we have? If I could just ask the members of the public to at least raise their hands now, because so far we only have two. And I know more people indicated that they were planning on speaking, so. Sure. Um, so looks like we're up to just four. Okay. I guess it's just four. So they do get 3 minutes each? Yes, exactly. That's what I would say. As long as we have less than six speakers or six or less read, if you get 3 minutes each. So let's get started at Genesee. Evening, Denise. Hi. Yes, Janice. Thank you all for being here this evening. Haven't seen you guys in a while. It's nice to be here. After the hours of public comment regarding racism as a public health crisis, we were told that the process needed to be altered to here to wait for the findings of the recently formed committees. Now we're finding the police policies are coming up. Without that committee's findings, a lot of people have an issue with the way those committees were formed. People on both sides of the policing issue. And yet here we are with another kind of secretive agenda. As far as the best practices being adopted. I feel very strongly that chokeholds should be banned without exception. Other cities have or plan to ban both chokeholds and strangle holds, and I believe Alameda should join them as currently written. None of these best practices come even close to the eight count items, several which several of you touted after the Watkins incident. And while I think it cannot wait, it doesn't demand enough. It is the bare minimum that our city should aim for. All of this talk about training officers for better use of force. If training is so effective, then they can be trained to not use chokeholds and strangle holds and. Regarding the vehicles used as a weapon. I'm just curious. We've seen that used primarily recently in attacks from white supremacists against protesters. And I'm just I know we can't ask questions or get questions answered, but I'm really curious about the stats on how many of those incidents have been stopped by a police officer shooting out of a moving vehicle. That's all I have for this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Jay Garfinkle. Is regarding. Well, again, I wouldn't want to second what this previous speaker said about these policies going by the committee that was specifically set up for this function. If there are issues that we're required to do by law, then I would think that those could be put into effect if that's what's necessary. I also want to expand, Councilman, his point about if we are participating in a shared activity with another community, how are we going to react? On any of these issues, whether we are in the other community or whether the other community is assisting us. I remember a few years ago, I think it was a deputy sheriff engaged in a high speed chase through Alameda that ended up with somebody going to the hospital. When I address it to the police chief at that time, there was really no comment. The previous police chief. There was no comment. So I want to know how we. We'll be interacting with the Sheriff's Oakland Police Highway Patrol when they get to our border. Do they have to slow down and drive safely or can they continue on a high speed chase if that's what their policies allowed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. garcia, and our next speaker. Savannah, cheer is cheer. Good evening. I. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Thanks for having me on tonight. Just want to make two quick points which have kind of been made by the previous two speakers. But the timing on this seems pretty bad. You created a subcommittee to review this specific issue. So making changes now kind of in front of whatever recommendations they have is just a pretty bad look. Obviously, it totally negates any work that they might have done on these specific policy points. And if you have this I think I heard a January deadline or something, it doesn't seem like now would be the necessary time to do this, that it could certainly be taken up at a later date when you've already incorporated the recommendation and actions taken by those subcommittees. And then the second point I have is just regarding the use of force specifically. So while I understand that you might have to come in line with state law, it seems like just doing the bare minimum to meet that law isn't really what a lot of the residents of Alameda have been asking. They're looking at a more specific and a much more protective role that those particular policies might take for people. And it doesn't seem like just kind of meeting that basic law standard would do it again. What you said about chokeholds and stranglehold seems like an obvious choice. And you know that not being in here is disappointing, obviously. And last just to say that. You know, none of these changes really go far enough in protecting people from police violence. And that's something that clearly the council felt was an important topic to take up by creating those subcommittees. And so I think it's really important that you wait on this and take the time to make sure that all those voices are being heard, that we're working so hard on it and and not just kind of push this through, it's extra troubling that it was just going to be a consent item where no one would even get a chance to see it or say it. And certainly if some of us had not pointed that out to the community, you know, this wouldn't have come up. So that is all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next speaker. Alexia Arogya. Let Mr. Roger. Hi, everyone. Thank you all for being here. My name is Alexia Roach and I've been a resident in Alameda for years with my family. I have several concerns about this similar to the previous speakers. I feel that moving forward with anything regarding the Alameda Police Department while the subcommittees are still meeting feels a bit contradictory to that process. Granted, I had and still have many concerns about that process, but there's been so much emphasis on it. I feel actions should pause until recommendations come out. Aside from that and being aware of legislative changes, I still fear. I feel there is lots more that councilmembers could enable our police department to do or better yet, to not do. These policy changes enable a great amount of discretion, which I find to be problematic. Language should be clear. Campaign zero has