Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

And they thought they listen. Alright. Yes.

I am

What type are you gonna do?

Right. Yeah. You know, those.

It the and

sorry.

Pursuant to the city council meeting rules adopted by resolution number 24,255, members of all boards and commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of all boards and commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the City Council or the presiding officer, constitutes a violation of these rules The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Good evening. We'd like to welcome you to the Community Police Review Commission meeting of December 10. This meeting is called to order. Would vice chair Gutierrez please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

I accept the We dislikes The United States, Erica, and Yuri Putman. They took stabbed by nature, under God, and the best cloth. They could buy the scarf.

And it will take a moment of silence. Thank you. Okay.

Commissioner Huntley?

Present.

Commissioner Dillon?

Here.

Commissioner Lundy?

Here.

Commissioner Ward?

Here.

Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Teichert? Here. Vice chair Bucharest? Here. And chair Bell?

Here.

Thank you. We have quorum.

Thank you. Now enter public comment. To comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Community Police Review Commission, you are invited to participate in person or call at (951) 826-8688. Press 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing 6 when you are ready to speak. Do we have any comments from our audience?

There is no comment crowds in the chamber, and there's none online.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion? Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar as is?

Thank you, commissioner Dillon. Second by commissioner Lundy. Please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Now we'll have a presentation by the city attorney's office regarding the Brown Act.

Good

evening, commissioners. Today, I'm here presenting a refresher on the Brown Act. And in addition there's been some changes pursuant to SB seven zero seven, some of which are material that I want to advise you of for the coming year. So what I'm going to do is I have a presentation here for you, and I'm not going to read for it word from word. A lot of it is information that's taken directly from the code, and I'm going to summarize it and then maybe make it a little interesting by providing some hypotheticals to challenge your ability to kind of look at some strange situations and see how you would apply the Brown Act.

Let's go ahead and get started. My goal is to reinforce how the main purpose of the Brown Act is to protect the public trust and if there's one thing that the entire Brown Act, including the changes into next year, can be distilled to is this: Transparency is the default. Lean towards more transparency. Usually it's the right answer. Private or closed door processes are the exception and they're governed by very specific rules.

So, as we move forward, I'm going to go into, like I said, a refresher because I know many of you have recently had training, but there's some new stuff that you might be interested in. So the first thing is the purpose, which I've already kind of overviewed. Transparency is the default, and York List Commission is considered the type of body that is subject to the Brown Act. And one of the key things that are going to be effective starting July 1 is stronger emphasis on virtual processes and communications. And the key difference is that there's going to be a mandatory requirement that we provide two way communications in some what seem to be unusual potential circumstances.

So let me stop here and kind of to reinforce it as a practical matter. I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm not going to put anybody on the spot or ask for a show of hands, but just kind of put in your own mind what you think the answer will be and then I'll tell you what I think the answer is. And I've researched it, so I'm cautiously optimistic that I'm right about this. Hypothetical is there's a system glitch after July 1 and in that glitch, there's a problem that we cannot unmute, so we don't have an ability to hear what they're saying but they can hear us.

The question is, does the meeting need to pause at that point? Yes or no? And the answer is absolutely yes because two way access is required for the meeting to remain compliant. So if we can't hear them, we have to pause the meeting until we can. Moving on, who the Act applies to, as I mentioned before, you're considered a body that's subject to the Brown Act, so it definitely applies to this body.

And one of the interesting updates here, it says under government code section five hundred forty nine and fifty two point seven, it mandates that upon the appointment of a new commissioner I'm going to make it specific to this commission, it would be to any member of a body. As soon as you're as practical as says, upon appointment, you must be provided training, and a minimum of which is a copy of the Act. It says here that the cities will comply with this. But now I want to give you a hypothetical. The hypothetical is you get a new commissioner who is sworn in on a Monday and attends a meeting on the next Wednesday, two days later.

Must the city have provided the Brown Act materials by that Wednesday meeting? Yes or no? The answer is yes. The phrase as soon as practical means promptly. Two days. That's how prompt.

Done.

