Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Can we play the recording, please?

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the 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 the 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 Board or Commission 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 July 22nd. This meeting is called to order. Would Commissioner Ferguson please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. We'll have a moment of silence. Thank you. Roll call.

Chair Bell?

Here.

Vice Chair Gutierrez?

Here.

Commissioner Ward?

Here.

Commissioner Lundy? Here. Commissioner Hundley?

Present.

Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Dillon?

Here.

And Commissioner Teichert? Here. Thank you. We have quorum.

Thank you. Now I'll enter a public comment. To comment on matters within the jurisdiction of this community police review commission, you are invited to participate in person or call at 951-826-8688. Press star 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing star 6 when you're ready to speak. Do we have any comments from our audience? Any callers?

Commissioner Perkins?

So I just wanted to acknowledge I have two guests that are observing, and they are with the Bank of America Student Leader Program. They're interning with Habitat, Shreya and Jolene.

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

Motion to approve.

Thank you, Commissioner Hundley. I'll second. I think that was Commissioner Lundy. Second. Go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. We'll now move to the discussion portion of the agenda. We have the Review Code of Ethics in Conduct, Tola Perkins.

Thank you, Chair Beall. My name is Tola Perkins and I will be providing you with the Riverside Municipal Code 2.78 Code of Ethics and Conduct Annual Review for you, all of you, for the Community Police Review Commission from the Board of Ethics. Next slide. The purpose of the Code of Ethics and Conduct pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.020, to achieve fair, ethical, and accountable local government for the City of Riverside. Public officials are expected to comply with the provisions of this Code of Ethics and Conduct and shall aspire to meet the standards in the conduct of their responsibility as a public official of the City of Riverside. Next slide. The scope, pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.030, public officials subject to the code, number one, mayor, number two, city council members, number three, all members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees appointed by the city council and or mayor. Next slide. Implementation. Pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.040. A. Upon election, re-election, appointment, or reappointment, public officials shall be given a copy and required to affirm receipt and understanding. B. Within 90 days of taking office, public officials shall receive training. C. city attorney or designee shall serve as resource to assist public officials in understanding and abiding by the code. Next slide. Continuous of implementation. D, all bodies whose members are covered by this chapter shall adopt rules of procedure, which include provisions of this code. E, chair of each body is responsible to provide appropriate guidance to its members and, if needed, communicate concerns to Board of Ethics. F, only those who live, work within the asterisk mark that's blue, including vendors and contractors, which was adopted on January 27, 2026 by the city council, or attend school in Riverside, may bring a complaint unless alleged violation took place outside city limits and complaining party personally witnessed or observed the alleged violation. Next slide. Going into core values pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.050. A, to strive to create a government that is trusted by everyone. B, to strive to make decisions that are unbiased, fair, and honest. C, to strive to ensure that everyone is treated with respect and in a just and fair manner. Next slide. Going into core values. to strive to create a community that affirms the value of diversity. E, to strive to ensure that all public decisions are well-informed, independent, and in the best interest of the city of Riverside. F, to strive to maintain a nonpartisan and civic-minding local government. Next slide. Continuous of core values. G, to strive to ensure that all public officials are adequately prepared for the duties of their office. H, to strive to ensure that appointed members of boards, commissions, and committees attend regularly scheduled meetings. Next slide. We would like to take note for this particular core values letter. I was actually adopted from city council on May 19th, 2026. Digital communications must reflect the city's commitment. The city's commitment is to impartiality, fairness, and integrity. Online activity, messages or actions should not create or appear to create bias, partisanship, or predisposition on city matters that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the public official and or quasi-judicial procedures. Next slide. Going into prohibited conduct pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.060. A, use of official title or position for personal gain, prohibited. B, use of divulgence of confidential or privilege information, prohibited. C, use of city resources for non-city purposes, prohibited. D, advocacy of private interest or third parties in certain circumstances prohibited. E, endorsements for compensation prohibited. Next slide. Continuous of prohibited conduct. F, violation of government code sections 87100. Regulating financial interest and governmental decisions made by public officials prohibited. G, search and political activity, prohibited. H, display of campaign materials in or on city field codes, prohibited. I, knowingly assisting another public official in violating this code of ethics and conduct, also prohibited. Next slide. Continuous of prohibited conduct. J, negotiation for employment with any party having a matter pending prohibited. K, ex parte contact in quasi-judicial matters prohibited. L, attempts to coerce official duties prohibited. M, violations of local law prohibited. N, convictions of federal or state law affecting their office prohibited. I would like to take note that letter O was adopted by the city council on May 19, 2026, which reads, digital misconduct is also prohibited. Next slide. Next slide. Going into written complaint procedures, pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.070, A, only alleged violations of prohibited conduct shall be grounds for a complaint. Please take note that the blue asterisk verbiage City Council adopted amendment on January 27, 2026, which states complainants are covered by whistleblower policies and the city will not retaliate nor tolerate retaliation against those who, in good faith, report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse, or participate in an investigation of a suspected crime. violation next slide continuous of written complaint procedures pursuant to riverside municipal code 2.78.070 b complaints are submitted on forms available from the city clerk c complaints and evidence are filed within the city clerk with the city clerk d complaints must be filled out completely in accordance with this chapter next slide Continuous written complaint procedures. E, complaints must be filed no later than one year of alleged violation. F, city clerk reviews for completeness. G, any filed complaint not in compliance shall be administratively rejected by the city clerk within the approval of the chair of the board of ethics. Next slide. Going into pre-conference procedures. Pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.075. A, complainants may submit one revised complaint only to add additional allegations within 30 days of the original filing. B, city clerk sets matter for a pre-conference for no later than 45 city business days. And C, city clerk provides a copy of of complaint to public officials within 10 calendar days. Next slide. Continuous of pre-conference procedures, D, Board of Ethics, also known as BOE, conducts a pre-conference prior to a hearing date set by the city clerk. All parties are to attend the pre-conference. However, the absence of a party shall not be grounds for a continuance. The pre-conference shall be conducted as follows. One, BOE reviews complaint to determine if it complies with all of the following to establish jurisdiction of the BOE. A, complaint procedures have been followed. B, complaint is against a public official. C, complaint alleges a violation of prohibited conduct. D, complaint does not restate violations of previous complaint. Next slide. Continuous of Pre-Conference Procedures 2. If majority of the BOE determines that the complaint does not comply with the provisions mentioned in the prior slide, the Chair states the findings of deficiency and calls for a vote of the BOE to dismiss the complaint without a hearing. The statement of findings is adopted at the next meeting and it is the final decision of the BOE. If a majority of the BOE determines that the complaint complies with all of the provisions mentioned in the prior slide, then the pre-conference proceeds. Three, the BOE shall facilitate settlement discussions between the parties by allowing the parties to confer privately to determine if a resolution can be reached. If so, then no hearing is necessary. If not, the pre-conference continues. Next slide. continuous of pre-conference procedures four. The BOE reviews the submitted tangible evidence to determine if it is relevant to the issues raised in the complaint. If it is determined by majority of vote that such