several policies that could be looked at and analyzed instead of just going with flexible. The ACLU has repeatedly actually criticized lexical and how problematic they are and how fault their faulty policies have actually exposed police departments to costly lawsuits. To quote, Lexical is described as a private for profit company that sells boilerplate policies to public safety agencies. Personally, that's not who I want ensuring policies that affect our local community. It was just mention that these aren't acquired until January. And though I hear it being said that people need to learn how to follow these, I don't really understand how any of these are so complicated that it would take several months to learn these changes. I also want to respond to the comment about the supposed phenomenon of vehicles being used as a weapon. These vehicles have predominantly been used by white supremacists and sometimes even the police themselves. So I don't believe this is actually relevant to Alameda. And I think in Alameda we can actually do a lot better and more people should be heard before any sort of decision is made on this topic. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Roach. Your next speaker. That was our last speaker. We have no other speaker. No more handset. Okay. Correct. So with that, I'm going to close have a comment on item five D and I want to start out with an explanation and an apology. When we did the agenda meeting a couple few weeks ago for tonight's meeting, I, I did ask about why this item was coming back to us and why it was on consent. And what was explained to me, and I think it is mostly correct, is that these were required policy changes required by law. There was an imminent deadline, and that's why we were doing this with the benefit of 2020 hindsight in reading the staff report, because when we do our agenda meetings to place things where they go on the agenda, we don't have finished staff reports, but with 2020 hindsight, I would have put it on the regular calendar. It is not a matter of trying to sneak something by because the public does as was demonstrated. Get the agenda. We have a 12 day lead time for agendas coming out before a meeting and they do. They immediately start communicating with us. And so this was one that was sure to be pulled, if not by members of the public, by members of the council. But in a perfect world, it would have just sat on the the regular item that here we are this evening. And so what I would like a couple of questions answered by whomever, maybe the city attorney's office or the city manager, because our speakers and granted, it's not Q&A, but I have the same questions many of you had about how should we have this process in place. We've got some very hard working community members. We've got a really impressive bunch of community members, and they're putting in a lot of time and effort on all kinds of things in addition to our boards and commissions. But so this process is moving forward. We've got the five subcommittees. One of them happens to be police policies and procedures. So how does how does that mesh? How does that coexist with what we're doing tonight? So city manager or city attorney can, can you help the public and the council understand that? Mr.. Yeah, I can start. So there were several actions by the City Council back in June and July. One of them was as laws became implemented at the state level or other issues, they became, to our knowledge, especially legislative issues, that we could bring back these policy changes to the Council like we did tonight, to have approval through the city council, which is so unique because typically city councils don't approve these policies, but they would come back through the city council and which we did tonight. Most of these actually do define narrower or restrict more. Most of these policies in the direction that the city council was talking about. They may not go as far as people want them to, but they go in that direction. And then this police department is actually giving multiple presentations to those subcommittees in November, and those subcommittees will be able to go through those. And many of these policies could actually come back through the subcommittees and actually be enhanced even further from where they are. So I saw these policies as actually moving in the same direction. They may not move as far as you want them to, but they definitely move in that way. And they definitely bring us in compliance with state law because also in June and July, the state made several passed legislation on policing in a variety of ways. And these are the laws that are coming out of that that need to be implemented by January. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Council and City Attorney's Office. Did you want to add anything, Mr. Cohen or Mr. Chairman? I mean, I would have to look at the managers. Well, it might be too strong a word, but go with it. We have. We have nothing that. Is that? Is that a consensus? I thought they even had something. I did too. No, I said that. I have nothing to add to the city manager's presentation. All right, that's fine. Thank you. So council members council voted is your handicap. Okay, I just had a question looking at these again. And 402. Know, we took out immigration status. Has something that was inappropriate. I mean, it is. Was that fixed somewhere else or. Because we added the words actual the perceived characteristics. But then we took out immigration status. And Councilmember Odie, are you referring to a specific app. Or to dash one of the definitions of of bias based policing. Okay. If we're to exhibit 13, you are correct. Well, it's policy tomorrow, too. Yeah, that would be. October 13th, right? Yeah. And so far, 2.2 million. 