I know that you generally know the Brown Act requirements procedural. And there's this other requirement that this Commission has to adopt rules for the conduct of business. And effective in 07/01/2026, Riverside has to adopt a written policy for handling disruptions, and not only for the community as a whole, the city council, but every single commission. And we're going to talk a little bit more in the presentation about kind of the contours of what disruption means and what are you obligated to do and how you can contain it if it happens. You can see that the underlying part is that the city's in the process of preparing a draft for this commission that will be presented to you for approval later next year.

Okay, meetings. So here's kind of the specific code requirements of a meeting. Essentially, any time a majority of the commissioners directly or indirectly discuss CPRC business together, that's a meeting. It's broader than just what happens here. It can be emails to each other.

It can be texts. It can be social media indirect communications. Even without a decision, the mere exchange of your views amongst each other could violate the act. So the danger zone here is accidental consensus building outside a meeting. And this gets a little fuzzy.

So I want to go ahead and do a few hypotheticals and see what you guys think. Staff emails a datasheet to all commissioners. Is that okay? It's okay. In fact, it's specifically allowed.

It clarifies the actual senate bill clarifies rules for permitted informational communications, including limited one way distribution of factual information and also some social media activity. We'll talk about that in a second. And you can see here at the bottom I said you've got to be really cautious about your social media interactions, and I'll kind of color that in here in these hypotheticals in a moment. Here's the second hypothetical. Staff emails the same exact sheets that we talked about before that was entirely permissible but adds the statement, Two commissioners liked Option B.

That okay? It's not okay. That's not okay. That's going to be really high risk. A case could be made that that's a serial meeting. Let's go a little further. A Commissioner, one of you, posts on social media, Here's the report the CPRC will discuss. Is that okay? Yes, if it's purely factual. That's A Okay.

However, if another commissioner replies on that social media post, I agree with Commissioner Brown that the policy is flawed. Is that okay? That's really getting close. I would say not okay. I would on the side of caution.

That's a very risky serial meeting. If there were two of you that did it, that would definitely be out of bounds. So it kind of segues nicely into what are these serial meetings? And the rule is that a serial meeting is a series of communications each of which involves less than a quorum of the CPRC but which, taken as a whole, involves a majority of the CPRC members. It doesn't actually require a collective concurrence in order for there to be a violation.

Now, city staff is allowed to engage separately with each of you concerning issues before you, particularly in order to answer any questions you have or provide information regarding a matter. Those individual one on one communications with staff absolutely inbounds. It's when there's any type of communications on your views that get to others. And one other is risky. Two others is where you're going to have a serial meeting.

And I'm going to talk about it a little bit more because I've got some kind of more specific to HPMCPRC hypotheticals coming up that'll help kind of flesh out the play in the joints. Again, the Senate bill clarified one way distribution of purely factual information by staff to multiple commissions is allowed, as long as it doesn't reveal other commissioners' views or endeavors to facilitate any type of an agreement. You'll hear that probably several times during this presentation. That's really the main takeaway one of the main takeaways of SB seven zero seven that will be effective at the middle of next year. Now, let me move on to public speech, which you guys are well aware.

Public comment rights apply equally to in person and remote attendees. We may use time limits and rules of order, but we cannot block participation because someone refuses to give their name or is commenting remotely. We cannot demand they identify themselves. They can voluntarily do so and we can ask them if they want to do so, but they still get to participate. And really, the thing I want to emphasize is that now effective July way remote public comment is a right in the state of California.

Let's do a couple hypotheticals just for fun. A remote caller wants to comment on an item that's already been closed. Is that okay? The answer is it's the same rule as in person. The chair may decline, but if the body wants to reopen it, they can. Here's another one. A disruptive remote speaker refuses to stay on topic and will not mute. Anything you can do about that? Well, that's what's going to be in the next slides. Here we go.

The CPRC may impose reasonable restrictions on public comment so long as the restrictions are not too broad and do not constitute prior restraints. Well, those are a lot of legally explosive terms. They basically want you to bend over backwards to give them an opportunity to respond or to comment, but they are subject to reasonable rules that you impose consistently, courtesy, and try to find a workaround to get past the disruptive part to let them have their say. You can see here the tip is when in doubt, it's best to allow the public to speak. Because remember, what the Brown Act is designed to do is to protect public trust, and that only happens when the public can participate.