evidence is irrelevant, then such evidence will be deemed inadmissible at the hearing and shall be excluded. Five, the complainant may verbally present any and all evidence that will be presented at the hearing to prove allegations in the complaint. The public official has same opportunity. Six, the BOE shall determine by majority of vote whether the complainant has shown that the evidence more likely than not shows that there may be a potential violation of the prohibited conduct. Please take note to the asterisk in blue. All evidence shall be taken in its totality with the equal weight given to both parties. City Council adopted that measure on January 27, 2026. Next slide. Pre-conference procedures continues. If it is determined by the BOE that the evidence shows it is more than likely, then not that there may be a potential violation of the prohibited conduct has occurred. Then a hearing panel is selected by random draw of the BOE members to consist of five members and one alternate. The city clerk sets a hearing date for no later than 45 city business days following the pre-conference. Eight, if it is determined by the BOE that the complainant failed to show that it is more likely than not that there may be a potential violation of the prohibited conduct, the chair of the BOE instructs the city clerk to prepare a statement of findings for adoption at the next regular meeting of the BOE. This statement of findings is the final decision of the BOE. Next slide. Going into hearing procedures. Pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.080. A, public official shall file a written reply no later than 20 calendar days prior to the hearing date. B, city clerk shall provide copy of written reply to complainant no later than 10 city business after receipt. C, board of ethics shall have authority to adopt hearing procedures not in conflict with this chapter. D, pre-conferences and hearings on their merits or not formal judicial proceedings. Technical rules of evidence do not apply. Next slide. Continuous of hearing procedures. E, chair of hearing panel presides over the hearing. F, no new witnesses or evidence other than what was submitted may be introduced at the hearing unless hearing panel determines complaint is discovered after the filing. G, prior to commencement of the hearing, either party may ask for a continuance. H, only one continuance of the hearing shall be granted to each party. Next slide. Continuous of hearing procedures. I. Complainant goes first and shall have burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. J. Public officials proceed second and may make an opening and closing statement. Examine witnesses, evidence, and introduce rebuttal evidence. K. Neither party shall be allowed to examine the other party, however may cross-examine. L, hearing panel may ask questions of the parties or witnesses. M, parties may present rebuttal evidence. Next slide. Continuous of hearing procedures and upon conclusion of evidence presented, the chair shall facilitate verbal deliberations by the hearing panel. All findings shall be approved by majority of vote and panel shall direct city clerk to prepare statement of findings or designate members to prepare statement of findings to include recommendation for sanctions. Panel must approve within 30 city business days. P, within five city business days of approval, city clerk notifies all parties in writing of the decision of the hearing panel and the appeal procedures. Next slide. Continuous of hearing procedures, Q, no member of the Board of Ethics who is the complainant of subject of the complaint shall sit as a member of the hearing panel. are neither the complainant, not the public official against whom the complaint is filed, shall be represented at the hearing by an attorney. Although an attorney may be present and consulted at the hearing, the attorney shall not address the hearing panel nor participate in any aspect of the hearing. Next slide. Going into appeal procedures. Pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.090, A, a decision of the hearing panel may be appealed to the city council. Appeals of pre-conference decisions may only be appealed if the appeal is based upon a clear procedural error. Appeals are filed in writing with the city clerk within 10 city business days following the date of the decision. Appealing must specify the clear procedural error or abuse of discretion. The city clerk shall place the appeal on a city council agenda within 30 city business days. Next slide. Continuous of appeal procedures pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.090. B, if there is no appeal, the decision of the hearing panel becomes final and there shall be no further right to appeal. The city council would then determine if sanctions should be imposed, if applicable. C, the record on appeal shall consist of a transcript of the hearing, the complaint and tangible evidence and testimony considered at the hearing. No new evidence will be received nor considered by the city council at the hearing on the appeal. Next slide. Continuous of appeal procedures, D, city council shall review record. If no finding of clear procedural error or abuse of discretion, the city council shall adopt findings of the hearing panel. If there is a finding by the city council of a clear procedural error or abuse of discretion by the hearing panel, that finding shall be clearly stated and the matter shall be referred back to the hearing panel for a rehearing to consider the matter in light of the findings of the city council on appeal. E. If the City Council finds a violation was committed, the City Council may determine its sanctions. F. City Clerk notifies all parties and there is no further right to appeal. Next slide. Continuous of appeal procedures F, city clerk shall notify all parties of the findings and determination of the city council on the appeal. The findings and the determination are final and there is no further right to appeal. G, complaints, replies, supporting documentation, transcripts of hearings, notices of appeal and all decisions thereon shall be public record and retained by the city clerk for a period of two years. H, no public official who is a party to a complaint shall participate in the appeal of a decision of the hearing panel and must recuse from participation. Next slide. As we talk about the enforcement and sanctions pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.100 upon a finding by a majority of the city council that any public official violated any provision of the prohibited conduct or no appeal has been made to a board of ethics, finding such violation, the city council may impose any of the following sanctions. Next slide. enforcement and sanctions pursuant to riverside municipal code 2.78.100 a elected officials one public apology by a put a official by to complainant to recommendation for training 3 removal from regional committees for removal from mayor pro tem rotation and 5 public censure Or six, restrict from traveling to attend meetings, conferences outside city limits. Next slide. Continuous of enforcement and sanctions pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.100. B, appointed officials of boards, commissions, and committees. One, public apology by the official to the complainant. Two, recommendation for training. Three, referral to the board, commission, or committee of which the appointed official is a member for public censure. Four, public censure by the mayor and city council. Five, removal from chair, vice chair, or other leadership positions. Or six, removal from office as provided by the city charter. Next slide. going into monitoring and oversight pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code 2.78.110. A, prior to end of July each year, the boards and commissions shall agendize and discuss at regular meeting the effectiveness of the Code of Ethics and Conduct Code and make recommendations to the Board of Ethics for consideration. B. Prior to end of August, Board of Ethics shall discuss effectiveness of this code, consider Board Commission recommendations, and submit recommendations for amendments to the Governmental Process Committee's BGPC for consideration. C. Prior to the end of September, the GPC shall discuss effectiveness of this code and instruct the City Manager to present a report to the City Council for its discussions and consideration. D. Prior to the end of the year, the chair of the GPC shall present a report to the city council at a public hearing in the evening. The city council shall make an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of this code and consider those recommendations of the BOE, boards, commissions, and GPC. The city council shall direct city attorney to make any changes to the code it deems appropriate. Next slide. As you can see, Chair Bell, we have come to the end of this conclusion for the recommendation that the Community Police Review Commission and commissioners discuss and review the Code of Ethics and conduct for its effectiveness and forward any recommended revisions to the Board of Ethics for consideration. Commissioners, I would like to say thank you again. My name is Tola Perkins from the Board of Ethics, and I have provided you with the annual review for the Code of Ethics. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling 951-826-8688 to comment on this item. Press star 9 to be placed in the queue and star 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise a hand function. You will have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience? do we have any comments from our commissioners we will any comments that we have recommendations we can make a motion to forward them to the city clerk's office