11.1 year. Or two. Yeah. Definitions. Okay. Okay. Answers it. Okay. And so you're saying why did immigration status. Why is that window? Well, we know why that lined out. And are we somehow accounting for that protection somewhere else? Okay. Who would like to answer that? Hi. Did your foster. Tell me. Tell me your rank. I like to be accurate when they refer to you for my me. Your rank. I'm a lieutenant. Lieutenant. Lieutenant Foster, please. Yes. So that is one of the policies that was changed to bring protected. Class language in line with the remainder of the policies. I believe immigration status isn't listed under California law as one of the protected classes, and it falls under those that might be discriminated against for immigration status fall under protection from various other methods of protected class. And is there language in these policies that does accord protection based on immigration status? Not in immigration status. In and of itself, no. But race or sexual orientation, etc., is all covered in there, which I believe based on the way protected class language is across. The entire policy manual was was deemed to be consistent and redundant. I mean, are we required to to. Revise. That is to make it consistent? I'm sorry, could you repeat that when. You say. So? You're asking through the curiosity, Lieutenant, what would happen? Or the lawyers maybe, or the lieutenant asking. It doesn't matter to me who answers. You know what? What could could the immigration status language be left in there? Let me just interject for Madame Mayor, if it's okay. I'll just I'll just have to. There are policies within the APD policy manual related to taking action, related to not taking action against someone based upon their immigration status. None of those policies, with the exception of bias, which which we haven't yet reviewed, but none of the remainder of the policies related to immigration status are before the council tonight. But but I do know, having read most of the policy manual, that that there are several provisions related to not taking action based upon someone's immigration status . And that I had reviewed some of those policies to make sure that they were consistent overall with the city's sanctuary resolution, which adopted several years ago, and that they are consistent with the sanctuary resolution. And I question that. I would just interject for you, Mr. Cohen, and actually, Councilmember, really see what you think the the language in for 2.1.1 charts that an inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics. And I'm not sure what the actual or perceived characteristic would be that gave someone's immigration status away. I could be really facetious and say maybe children in cages, but I probably shouldn't go there. But I mean, if someone were walking down the street, it's because when you look at the other enumerated characteristics and notwithstanding, as Lieutenant Foster told us, that these are actually part of law, they are things like race, ethnicity, national origin, religion , sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, etc., etc.. But I think your concern is is deeper than that. Is that correct? Councilman Brody? My concern is why this is being taken out. And if it's not required to be taken out, I'd prefer that it stay in there. I mean, we. We all know who people target when they when they go after people that they think are undocumented. I mean, you just have to go on Twitter or listen to a Trump rally and you'll know who people are targeting. So I don't know if I would I would go so far as to say you can't have an actual perceived immigration status when a lot of the targeting is being done or they think people are coming from or what language they speak. The city manager, I think, wants to come in one day. One thing you could do on a policy like this is just defer, take this policy and defer it to later action and have it be researched and come back to the council at a later meeting in November. I mean, that would be an option if you want to do that. And hold that thought. Counsel And the other thing I wanted to raise with Mr. Levitt, because he is overseeing the subcommittee process, is, is there a means by which the subcommittee, specifically the Subcommittee on Police Policies and procedures, would have a chance to review and comment on at least some? I understand the experience of provisions that are required to be in place with training and everything else by January 1st. But for those that might have a little more flexibility, is there a way to bring this to that subcommittee? We can definitely. Like I said, we are having multiple presentations to them in November and we could definitely on the policies you want, have those. Go to them and see if we can get that through their process before before the end of the year. Let's see what the council thinks must be voted. Another question off the floor. Yes. No, please. So and then in the use of force, I think it's going to be a little more discussion on this. You know, there's a there was a comment from the audience or the public that we took it away, chokeholds from gathering evidence, but left it in there. I mean, a can you comment on that? And then you can kind of describe more what these pain compliance techniques are because it's, you know, those are are allowed for the public's benefit in. Who wants to take that? You can. Sure. I'll start. Yes. So the governor with signing the law in September and I'm sorry the assembly bill escapes me. He banned the use of carotid restraints and neck restraints. So that's why it's been removed from policy, because it's against the law. So that's why it's not even covered. And then in terms of. Living in some language that allows us to prevent someone from trying to swallow contraband. There is a notion as well as protecting people from ingesting something that may harm them. And I will let Lieutenant Foster speak to the techniques and all that are employed by the police department. Four Train together. Lieutenant Fortune. Then we'll go to your accounts from every other council. Somebody does still have the floor. But if you have a question. I'm done with questions. I'll let you have my time after this answer and then come back to me. Okay. So, Lieutenant Foster, if you could in mute. Sure thing. Thank you. Just by way of background, I'm. In charge of our use of force defensive tactics program here at the police department. The Pink Point's techniques you're speaking of are techniques we teach our officers to cause momentary discomfort in an individual without having to resort to strikes, punches, kicks, other, you know, use of force tools. And these pink plan techniques allow them to cause momentary discomfort to distract or to encourage compliance and getting in a police car walking direction they need to walk, etc., without substantial risk of causing injury to the subject. It's merely discomfort. So it's they're important techniques we can use that are a lower level of force that still accomplish our goal of gaining