So transparency, letting people be heard, is really the rule it has been in Riverside from my experience. You can ask them to fill out a speaker's card, but that can they don't have to, whether they're in person or remote. Usually, the reason why cities do it is not to identify them or to isolate them or to keep them from being protected. It's because they want to communicate with them. They want to reach out to them and if they have concerns, address those concerns.

But if people don't want to give their name, they absolutely do not need to. So the time limits are okay and the chair has the responsibility for enforcing the time limit, which is just exactly what we do now. The next thing is this is new in SB seven zero seven is that agendas must clearly describe each action and must now include remote access instructions. If over 20% of the residents have limited English proficiency in any language, 20%, the city must provide the translation and interpretation services. So, the agenda must be in their language, that group, and if someone from that group wants to speak, they must be able to present it in their indigenous language with a translator.

As you can see here, the city clerk is going to be compiling that data and making sure that the cities and all the commissions and boards are compliant. The agenda is something that you're very familiar with. I've stated it there, and we've already talked quite a bit about remote access and how it's now a right. And here are some of the exceptions. What these exceptions are about is when you can talk about things that have not been agendized, and they're kind of listed here if there are clarifications, questions, or if, you know, these different items.

They're fairly rare but not entirely uncommon. But they're basically just to understand enough so that you can address the issue probably in an agendized item later on. Sunshine ordinance. So the city has adopted Sunshine ordinance and what it does is Riverside has made a decision that they want their rules to be more stringent than the Brown Act. We want to be the most transparent city in the state of California and they've taken a lot of action to become that.

So even though the Brown Act allows more time or less time, rather, to bring an issue before a commission or a board. The city has more restrictive ones that make it have more time than what the Brown Act requires. So you can think of the Sunshine Ordinance in Riverside as Riverside's Transparency Plus. So let's go ahead and try a hypothetical here. A report arrives ten days before the meeting and the Sunshine Ordinance although it would be okay under the Brown Act, under the Sunshine Ordinance, it's not there's not enough time.

Can it now be added? So the answer is only if it qualifies as supplemental material under the enumerated exceptions. And what are those? Here they are. There's a need to take immediate action on an item to avoid a substantial impact if the matter was deferred because that's all that happens.

If it's untimely, it just goes to the next meeting and it'll be published timely. Or it's some other type of an emergency that would avoid a work stoppage if it was heard timely. There's a few others in the Riverside Municipal Code. They're rare, but they happen. And then there's a procedure in order to allow for that lesser time notice.

It requires a certain vote by the body. Supplemental materials. Essentially here, supplements are allowed only for emergency additions, deletions, corrections, or new information. The idea is you cannot use supplemental materials to sneak a brand new controversial policy or agenda item. So, that's rare in the CPRC, but there is a limited section, but you have to qualify under one of these.

Rules. Concerning remote participation, this would affect all of you potentially. They broadened the rules to allow more just cause rationale if there's a reason why one of the commissioners or one of the members can't appear in person. And I want to kind of go over those. These rules will be effective July 1.

So essentially, one part of the rule is if you're disabled, you have a stronger reasonable accommodation that's specified in the rules, and then they expand what constitutes just cause that would allow you to not appear here in person but remotely. So if I can kind of summarize this, the new rules Just Cause would be like a limited use whole PLAS. You can you kind of can get away you don't have to be here and you can virtually appear, but you have to use it sparingly. So let's go ahead and take a look at the rules. So if you have a statutory disability, so it's going to be something that's identified as a disability by statute, you can participate remotely.

And the rules are you have to use a two way audio and video so they have to be able to see you and hear you, and you must disclose any adults with you in the room that you're in that are over 18. And here's some of the additional just cause that would support you being able to be not present in person and be able to do it remotely: childcare, a contagious illness, military service, a natural disaster, or travel unofficial business, a physical or mental condition, immunocompromised family members, or medical emergency. Now, the rules are that you can do this up to two times in a calendar year and you must notify as soon as possible. I've seen the city of Riverside is kind of Brown Act forward that they're doing a lot of this stuff already. And I saw in a council meeting a few weeks ago where one of the council members had a childcare issue and she had to leave halfway through the meeting and she participated remotely.