So I did want to commend Ms. Tola Perkins for her completely thorough presentation. I wish she was here to receive the commendation. But I did also want to inquire a little bit about the recently adopted technology misconduct component. I didn't know how much more she would be able to bring to the table as it related to misconduct. software, hardware, and I know we had information about it, but I was curious about AI components as well. And that's it.

So as luck would have it, in the Brown Act presentation I'm doing, I have a section to talk about the ethics issues on digital misconduct and the scope of that, so we can reserve that until then. I don't know if it will satisfy you, but I'll do my best.

Very good. That will suffice. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

If there's no other comments or recommendations, we can file this motion as a just receiving file. Thank you. Discussion calendar. Our discussion number five, extension of the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, RIPA Ad Hoc Committee, duration through October 2026. Ruby the city manager's office met with the chair and vice chair of the youth and safety wellness committee and they had a couple recommendations before they they see the full presentation and our recommendations that we made to them before they would like to make sure that we have met with that the ad hoc committee has met with PD to discuss any questions on the stats that they may have that they had that was presented in to our recommendations to them, and also they wanted to ensure that all of the commissioners have completed their ride-alongs as we're required to in our bylaws and policies and procedures. So at this time, before we move forward, we want to invite the public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling 951-826-8688 to comment on this item. Press star 9 to be placed in the queue and star 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select raise a hand function. You'll have three minutes. Do we have any comments from our audience or callers? All right. Do we have any comments from our commissioners? Commissioner Teichert.