control and compliance in an arrest. Hey. Thank you. Councilmember. Glad you had your hand up. Yeah, it's AB 392. It was a labor bill that went through this past year. And then which has to do with use of force and use of deadly force, I think is is there were two there were two bills that essentially went through. Relative to the carotid hold. And I guess I have a couple of questions because it seems like we're we're spending there's a lot of policies here. But to the mayor's earlier question, there are a handful of policies that I think are possibly more there's going to be a more in-depth conversation that's needed and more review. So I'm wondering, you know, is there a way to kind of prioritize these? Some of them there's very minute minimal changes, literally references to statutory law that's changed, things like that. Those seem to be more ministerial in terms of the changes that are occurring and not substantive. But I do think that there are a few policies where getting getting it prioritized. I think for the the committees are these community led groups. And I think letting them know about what the timeline is so that they can prioritize them as well would be helpful. I am wary of the fact that it's not just that you have to have the written policy in place by January one, it's that you actually have to have things trained. So what does that mean? That that means not just that you're reviewing the policies, but that you're actually going for training and saying, Hey, we taught you all of these things before, but now you need to remove them from your repertoire and understand that this is the assessment in the continuum, and that's much more difficult to do and to get people scheduled because you can't just bring every officer in at the same time to do that training. And then the tactics training needs to be reviewed up through chain of command and in compliance with everything. Plus, I believe there's going to be some Nazi updates as well. Do we are we part of that is my other question in terms of it seems like some of the posts for. The public, including the mayor and well, so the acronym stands for. I don't want to get it wrong, but it's it's essentially the standardized training and related to also onboarding. We're also going have to update our post training, correct. My understanding is there's going to be some updates to that as well in terms of like academy trainings and everything else. Do we? Because we send people out to train to get trained elsewhere. Correct. For some of these things, we do the tactics training in-house, but then for for some of the other training, we we contract. Correct. Anybody wants to end this film? Sure. So we send, of course, trainees out to go to the basic police academy and we use generally one of three. And so they all have to be in compliance. I'm not sure what their exact timelines are, but of course they are under the mandate to comply with, for instance, 10:00, 230 as well by January 1st. Right. But but the other issue is that if our policy is more or beyond that, how do we address that issue? When they graduate from the police academy, they come here for two weeks of in-house. Me before going out into the field to basic academy training and then get up to speed with our policies and procedures here. Right. And so my concern is that essentially with with new trainees, we also have to factor that in relative to the training and the updates, which is going to be on a different schedule. So I'm just I'm wondering, like working with that timeline and understanding that potentially some of these policies may have to be maybe there's going to be some level of input now from these community committees, but that there could be more input later. Might end up being the reality because of the just because of the logistics involved with training. One comment that I had in terms of the use of force policy, some policies that I've seen have noted that the use of carotid holds is banned based off of state law. Whether that's a footnote or a side note or something in there that might be helpful or some definitions, because I think some of the questions that you're getting tonight are around basically explaining like what what different terms mean. And so there might be, you know, it might be helpful to have some like a definition section that outlines or references for crossover cross references, some of the training tactics. Just to give a little bit of a definition, I think Lieutenant Foster gives a good explanation to Councilmember Otis question, for instance. And I think also noting that the carotid holds are banned under state law and also obviously banned by the department might be helpful to alleviate any confusion with the public in terms of the policy about the the pursuit of vehicles. I we had a long conversation about that, but that also predated our conversation and our vote on the community led subcommittees. So I, I, I feel like we gave a lot of direction, but then we also gave direction about going to these community led committees. So I'm, I'm fine kind of flagging or having these go to the community led committees to the mayor's question earlier so that there could be some input. But I think we need to let them know what the timeline is and help them prioritize because they might not be aware of that. Of being Councilmember Bella. Okay. Yes. His next council. And by the way, just as a reminder, I mean, I know the council knows this, but just to make sure that the public nurses to the subcommittees have been meeting and will continue to meet, I think we're going to get an update maybe next month from the city manager about the process, how it's going . And when they come back to us, which we anticipate being, I believe, early next year with recommendations to the Council for council is still going to make their their final decisions. But we're going to make informed decisions with all this information. So Councilmember Desert question your next why we haven't heard from you. Councilmember Jason. You know what? I think you need to add yet another layer. Okay. Thank you. It seems as though for me, the practical consideration is to move forward with staff's recommendation with regard to incorporating the policies that the state has adopted. So our state legislators, as they always do from year to year, adopt a range of policies and procedures with regard to policing that we would presume