They went and checked to see how many times she had done that and she was able to participate in that way. But what she did was she notified the council on the day she didn't know any earlier than that so that during the meeting, she had notified them that she had childcare problems. They researched the rules and that was enough notice because that's the earliest that she knew as she was coming into the meeting. And in that situation, it requires as long as you have the audio visual and that you disclose any adults in the room, you'll be okay. So here's a hypothetical.

One of you travels for work, and you use the just cause exception twice in the month of September, which would not be really good here because we only meet once a month. Let's say twice in the fall. Once in the September meeting, once in the October meeting. In November, you get that same person, you get COVID. Can you attend remotely a third time under Just Cause?

Absolutely not. You may be able to participate remotely but not under Just Cause. There would have to be another reason such as an ADA accommodation or some other teleconferencing rule, but you can't use this one. They're very strict. They'll be very strict on the two times only.

So here's a summary of the presentation. The key seven zero seven changes affecting the expanded Commissioner remote participation, two way remote public access. You're going to have to develop a disruption procedure for remote attendees. Possible obligation there will be an obligation. We'll have to provide some language access services because we do have more than 20% that may not speak English here in the city.

Required training and onboarding materials swiftly. Expanded public remote access sunsets. What that means is that this rule will end on 01/01/2030 unless it's revived and that any violations could lead to criminal charges. There'll be misdemeanors but criminal charges nonetheless and the City currently does most of these. Now, keep in mind that violations can invalidate actions and serious cases lead to the criminal liability.

Fortunately, Riverside already meets most of these requirements and we mainly just need to stay disciplined. In closing, the Brown Act is not a barrier. It's a tool for legitimacy. When SB seven zero seven takes effect in July, this will be a great time to reinforce our best practices. What I do want to do is, as I was looking through this, I want to kind of give you a list of dos or tips for success.

Before the meeting, avoid discussing CPRC business with more than one other Commissioner. Do not respond to commissioner emails with opinions. Ask staff to answer information distribution. Review the agenda and materials posted under the Sunshine Ordinance and confirm whether you need to use one of the Just Cause or disability rules for remote attendance. During the meeting, always speak through the chair, avoid side conversations, ensure remote attendees can both hear and speak, Enforce time limits fairly and consistently.

Keep comments within the subject matter jurisdiction of agenda item. Disclose required information if attending remotely via accommodation or just cause. That's to say that if you have people over the age of 18, you have to publicly disclose that. Public comment rules: Speaker cards may be encouraged, but they're not mandatory. Do not require names or personal information. Apply time limits consistently. And allow wide latitude in public criticisms of policies or conduct. Avoid serial meetings. Do not reply all to Commissioner emails. Never do it.

Don't do it. Don't do it. Avoid commenting on social media threads about SPRC matters. If you see another Commissioner post an opinion, do not engage. Online silence is safest. And then after the meeting, avoid debriefing about CPRC business with a commissioner quorum and direct follow-up questions to staff. And let me give you some do's and don'ts. Do keep transparency as the default. Use staff for one way factual updates. Funnel questions through staff.

Keep all discussions within notice meetings. Allow full public participation. Apply time limits consistently. Disclose required information when participating remotely, review agendas and translated materials as posted, and finally, pause or recess the meeting if two way access fails. Here are the do nots: Don't discuss CPRC business with more than one other Commissioner outside a meeting.

Don't hit Reply All on Commission emails. Don't engage on social media about CPRC matters. Don't share another commissioner's view with staff or other commissioners. Don't assume silence avoids a violation. Exposure to others' opinions in a shared thread can still violate the Act. Don't require public speakers to provide their name. Don't shut out the public for disruptions as a first resort. It may be okay to do it after other things are done first. Don't add late materials and don't exceed just cause remote attendance limits. So what I want to do here is offer you a couple of things.

One is open the floor to questions if you have any and ask if you're interested in a few more hypotheticals just to kind of test it out. You decide. Can do it either way.

Any questions?

Just one. You on the don't assume silence, can you explain that? Yeah. Let let me I wanna give you a can I'm gonna do it in the context of a hypothetical because I don't theoretical can sometimes not stick as well. Because I actually looked at this hypothetical, I ran a few through some of the AIs just to see if I can get something kind of fun and interesting and even I was like, I'd ask you, what?