I'm kind of out of it here. I've got bronchitis, so I'm not speaking very well. But when I saw this item, I had to come down, I had to attend the meeting. I was frankly pretty shocked when I saw what happened after almost five years of effort at trying to raise this issue for the city to consider. Regarding the first recommendation that was made regarding meeting with the police, I can tell you that for two years I was the chair, two years I was the vice chair. I know that I and prior officers of the commission have met with police chief, we've met with city manager. And, of course, at every time that we've had RIPA agendized, the police have been here. They've addressed issues. There's been really years and years of discussion on this issue. The issue regarding ride-alongs and... RPD stop data Frankly, I don't see a nexus there. I do encourage everybody to do those right alongs I know that we've had one of our ad hoc committee members Retired CHP officer many many years of experience. He's got great insight to stops He's done numerous stops throughout his career. I have almost three decades of advising being a city attorney for or an attorney for cities and counties, including advising police departments representing police on various matters, doing ride-alongs there. I don't see how any further ride-alongs gives any clarity on what hard data tells us. This issue really, it feels wrongful to have this kind of punted to a non-public discussion between whatever the, it gets decided if it's going to be the ad hoc committee meeting with the police or if it's the chair and vice chair meeting with the police. It's really out of the public eye. I love this city. I think this is a wonderful city, and I think we owe it to our citizens to have the discussion of this all done in a public fashion. It really shouldn't be done in back rooms. It's one of the most important policing issues in our country today, and how we do this in a back room is just... I don't understand where this is coming from. We owe our citizens better than this, and the committee chair and vice chair have spoken, so I don't know what discretion we have as a committee to deal with this. But anyway, those are my thoughts on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Ward.

I also, you know, have similar comments to Eileen and, you know, I just kind of want to set the stage a little bit in terms of when we approach this as a subcommittee, the intent was to address what we saw, some major deficits in how we decision issues around RIPA and around profiling. So we took an approach where we had the discussion with this group and with the chief. The chief has appeared twice for a good hour, probably both of those meetings, as well as Captain Dietmar being available to provide comments. And when we heard them, we listened, and we tried to incorporate their concerns about the data into our thinking process. But we wanted the process to be from the body, from this commission, in terms of the recommendations. So that was why we didn't have a separate meeting with the police department about more details of the data. We figured that would come out when the policy actually gets drafted because then you got to pull all the stakeholders into that discussion and you have to hear folks out and you've got to actually develop the policy. What we're recommending It's a policy recommendation. It's not the draft policy. It's a lot more detail that would need to come to this. And our thinking is that detail is prepared by city paid staff, as all policy should be, not a volunteer body. So, you know, that was our thinking in terms of the approach. And in regards to, you know, meeting with the PD, we could certainly do that to get additional perspective or reaffirm what we've heard about the data and some of the challenges with the data and maybe what exists there and what information is difficult to get out. We could do that. I'm not sure it would change anything with regard to the recommendations that we have in place right now because the recommendations are meant to build a foundation on which to make decisions about how do we go forward. We're not coming in with hard-line policy recommendations that you find in the RIPA We've looked at all that information, both from last year as well as this year, and those recommendations are legislative in a lot of cases, and we didn't feel that we had enough information about our challenges to recommend any of those. So that's why we recommended, you know, this approach of, you know, let's go ahead and see if we can improve the data, okay? Then we move into, okay, so can we set some parameters around what's an issue? Because we haven't done that as a city. Nobody can tell me when something is an issue. So can we do that? If we find a problem, can we audit? Can we figure out a little bit more details around what we're seeing so that can help us fashion a decision about how we're going to deal with this issue? And then the last recommendation was around goal setting. If you have a problem and you're going to address it, then how are you going to address it or by how much? Those things are fundamental and they're things that just need to be done before we start getting into more complex and legislative type of solutions. So that's what we're proposing. I would agree that You know, we've looked at the RIPA data. We've looked at the RIPA board recommendations. I'm sorry. We've looked at that several times. So I don't know why they're asking us to go back and look at it again. The write-alongs, we all need to do those, but that has nothing to do with the RIPA analysis. The RIPA analysis stands on data. If the data wasn't there saying what it says, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and we'd still need to do our write-alongs. So the write-alongs need to happen, but they don't need to happen relative to RIPA. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I shared a little bit more perspective about our approach and that we did, we believe we were taking into consideration these items. And I think to have us go back and redo is adding inefficiency into the process and delaying somebody making a decision about what we're going to do. you know, one way or the other about this. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the commissioners? Vice Chair Gutierrez?