are, you know , best in class when it comes to policing. So it seems to me that we here in Alameda should move forward in adopting those changes. There there are already state law. So we should put them in our in our books, so to speak. And I think that's what the whole point of the 16, 16 items that are before us tonight, if there are issues or concerns by residents with regard to improving the or any of the 16 items, including, for example, use of forests, either improving it or clarifying it, I don't see how that whole. Should hold up. Adopting the 16 items tonight, because the 16 items are, at a minimum, their their state law. And so if we want to make them even better through the input of the residents working with the city manager, you know, we can certainly do that. But but I think it would be best to adopt the items tonight, put them in our books so that our staff, the people who train our folks and the people and if they have to interact with people from outside of the city of Alameda, they have ample time between now and, say, December 31st, 2020, because, quite frankly , January one, 2021 is just around the corner. So from a practical consideration, it seems as though we should begin the process of adopting and implementing the 16 items that are before us tonight and on a parallel track, be open to improving some of those with the input from the residents so that everything is ready to go by December 31st, 2020 or January 1st, 2021. My concern, though, is that if we hold off until I don't know what date, you know, November 10th, 2020, you know, that closes that window for our men and women to be best prepared as possible come January 1st, 2021. So I would I would like for the city of Alameda to move forward, recognizing that we can improve the items before us with further input. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember They said first mayor and that's politics. So you hand it back. Thank you very much. I what I agree with Councilmember de song in some ways, but I but I mean, I'm struggling around the policy number three because I think that there are some things the state has required us to do know that are now illegal and need to be cleaned up. But I do also believe that, you know, I'm not unfortunately, the way in which it is presented is very difficult to tell what has changed and what has not in some of these policies. You literally have to go and read sentence by sentence to find out what has been changed. So my druthers tonight, I think, would be that if there is an easy way to point out the things that need to that are going to change our training, and my understanding is our training already says you can't use chokeholds. I believe that was a talking point of our of our chief back in June and May when these conversations going. So it doesn't actually say if chokeholds are already banned, then changing the policy can happen pretty quickly because the training is already telling people that they can't do it. It doesn't sound like a training change. So I'm wondering if there's a way to bring back those things that need to be made before because of state law changes at our next meeting. And it can be on consent because they are legally required changes, but that we can take that back to the mayor and others recommendations that we would actually engage the community policy groups and in the discussion further before making some of these changes. I want to reflect just a few things because I have a couple of specific comments as well, the staff report. I think it's always important for us to step back and think about kind of the system in the in the ecosystem that we are in. When I hear that a company is providing us policies that it provides for 8000 cities, what that tells me is the policies we have in our city are the same policies that all the cities across our country are using that we are really talking about as being problematic and unclear. And so I actually I disagree with the comment. I believe it was city manager's comment that that somehow this was it's different. You know, I mean, it is different perhaps that we're asking to have a discussion about policy changes, but I don't think it's problematic. I think this is a healthy conversation. You know, for the most part, I'm going to support a good, meaningful policy that's going to keep our officers safe and keep our community safe as well. But I'm not going to support just making policy changes willy nilly. I think that, you know, small, minor tactical changes. I'm happy to move almost all of, you know, probably 14 of these. I'm happy to move forward tonight because they are really just small changes that are really not changing the policy themselves. In fact, I wouldn't even say they are policy changes. They're changes to the text of the policy, but not meaningful actual changes in the way we institute implement the policy. So I will not be supporting a recommendation tonight to to remove our direction. That policy change should come to the Council first. At the end of the day, it's the only way that we can ensure that our community has the opportunity to know what the policy changes are, to give input on it if they have problems, and just to make sure that there's a conversation, I don't think that's controversial in any way and it concerns me when I hear that somehow that's problematic. That openness and discussion about the policies in which we we do this around planning, we do this around public works. Our policies are often brought before the Council for discussion and change. So for me, policy number three is the place I would focus. I think that there are some places that we need to change the language because of the carotid chokehold. Quite honestly, I can't tell you what that language is. That that that I would agree moving forward just because we do need to make that change. I don't like that in the vehicle pursuit policy that we're calling for. You know, we're really calling out school zones as an example of a pedestrian zone in Alameda. All our neighborhoods are pedestrian zones. We are a pedestrian city. I don't think we need to specifically say that there are special places in Alameda we're driving fast. Needs to be a concern. I would like when this comes back at some point in time to have a conversation about why we are saying that the speed limit in the speeds of the vehicles are no longer shall be considered but should be