So let me tell you this one. It's a hypothetical okay. So this is going to be kind of CPRC specific, kind of, and it has to do with serial emails. I think that's the context where silence could be problematic. So here's the hypothetical. Staff emails commissioners a confidential case summary. Commissioner A replies all. This looks like a clear policy violation. Commissioner B replies all. Agreed.

Commissioner c clicks thumbs up, just like a thumbs up. Is that an illegal serial meeting? The answer is yes. It is. The reason it's a because my thought is like that's just three commissioners. It's not a quorum. Nobody's made a decision. There's not been a decision made outside the process. But let me explain the rationale through the prism of the Brown Act. In this hypothetical, the CPRC has nine commissioners, so majority consensus is five.

And here's how the majority was formed. Commissioner A, B, and C, that's clear, right? They gave the opinion, the second one said, Yeah, and the other one said, Thumbs up. We all know what that means. That's only three. How do we get to five to get the consensus? Even though only three participated, the key is this: a serial meeting can occur when separate communications taken together involve a majority. So even though you were all on it, most of you would have said nothing. This is hypothetical I'm not suggesting this has ever happened. You were cc'd on it.

You said nothing but you become a part of the consensus by saying nothing. So because the email was sent to all nine, those who didn't respond were still included in the chain. When three commissioners expressed view on the shared thread, the communication has now been circulated to a majority, everybody, and conveyed the opinions of at least three. Under the Brown Act, this is enough to create a collective concurrence among the majority. So even though three didn't say, Yeah, me, I believe that too, that under the Brown Act, because you're aware of it even though you said nothing, you're aware of it and you could have a consensus.

So silence your part of the violation. So the majority was not formed by five people expressing opinions but a majority of the body being included in a communication where commissioner exchanged views. So the idea is it's not just the decision that the public's entitled to by this Commission, it's the entire deliberative process, how you got to whatever it is that you decide. The public's entitled to that and if you do it outside of their purview, it displaces that public trust that things are happening behind closed doors or in secret and it's an anathema to the idea of transparency. Did I answer your question?

Okay. I have a few more hypotheticals if you wanna go through them, but it's getting late, and I know that there's another presentation after this, and we've done quite a few. You you tell me how I can help you.

Commissioner Ward has a question.

Yes, commissioner?

Just a quick question. If someone on that chain that you just described said, hey. We ought not be talking about this because it's a violation. Does that reset it okay or is it still a violation?

It's still a violation. K. It's still a violation by everybody. Now is it gonna be prosecuted? No. Could it be? Yeah. It's a criminal. That's a misdemeanor. So we won't take it very seriously but once the damage is done it's still a violation. You can limit the damages obviously. Look I said this we all agreed we regretted it, we're sorry, we disclosed it. Yeah. There's a way to kind of undo it a little bit, but it's still a violation.

I just have a a just a quick comment. I know we have a large deaf community and you mentioned the agendas and stuff like that for interpretation. RPD has, I believe, it's called, like, the purple iPad that they use. Just maybe I don't know if that's something that the the city could look at and even just having here because there's board meetings, commission, you know, we never know who's gonna come in and speak. But just having something like that available just so that way we're always in compliance with this.

That's a great point. Obviously, the assistant or the city manager's office is aware of it now. I consider sign language to be a legitimate language. And if it meets the metric of 20% or more, we have to do it. But if it doesn't meet it and say it's 19% or 15%, we still have that as that substantial community and it would seem like we have the resources we should do it. I I would agree with you.

Especially since we have a very large population, especially with CSDR being here.

It's true. It's true. Anything else I can

help you? Or comments? Thank you, miss Cook. Now we'll move on to the discussion calendar. We have the training on internal affairs investigative process.

Good evening, members of the commission. One of the things that we had discussed over the last couple months with some of this city manager staff and also with with Frank is since we have so many new commissioners over the past year, I know we haven't done a one on one training with some of you. So what we're proposing is that there's four different dates maybe that we can get together and pick two of them. That way we comply with the Brown Act, and we can sit down and all of you can sit sit down in our internal affairs, meet the staff, get to understand what goes into a IA investigation and the process. I know, chair Bell has had some questions about, how it routes and how things are figured out and how we come to determinations on findings, And we can cover all that stuff and answer all the questions one on one.