So I really appreciate that reflective commentary from my fellow commissioner. I think that both have really expressed some serious convictions about this work. And a lot of time and effort and energy has been invested. And I think I'm hearing that an intentional strategic plan of sorts needs to be devised somehow identifying those areas. that have already been presented in the data and then some target goals, if I'm not mistaken, and then maybe some next steps, action steps. But I did want to comment that I certainly do agree about the policy being devised by the staff and not necessarily volunteer body and the like. I know this has been a topic since I began on this commission, so there seems to be a lot of perhaps undercurrents that I am not fully cognizant of, but having read the report and the recommendations that were there, I think that the group that has come together certainly did not hold a hard line and was very articulate about how they were going to move forward. I am very glad that Commissioner you made your way down to share that and really shed light after what you have commented to be decades of investment and time and passion about this and so really I do appreciate the thought of having it before the public and not you know, off to the side. That is certainly something that is part of what we do in terms of transparency. So I just wanted to commend the workers that have been on this committee and certainly affirm and support that. So I'm very interested in hearing next steps, and we will all continue on our ride-alongs. Agreed.

Commissioner Hundley just have been one concern. I've done numerous right along some current chaplain for a county and I'm still on duty when needed and I always my only concern with the process here as a commissioner Does that put us in a little bit of jeopardy having doing a ride along and then may have to turn around and maybe review a case from a complainant that may come in? That was my only question. Has that ever happened in the past or is that something we should be worried about?

I don't think there has been, but I would hope that our experience on the ride along would not end up with a complaint. But if that was the case, we would just abstain from reviewing of the case, so that way we could make sure the commission is partial.

You answered my question, because I know with our ride-alongs, when in doubt, we stay out. We don't involve ourselves on questionable judgment from officers. But a lot of times, I had so many years of experience, they would know certain things they didn't do when we were in the car with them anyway. So that was just my only concern. But you answered my question. Thanks, Stephen. Thank you.

I just want to say, you know, I know before we voted to send this to the wellness committee, the question was raised, did we speak with PD? And, you know, the response was no, we didn't feel it was needed because the chief was here. The chief provided information to us, even provided additional stats to us to kind of further break down and I think help answer those questions that we did have. So I think meeting with RPD, there's not always an issue with gaining more information, but at what cost besides a potential delay. Doing a ride-along just kind of helps those who have not been in law enforcement kind of have more of an insight, an eyes-on approach to kind of see maybe how they approach the situation. So there is a positive to that, but at what cost to delay stuff from information that was already from last year? You know, policies, procedures could already have been changed with the department, you know, and so from history of what we've seen in RIPA, you know, through the statistics, there's a certain format that this information has to be provided to us, to the state. So with that, I don't know if a ride-along is going to change those those statistics but we we have to have a motion on what how we want to proceed with this I don't know what that what that looks like if we make a motion I cannot make a motion but if we make a motion and we say no we're not going to create a reestablish the ad hoc send it back or however are we do like how does how does that look with that wellness committee did the ad hoc committee complete its objective I believe so we voted we voted as a commission to send our recommendations to the committee

then unless you can identify another objective and a reason to extend it or create another one, I wouldn't know what the basis would be for that. That's not to say that there isn't one. You would need a clear objective and basically the timeline and the participant. But if it's been achieved, it may not be what you... If the objectives are achieved, there would be no reason to extend it.

yes of the original original conversation of was we were going to present and reestablish once we heard back from the wellness committee on their thoughts through it I believe I believe that was it correct I yeah that's pretty accurate and have you heard back from the wellness committee just on these recommendations, but not that before they would review our recommendations, this is what their thoughts were. Okay.

So I would wait until we get whatever that is, yeah, and then decide whether you feel that another one is warranted and what you hope to achieve.

Commissioner Ward.

so the chair of the ad hoc committee can choose what gets agendized and so before agendizing this item that was his recommendation and then it was also brought forward to the vice chair and that was his recommendation as well so I gave him the information to agendize it and then that's the information they gave back to me so a question for the body

I mean we've said our piece about what we believe about this. If they really believe that we need to go back and meet with the PD and talk more specifically about data, then, you know, I don't know how you feel about that, but, you know, we could do that. We're just not sure what it's going to net us. The other two items, I think, are not value-added. So I don't know how the body feels about going back. You know how we feel. So I don't know. I guess I would just invite comments if there's anything else folks have to say or observations.

Commissioner Teichert.

Yes, I guess I have a question. What happens if... this board takes no action on these recommendations um does it just is the wellness committee then just say well you ignored our recommendations and it's dead but what happens uh and i know that i'm not sure if this is an attorney question but really you know the discussion the city manager's office with with the committee what what's going to happen i mean what are our hands tied if we don't want if we want all of our effort to be for naught then we take no action and the committee just says i guess we're not going to consider it i mean what what happens

So I guess I would say that the city manager's office can monitor what their action or inaction is and report back, and then you can agendize it and decide what you want to do with that. Do you want to set up another ad hoc committee with a more narrower purpose, like you had talked about, or new objectives that you think might meet what you think would be an outcome that is morally just and in furthest of your interests.

well i i just i see that as being this unending gordian knot that we're we're in and we can't get out of this loop um we wanted to raise this issue to the city council for them to consider and so perhaps do we need to make a motion to request that the city manager's office reply back to the committee that We stand by our recommendations and ask that they consider it. Is that an approach to keep moving it forward instead of wait and see what they do, and then we take another couple of months to agendize it, and it's just going to go on and on.