considered. Again, I think, you know, one of the things that we have as we talk about accountability is that every time we loosen up and give more and more discretion, courts make it more and more difficult for us to to hold a behavior that is unacceptable accountable. And so I think that there are some places where in a community like Alameda, we don't want people driving really, really fast. And, you know, I do think that there is some flexibility that should be given, but I think that it should be very tight. And I think that there should be a real concerted decision that's made. When that conversation is going. You know, additionally, we heard multiple people or or community who came in and talked about this. Our city has communications channels and I'm really unclear why it's not being used to broadcast and discuss the fact that these policy changes are coming forward. There was a blog post today that identified that for the first time our our city communications channel seemed to be spending more time talking about the fact that crimes are happening with no information that the community can act on in less time. Actually giving them information on what the city is doing about crime and less time on what the city is doing on steps they can take to help us address crime after the fact. If a crime it's happened is not a very useful thing to do, and it is very telling to me that that started in June. The same period last year, 11% of our social media posts were about crimes that had happened since June this year. 60% have been about that. It's no wonder people think that crime is rampant. So let's get back to being reasonable and talking to our community and having conversations. And I think one place that we can start is making sure that when we are making policy changes around vehicles, around shooting of vehicles, around removing chokeholds and whatnot, that we're engaging people in that conversation and bringing them into the conversation so that they can participate into a little bit further. So I will support what it sounds like, at least from the mayor and from us as he, Ashcraft and Councilmember Vela were suggesting, is sending much or most of us to the to the committees for further refinement. I'll be looking for that. And like I said, I personally would appreciate it if if there is a motion to remove council for review and approval. I would appreciate if we could by four get those two votes. Thank you. And just for clarification, since I was referenced in your remarks, Vice Mayor, I, I will want to have probably the city attorney's office in whichever member or members of the police department just help us go through item by item, because there are certain ones that really are time critical and have a date and we need to be compliant with state law. I think you agree with that. I know I could see our city manager. Mr. Levitt, you wanted to speak to did you run it? Oh, I. Was just going to clarify two things. One is the main thing I was going to clarify at this point, I guess, is that we brought all of the changes that we were doing to the policies. So I would agree with the vice mayor that some of them probably would not be defined as policy changes, but they are changes in the policy manual. And so to be transparent, we brought them all forward to the council. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember o.T. Thank you. One quick clarification. I think the state reports that there were 16, but I kind of 15. There's fiscal 15. 15. Okay, good. So when I looked at these, there were four, eight, nine, ten. I mean, ten. I think we're ministerial. I would probably put jewelry also as ministerial. And then there were four others that were, you know what I would say, non-ministerial. Like 300 about use of force, in my opinion, for oh two taking out immigration, because all of the other policies that quote unquote conformed with the state definition of protected class didn't have immigration status taken out. You know, it just rearranged some words. You know, the First Amendment one I think means a little more community discussion and then, of course, to be able to pursue it. So, I mean, I'm fine with, you know, moving forward, these ministerial ones, which you can correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but that's 102 2338. 1059 804 343 2328 1000 1002 And you know, 1044 you know, there's a lot of a lot of, you know, changes that still looks ministerial to me. And I don't know if that really impacts people. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Councilor, over that was just a little bit slower. Okay. Again, these are my interpretations of ministerial. Others may have different opinion. 100 220. 338. 1059 Sorry to jump. 804 That's when you get more accurate. 338 1059 804 1803 40. Three 2340. I really do go back and forth. Sorry. 328. 1000. 1000 to and 1044. I mean, arguably four to his ministerial if you didn't take immigration status out. But I have a problem taking immigration status now. So. So what? That leaves. Am I, if I'm reading this correctly, is policies number 303. 4404. 68 and 042 because of the immigration base. And that's my personal issue. And as far as going forward. I think we did decide that we wanted to have these come to the council to review. I mean, the ministerial ones are really not interested in having a full blown regular agenda item on they could either be put on consent or, you know, delivered in some other form of communication. But, you know, these are at least three of these four, you know, deal with the issues that we've been wrestling with for, you know, four or five months now, the use of force and protesting against First Amendment and, you know, vehicle pursuits. So I'd like to see and I think the mayor talked about it and others of my colleagues, if we have to pass something to comply with state law, let's pass it. But for the most part on these, I think they need to go to these committees that we set up and that we delegated this responsibility and we're trusting to evaluate them. So I'm not really interested in short circuiting in that process, but if we have to do something now to comply, let's do it. But with the knowledge that these committees are going to look at these these these policies in particular and make them better. So that's kind of where I stand. In council, really. I agree with you on both points that you raised. I do think we need