And the only way to do that is to split everybody in half so we don't have quorum and and kinda introduce you to the concepts and how we conduct an IA investigation so you all better understand it. So that's it. So there's four dates. I don't know if we have them up on the okay. So there's four dates that we can propose. I don't have them in front of me. I thought, sorry, they're gonna be on the screen, but Ruby might have them for us.

The first date is Tuesday, January 13 at 10AM. Tuesday, January 13 at 2PM, or Thursday, January 15 at 10AM or at 2PM.

So if you can, respond to Ruby and when you might be able to possibly attend this, if you're interested in going, please reach out and let us know.

If you wanted to vote do you wanna take a vote tonight?

Yeah. I think that I I don't know.

I I think it may be beneficial. I know, commissioner Tyker's not here. She's probably pretty familiar with it. She's been on the she's welcome to attend, but yeah. Obviously, but she's pretty familiar. She's been around for a few years. Some of you have not. So

So does

Yeah.

Irma fire?

Well, is there any dates I know for myself, like, thirteenth? You know? Is the best day for me out of the two? 10:10 or two doesn't really matter. Do we want them both on the same day, or Does it matter if

it's both? Matters. If the if the commission just wants to pick two different time slots and Okay. Pick yep. Absolutely. Whatever of those four works for all of you. Okay.

Is there any other day that anybody needs to that works better for the other

I helped with this line of dark sleeping ladies. Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay. So I may be the only person. What about you? I'm sure you're good to hear. Vice chair.

I I'm conflicted on both dates on all four times. What

do you think the best way would be to to vote? Or do we just pick a day and just do each one, each time slot, and then vote to see who wants to join it?

So who's available on the thirteenth at 10AM? Who's available on Tuesday, January 13 at 10AM?

Five.

So all five of you. So we could take four and then commissioner Dillon or commissioner Ward, since you're flexible, we can move you to the second date. Does that work? Okay. So I'm gonna have I'm gonna put down commissioner Huntley. Who did I choose? Commissioner Lundley and then Chair Bell. And when are you available, commissioner Ernesto? Okay. So we have three for one, and then we can do three now.

The fifteenth? Thursday. So does 10AM work for the three of you? Okay. And 10AM works for you, Cherry Bell?

Yes.

Okay. So then on 01:15, I'll have commissioner Dillon. And then possibly you can go to either one because there's only three right now. Do you plan on attending? No. I'm conflicted out. So for now, we have one for the fifteenth and possibly two less than two hours. Correct?

Yeah. I mean, it it it'll probably take anywhere from an hour to two. Just depends how many questions you have. It doesn't matter to us. Whatever works for everybody. Yeah.

Listen, Magnolia.

It'll be at Magnolia.

What's that? Yeah.

It's probably closer for you.

So I 02:58.

Commissioner Dillon, does that work for you? 2PM?

On which?

The fifteenth?

Yep. Okay.

And commissioner Gutierrez, if you're interested in the materials, like, you can't make one of the training days, I can always provide the materials to Ruby, and she could probably send them out to you.

I I did notice that there is a tentative hold on my calendar that I might be able to arrange, but that would land me on the 02:00 on the fifteenth, and if that's okay.

That would be perfect.

So I have on January 13 at 10AM, commissioner Hundley, commissioner Lundley, chair bell, and commissioner Ward. So it's 10AM on the thirteenth. And then on the fifteenth at 2PM, I have commissioner Dillon, possibly commissioner Ferguson. That would be the only available slot for Tykert if she's available to come, and then possibly, yes, vice chair of Bucharest.

Sounds good. Okay. Thank you, everybody.

Okay. We're good.

We did not. Do we have any comments from our audience?

There are no comments in your chamber.

I don't know if there's anyone online yet.

Alright.

Alright. Do do I need to read? Alright. At this time, we invite public comment regarding the item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688. To comment on this item, press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select raise the hand function to speak. You have three minutes. You have no comment from the audience or callers? Any other comments from the commissioners?

The only comment I have is the questions that are asked in each session, is it possible without violating the Brown Act that those questions, like the FAQs, could be sent to each session? So that way, the questions that the second group of commissioners asked, the first group is also knowledgeable on them and vice versa, or how would we handle that?