So, it sounds like you want it to go before council, as opposed to… Well, the committee.

It's fine. It's the council.

Yeah, okay. So, if your objective is to get this raised to that level, you have to go through that process. And if it comes back, whatever the report is, then you'd be advised as to what would be the next step to get it to council.

Well, we did that in May. We prepared a report. It was kind of rejected. Oh, you need to put it in a different format to go to the committee. We did that in May. This board approved that, and we asked that it go to the committee. And the committee chair then and vice chair said, well, we think before we look at this, you need to meet with the police chief. You need to do ride-alongs.

So did you understand they're refusing to take the issue up until that is done?

It's not that they refuse to take the issue up or to hear the item. It's before the item is presented to them, they wanted the CPRC ad hoc committee or the chair and vice chair to meet with PD because in the meeting, Commissioner Ward kept saying, I want to understand the data. Help us understand the data. So to understand the data, the chair and vice chair recommend you meet with PDE.

Okay, then I think that probably the better course, irrespective of whether or not you think it is going to be productive, would be to extend, if that's what you want to do to respond to them, extend the ad hoc committed to address those questions.

To move this forward, I'd be willing to certainly meet with the PD and look at the data. There may be some other things to gain from that. The other two items I would disagree. But, you know, just to move this forward, compromise, I'd be willing to do that. Hopefully the subcommittee feels the same way. And then we can move forward after that. Perhaps that modifies the goal number one because the goal number one that we proposed has to do with can we analyze the data differently to get at a more true result. So I'd be willing to do that.

So if we meet with, if the subcommittee meets with PD to discuss the data and brings it back to the commission and discusses in a public setting before we make that next motion to represent it to the committee, the wellness committee, that at least the conversation that was happening behind closed doors can happen, the public would know what would happen.

In order to expedite things, if I could modify that, is that I would be happy to meet with police. We've talked about this for, like I said, almost five years now. And I'm always open to hearing what they have to say, but I don't see how it's gonna change data. um but after we meet with them if it would be possible then to just report back to not to the commission because we've talked about this how many meetings excuse me um but if we could just report back to the city manager's office to communicate with the uh sub city council subcommittee uh committee or would it be best if we just report back to the committee communicate with the chair what would be your recommendation so we can avoid having to agendize another meeting because yeah it needs you need to speak with one voice and it would be better to bring it back to the cprc for you guys to vote and agree on how you're going to proceed in response to those questions

right now you're making the expectation you're assuming that you're not going to learn anything you're not going to gain any knowledge no i'm not i'm not i'm saying we would report back to you here's reporting back based on what you three heard from petey without educating the full commission but that's what the the city council committee has asked us to do either you three or the chair and vice chair but to come back to this commission

Was that part of their, because I didn't hear, I didn't read that, and I haven't heard that.

They did want this ad hoc committee to meet with PD, everyone to do the ride-along, report back to this commission, which is the way it's supposed to happen with an ad hoc committee, and then whatever you, you can discuss whatever you learned on your ride-along, whatever information PD shared with you, to share it with the whole body. And it may change. Your three goals, it may not, and if it doesn't, this full body still needs to hear what the ad hoc committee received from PD, plus whatever comments you guys have from your ride-alongs.

So we can't even do this until everybody's done a ride-along now?

Right. That's their recommendation. And it's supposed to be done anyways.

Correct. So I would... Based off of comments that we received from the chair and vice chair about Commissioner Ward's saying he wanted to understand the data, to me, that means that they are watching these videos. They're not here in person, but they're watching our meetings to discuss this. I think there was plenty of discussion about the experience and knowledge that the commission has, the data that we have spoke to PD about, And maybe that wasn't conveyed previously in previous commission meetings about the experience from prior law enforcement and ride-alongs that have happened. I'm kind of with the commission. If we have to have, what is that data going to change those conversations besides just piecing of the, of the other committee.

How long will it take us to have everybody complete a ride-along? Are we looking at next year, maybe, to have this go back? And meanwhile, people are getting stopped, and we have a continuation. Other cities have dealt with this without such reluctance that the city of Riverside has shown. This is very troubling, very troubling.

Commissioner Dillon?

Yeah, I was just going to say, maybe they aren't aware of the experience on this commission. I agree, ride-alongs are important, that's all important, but you have people, I spent 20 years in a patrol car, a ride-along with the city of Riverside is not going to enlarge my view of what happens on a police stop and those kind of things, so Whether or not they're aware of our experience, those kind of things, to make that the litmus test for accepting our information is incorrect.

Additionally, you know, part of the challenge here is, you know, we thought we were presenting to them. So when they read that document, it was supposed to be accompanied by a discussion, a conversation, a question and answer. So if they've got issues or questions, then that would come out in the presentation. So that's how I saw and thought this thing was going to work. not a preview that comes back with recommendations without the benefit of any discussion. So, you know, I'm not sure what process methodology the city uses to decision recommendations from commissions and boards, but my thinking was, without the benefit of a discussion, it's kind of premature to be making these recommendations. That's first. Second, the data analysis, the way this is written, it's written to be the recommendation. It's written to be flexible. So all we're saying here is if we can get our hands on additional information, then we should run the data differently. We're not asking the PD to collect anything new. We're saying if the data yields some additional information that we can get our hands on, then we should run it. If it doesn't, then we stay with what we have and we move on. And if in the future it becomes available to us, well that recommendation stands still. You run the additional analysis. So the only thing that might change here is, you know, if we learn that we can pull, you know, stop data No, there's another element.