to move forward to comply with law. And I also think that we need to bring some of these more controversial ones, if you will, to the subcommittees. I don't think they're mutually exclusive propositions. We I think we need to keep some things moving forward to be compliant with state law. And then, I mean, we will always need to be compliant with state law, but I think we can get a little more individualized tailoring perhaps for this community within our ability to do so. Councilmember Dela. Yeah. And notwithstanding the changes required by state law, the committees have asked for significant amount of data and are reviewing the policies, is my understanding. So even if we did approve something, they're subject to the review or an input by the committees. It is what I've been led to believe. That's why energy. Is that correct, Mr. Levitt? Yeah, no. I would agree that they are reviewing different things and they could definitely review any of these that you would approve. Yes. So my other question is, have they been made aware about the the timeline for changes when they had their first meetings? And were they do they know that these proposals or were they alerted that these proposals were put on our agenda? I did tell the steering committee that we were coming forward with some of these basic changes based on the state law. I was not at the last step, at the last meetings where they had with the various committees, because it was scheduled during a city council meeting. So I couldn't be there. So I couldn't say whether that was communicated. Again, any of these changes could be go back to them. Our policy manuals, approximately between 708 hundred pages. I think, you know, in other organizations I've been in just in a thorough review of policies with a team of attorneys and people out of the police department. I've seen those reviews go somewhere in the neighborhood of a year and a half to two years before you get to a conclusion, and that's with experts in the field. So so I think they need to follow course on different policies. And I think what you're doing here is the same type of focus they should be doing to. And can somebody. Yeah, I was going to make a motion. Okay. Could I just make a comment really quickly? Of course. What I was going to say is, I think I heard the vice mayor suggest that we get some of these quickly to the policy committees and come back on November 7th, the next meeting. I don't think that's really practical for this reason that the short turnaround time for this staff report to go out. So you stop and think of getting some substantive material to subcommittees. They need to convene me, review it, get it back to staff. And I don't think that it works to come back to us on the seventh, but I, I think there may be a solution. I don't want to speak for other people, but that may satisfy all of our our concerns. Back to you, Councilmember. Oh. Well, let's try this. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. So I'd like to move, first of all, approval of the one, two, three, four, three, the 11 ones that I thought were ministerial. If someone else has a disagreement, they could they could adjust that. I'd like to move approval of 402 without striking immigration status from the policy and then with approval of 300 468 and 314, but also refer those as high priority items for the Task Force Less Community Committee with a note that we want to see an amendment to 300, whether it's a footnote or some other item, noting that the state ban the chokeholds and then. Yeah, but the. I'm open to any other suggestions specifically, but I really don't want to get too much into the weeds on telling the committee committee what to do and those other three. But essentially you were moving them all forward, some with caveats. Yeah, moving forward for 40402 striking immigration status and the other three, you know, moving forward also, but doing it in a way that we give them to the committee right away and say these are three that were approved. We want you to weigh in on these in a kind of urgent basis, but also with some direction that on 300, which is the use of force we do when it comes from the rebels suggested and note that even though these things are not listed in there, they were banned. Just so the public understands that they're banned, whether it's a footnote or whether it's not in the policy or whatever, it doesn't matter to me. And I have a question for stab it for the city attorney's office. So are you all working or at least consulting with the subcommittees so that if they come up with suggestions for modifications or additions, modifications to policies that they would pass legal muster. We we'd be happy to work with the subcommittee and our colleagues to provide our legal advice at all levels, whether it's with our colleagues on the staff level, with the committees and with the council. Thank you. City attorney Shane Katz everyday. Thank. And at that other microphone Tony. Just a question to clarify the motion on the floor. And the question is, are would we, in effect, move all 15? Although in the text it says 16. But would we, in effect, move all of the policy changes, both ministerial and the more substantive ones? Is that is that at a minimum, what's on the floor? Maker of the motion. Everything would be as is with the exception of not striking immigration status from 402 and putting some some note in 300 about what the state banned. Oh, okay. Thank you. Did you want a second? Okay, I don't want a second. And then count my marriage next. Right. I will second the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? Can I can I ask that? I just I would like to cancel my permit. I would like the motion to include just the caveat because I we had comment about that chokeholds and we know that we're moving some some things forward because we have to. But there was interest in going forward that this is not the end, this is just a step. But that that doesn't mean that we will not be taking future action as it relates to it. Can't wait and whatnot. As well. Yeah. Like that. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And as I noted earlier, the council will take action once we've heard from our subcommittees on a number of things. Yeah. Okay, great. All right. So we have a motion by Councilmember Odie. It's been circulated by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any further discussion from our police and legal folks? Anything you want to add? No, thank you. No, thank you. All right. Thank you. All right, madam, may we have a new. Excuse me? A roll call, please? Councilmember de SAG? Yes. Knox White. Hi. Odie. Hi. Isabella. I may or as he Ashcraft. High. That carries by five eyes. All right. I want to thank everyone involved with this matter, all the members of the police department, city attorney's office, city manager Levitt, the Council of our Public Speakers. Thank you. I will you know, I will say we are learning as we go. And I think that I do think we are communicating more, but we can always do better and we're going to move forward. So thank you all for your time and attention to these important matters. All right. With that, let's see. There was one other closed calendar item we pulled. By. J5j. Yes. Okay. Madam President. Five J. C recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Res Electric for the signal installation at Harbor Bay Parkway. North and South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway and Penumbra Place and South Apron in an amount not to exceed 280,894. Total expenditure of 873,690. An adoption of related resolution. Okay. Council Member Did you want to have a report on this or did you just want to know? I have more quest questions that are kind of comments, but question the issue at the same time. Go ahead. Okay. So my my my question is, just because I wasn't I wasn't sure in terms of the email response that I got. Now, did we spend $592,800 and then realize that we need to get 280,890 more? Or had we not yet spent the initial 592,800 and still realize that we need $280,000 more? Because I'm asking this question, because it seems to me is that if we spent 589,000. $592,800 and then realized, oh, my gosh, we have to do 280,000 more. And I would have a kind of a problem with that because it would kind of speak to did we really carefully scope out what the what the issues were with regard to this this project? So that's the first thing. The second thing is I will pay for it with the second thing in law, if we had not spent the $592,800 yet and still realize that we need 200 anymore, if if it's this situation, it seems to me, should we not put it out to rebidding? So anyways, that's those are my questions. And those are good questions. I had some of the same questions that I asked earlier, and I see that we have our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom on the screen. But City Manager Eric Leavitt, did you want to speak? Yeah. I'll just say real quick. Yes, it's I believe it was a 592 and that there were these issues which are outlined in the staff report, which Scott can definitely go into that created that we needed. We have had an excess on the project of 280,000 that we needed additional 280,000. It was not when the project started. It was as the project was ending that this occurred, this project one over time. I think this project was initially approved back in 2019. So Scott, if you could outline some of the issues that it faced that created this need that be great. Thank you, sir. Madam Mayor, members of the Council, Scott Wickstrom, city engineer. Just a brief outline. And it was it's kind of halfway between your two options. Councilmember design. We got the project started, and shortly after we got out there and started drilling the foundations, we realized that we had some problems with some some some sand that were not characterized properly in our initial evaluation. And so we ended up spending a significant more amount of money on the foundations. Now that's after all the polls and all the equipment's already been ordered, a lot of that stuff. As for traffic signals, you have 20 week lead times, so that stuff has already kind of preordered and on its way . We were almost too far to go back. The issue with the AMP and the power services, you know, that was the act, as you can say, that we did not have clear enough communication with AMP as to what our true power source needs were and where our power supply was, which required a significant amount of additional attention . That is certainly a communication issue that ultimately falls on public works. We're not getting that identified in advance for sure. Okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to raise this question. Well, to me, I kind of felt the staff report wasn't clear as to whether or not we already spent it. And now we need more or we realize that, you know, it wasn't properly built out. So I think with the clarification that you provided, I understand. And and I do think that if staff can talk among themselves as to kind of internally, what kind of procedures you might take to kind of, you know, catch these situations earlier rather than later, because it seems as though you call it at the $592,800. And so and I recognize that, you know, things like this happen. And but, you know, we have to be very careful about the public's money. So unless anyone any other council members have any questions, I'm more than happy to move the staff's report. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, I appreciate you raising those questions. And just for the public that's listening, this is a really busy thoroughfare out of our Harvard Business Park and the intersection that goes into the penumbra complex, which I think is our largest private employer. And it's kind of scary out there at shift change around 330, 4:00, I was out there. And so this has been something that has been it's taken a while to go through. And when you do construction, there are sometimes those surprises when you start digging down. But thank you for raising those questions. And, Mr. Wickstrom, thank you for the explanations. Okay, we have a motion to move it. Councilmember Bella has seconded any further discussion questions. Do we ever will call the police? And somebody said. I. Knocked right. By. Odie. I. Avella by mayor as he Ashcraft high that carries by five. I thank you, everyone. Thank you Mr. Webster to you. Okay. Council, we've already accomplished item six eight. So we will finish the consent calendar. We're going to go into item six be and I think. Yeah, we'll have the public information officer and the rec and park director coming in and it's a recommendation to receive an update. Oh no, I'm reading the wrong title is a recommendation to establish an Alameda Youth Council commission.