I don't understand the question. Help me understand it.

So So during the during the training at

For Brown Act or for anything? For

this IA investigation.

Oh, the IA investigation.

So January checking. January 13 at 10AM, there'll be four commissioners. And we're separating the training so we don't violate Brown Act. But the questions that the first group asks, will those questions and answers be made available to the second group commissioners going to training? And the questions that they're asking, can first group be made aware of those? And how do we do that?

So how I would handle that is that I would recommend that the staff keep track of them and that as long as it's purely factual information that's being requested and you're not conveying any opinions, then it can be shared.

Okay. Thank you.

Alrighty. Commission manager, please announce the closed session.

We have one closed session case. PC number or case number PC25Dash09040. And we are adjourning for closed session at 06:22.

Thank you. From closed session. We'll move on to communications. Item number eight, city attorney report on closed session actions.

No reportable actions.

Brief report on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the CPRC. So, in October, I went to the NACOLE conference in Minneapolis. If you get an opportunity to go, I would highly suggest it. I know in our bylaws, they there's it recommends at least one person going in our updates to the policies and bylaws, procedures, and everything, we actually recommend potentially adding a second person. There's so many different sessions to go to that you kinda miss out on a good portion of the conference because you're in other sessions.

But, yeah, it's a very it's a great way to network and just really kind of see how well our our commission operates compared to some of the others and how lucky we are to have some of the the oversight that we get. Some of the commissions, they don't actually get to see anything from the investigation. They're more of just a a liaison. Citizens will come to them to file the complaint, and that's kind of where they go. But then there's others that have a lot more, authority where they're actually doing findings, doing discipline.

They're doing they're actually working with the fire department and doing those investigations as well. So yeah. So if you get an opportunity to go, the next one is in October 2026, and it's gonna be in Kentucky in Louisville. So but yeah. Cool. Item 10, Riverside Police Department updates. Nothing from the captain. Awesome. City manager's office updates.

This is our last meeting for the year. Our IT department sends out an annual cybersecurity training and if you received an email please complete it. I think the deadline had passed but there is somebody on this commission that needs to complete it. Thank you.

Very good.

Items for future Community Police Review Commission consideration as requested by members of the CPRC. Only items that fall within the powers of the duties of the CPRC are set forth in the city charter and or Riverside Municipal Code will be agendized for future discussion. Just as an update for this before we kind of move on to the next thing, Commissioner Tyker, Commissioner Ward, and myself, we did go through the policies, procedures, and bylaws, that ad hoc. We have submitted those to be agendized for January. So we will be able to present to the commission updates to that.

Frank did submit some comments, and we took those into consideration when we're going through. So that'll be presented in January, hopefully, if we can get it on the agenda with possibility of voting on them, the changes, I believe, in February. I think that's how I think we have to do thirty days or something. Do we have any update on the ad hoc for RIPA?

No update. As it stands right now, we'll likely get started after the first of the year.

Very good. Commissioner Huntley, I see that you requested to speak.

I just had a I did attend a webinar on November, excuse me, November 18, which was quite informative with the Bureau of Investigation for Homicide. One of the things that really caught my attention was the presentation done by the coroner's office, county coroner office, seeing the procedure on how they handle, you know, coming out and responding. So I thought it was very informative. Very good. Thank you.

I apologize for missing your name on there. Commissioner Dillon.

Quick follow-up. I think Frank had sent out a link to the LA County Commission. I did watch that recording. There was some interesting info there too if you get an opportunity to watch that.

Very good.

Frank.

Yes. For your, future agenda in January, I'd like to make a recommendation that you put onto the agenda the development selection

of

an ad hoc that could meet with RPD command staff. They're looking at updating their complaint policies and procedures and they would like to submit or get some input from members of the commission before they make any final decisions on their updates. At this point, agenda is to develop an ad hoc to assist department RPD with the updating of their complaint policies and procedures.

Very good.

Anything else? Alrighty. Well, it is, 704. Thank you for I'm sorry. The next regular community police review commission is scheduled for Wednesday, 01/28/2026. The meeting is adjourned at 07:04