It's escaping me right now.

Losing my point, I'll come back. I'll go back and find that comment, but I think that's part of the challenge is the way they're suggesting is without the benefit of discussion. I think I could have added or answered a lot of the questions, had I had an opportunity to discuss with them this. So when they say, you know, that I was asking to understand the data, well, yeah, I do have a pretty good understanding of the data. I don't have an understanding of one of the elements of the data that's on the collection form. but it's apparently not easy to get to. So that might be valuable to go and ask that question and discuss that some more. Well, it's on the collection form. How come it's not available? Because it's on the collection form, then we can filter on the data and exclude that group and then focus more on the numbers that we want.

For that, the data that's on the collection form, is all of that data on the RIPA data that we receive from the state? Or is what we receive from the state in the RIPA report that the city manager's office breaks down for us in their presentation, does that report not include everything that's on that collection form?

I think everything PD submits to DOJ is part of the DRIPA Board's report. And if you're referring to, was it the calls for service? Calls for service is the item. I think that's on there. I don't recall.

It's on the form. And if the form is submitted electronically, then so is calls for service checkbox, I would think. And they actually measure calls for service in the report. So they separate it out as, I think, 10% of the calls, or whatever the percentage is. So they're clearly collecting it. So, That we could potentially discover with further conversation. But if we, so we could do it now or we could do it through the policy development discussion that needs to happen after this. But yeah.

I think it is on the data from DOJ.

Well, it's certainly on the form that we're sending, on the DOJ form they're asking us to complete.

So I'm not 100% sure, but there is a lieutenant or captain from PD that understands the RIPA data who we're recommending that this adult committee meet with, who can explain it to you better.

Yeah, I think when the chief was here, Or maybe it was Captain. They said that that particular data element was not as clean as it looks on the form. So, again, happy to meet with them if this moves it along and discover that. That would be my primary question because that's kind of a big item. calls for service really shouldn't be in there. I think we agree. We all agree that that shouldn't be in there, that officers don't have any control over that. So why is it in the data analysis? So if we can pull that out and then we can understand it and then we can make our decisions based upon a truer number. So that offer still stands, but I think the other two, yeah, we seem to be at an impasse.

Commissioner Dillon, did you have a comment? Okay, sorry about that. So based off of what was shared between all the commissioners, do we have a motion on how we want to proceed with this? Commissioner Teichert.

I'll make a couple of motions. The first would be to extend the duration of the ad hoc committee for another six months. That sounds reasonable. And if we finish it sooner, we can terminate it composed of the same members, I'm assuming. and that we ad hoc committee meet with the person from the police department with most knowledge of the ripa data and who would that be so we could have clarity

Yeah, so it would likely be, I would say, for the drilling down of the data analytics, we have civilian personnel that are technology information services unit that can speak to the back end of the metadata, and then also we have a lieutenant and a captain, Captain Demmer, who's familiar with it, who's spoken to you, and then we have a lieutenant who oversees that unit would probably be the point of contact for that information.

So if we could have clarity as to who those, I guess, three people, if we could meet all at once, that would be, I think, most beneficial. We are a volunteer body. We're doing this out of our love for the city and the police, but we want to try to be efficient in use of time. Understood. Meeting, if we could, please. Yes.

And I think a live meeting is going to be better. Oh, totally. So we get together in a room somewhere. And somebody with an overhead computer data. Yeah. And just go through.

That would be great. Yeah. That would be great. So anyway, so again, my motion is extend ad hoc committee, same constitution of members for another six months. The purpose of completing this handoff to the committee city council committee and to meet with the uh designated individuals from the police department both civilian and sworn to gain a better understanding of the ripa stop data sound good okay uh vice chair gutierrez

and to make sure of that language related to the handoff for the objective. So you did a good job on that.

Thank you.

All right. So right now we have a motion to extend the ad hoc until December. with the same members, which was Commissioner Teichert, Commissioner Ward, and Commissioner Lundy. I believe Commissioner Ward was the chair of that ad hoc. And we are going to meet with RPD, the members that Lieutenant just mentioned, for the objective of clarifying that data to move the process forward.

I believe it would be until January.

Until January, okay.

That would be six months. oh yes we are almost at the end of this month and then i guess the at the conclusion of that we would come back to the committee with the report that's that sound like it was the process okay yeah come back here to the commission after we've met let them know what we found yes any changes to the recommendations yes so we have them a second

Commissioner Hundley seconds.

I just had a quick question, if I may. I apologize. But in reflecting on some of the commentary, I'd imagine that within that six month window, there's also the expectation that everyone complete their ride along as well so that we meet that threshold of requirement. Is that correct? Or is that no longer the case?

I believe that's what the wellness committee was requesting or recommending. But I don't believe that is the recommendation for this motion.

It's not. It shouldn't be. Please do it.

yes please do it anyway it is important as part of our bylaws okay so the motion we have just again we have extend that was motion by Commissioner Teichert to extend the ad hoc until January at the same members Commissioner Teichert Commissioner Ward Commissioner Lundy with Commissioner Ward being the chair meeting with RPD as a live you know in person meeting to discuss the the data meet back with this full body to modify any changes that we may in the recommendations to proceed it back to the wellness community okay and we had a second by Commissioner Hundley so we will vote motion passes I apologize. Commissioner Lundy, you did have a comment.

I think it should be noted that the wellness committee should understand that two people on this panel, on this committee, are former law enforcement. I got 32 years of pushing a black and white. You know, do I need another ride along? Not really, but I'll do it. But I got 32 years doing the real deal. And I've ridden with a lot of guys in 32 years. And I see stuff that happens every day. And, you know, my gentleman sitting to my right has got 20 years doing it. You know, we've got members on this committee who have been on this committee for a long time, have had other ride-alongs. Sometimes I think they're blowing smoke, personally. I've said my piece. Very good. Thank you.

Okay.

We'll move to the presentation, item number six, the Brown Act training presentation. Ms. Deborah Cook.

Is this the controller for the, okay. Well, good evening, commissioners. You'll remember, I wanna say it was in December, we did a Brown Act training, and I advised you of all the changes that were gonna be happening during the year.

So this is largely gonna be a refresher, and I'm gonna be a good steward of your time

I'm going to invite you that if there's a part of the presentation that you want to stop me on and ask a question, you feel free to interrupt me. It will not confuse me. Or if you want to wait until the end, we can do that as well. But they want to try to put these Brown Act trainings on the same schedule with all of the commissions. So we're getting a line, which is why you get to do it essentially twice.

Let me see if I can figure out this.

There we go. So I'm going to see my... So I won't read every slide. I think that the Brown Act purpose hasn't changed. The city really considers itself to be at the forefront of doing things early with maximum public involvement and obviously with an emphasis on making sure what each of the commissioners or people that are involved in the process can and cannot do. The idea is We want all of your deliberations and your discussions to be in a public forum and not outside of that forum, even inadvertently. So what I'm gonna do is kinda go over what changes have happened in the law that helps to assure that and where I can find some points that might be a little fuzzy, like a way that somehow you've got a quorum that you might not have anticipated. I'll bring that out. There's not many because you guys have had a lot of training in this. I'm really trying to focus only on the things that have changed during this year. And again, I anticipate that this is all going to be review. So in 2026, there were some enhancements in the open meeting rule to make virtual appearances more accessible and to really put the burden on the agency to make sure that we're making it as easy as possible for people to participate in the process. The city's been doing this essentially since COVID, so we've been at the forefront and we have met our obligations for making that accessibility by July 1st, which was just earlier this month. So the Brown Act requirements, essentially the 2026 update required that the city or all agencies that were subject to the law to have by July 1st an actual written policy on handling if there were any disruptions, like if there was some sort of glitch in the computer system or the virtual presentation, that there was a clear policy of what the agency would do to get it back online or to give the commission or the board kind of an action plan to try to make sure that that's fixed. So the council adopted its written policy on June 23rd, so that has occurred. And essentially the procedure's gonna be like this. say that the lines go down, like in this meeting, while during my presentation, all of a sudden we find out the lines have gone down. What the procedure will be is that there will be a recess. And while there's an effort to get the lines working again, you could do closed session so that you can kind of redeem the time so people aren't just sitting around. And the goal will be to, as quickly as possible, get to at least where you could have one hour of online participation at a minimum. their their kind of backup policy is that say that can't happen that we tried and the best technical people around can't get that thing up and going what would happen then is that the Commission or the body would would be put to a vote and it's really going to be dependent on the context like say it happens in during this Brown Act refresher, and the lines go down. But there really wasn't anybody on the line, and you'd say, you're going to do a balancing of the public interest in moving this over compared to, why don't we just finish the presentation that we essentially already had? And then you'll be put to a vote after you talk about it. Do we really need to... you know, put this over to the next month, or can we just go ahead and finish this off? And you get different options. You can delay it, you can re-agendize it, or you can continue the meeting, but it's really gonna be all your decision to determine what's best for the situation. That's the policy. to meet that new rule. Okay, so as far as meetings go, the changes in 2026, and I wanna apologize, you'll see there's a CHB in there. It's because the person that prepared this, this was supposed to be done last month and I was out, but because we didn't have a quorum, it moved to this month and everything moved, so I didn't get an opportunity to correct that. Usually we're more diligent than that. it should be CRPC or CPRC. The change for this year is basically to make, to acknowledge that online and social platforms and all their different forms are a part of our new reality and they've expanded the law to understand that that takes place and to allow more options for social media interactions either with members or how the communications can occur at the body so they basically just allowed that where before was a little bit more murky okay now here this one's a little bit interesting because under serial meetings this is where it can get a little bit more murky where What the concern is, is that in these online platforms, there could be these discussions. And whatever they are, Instagram or Facebook or so forth, and there are posts. And the bigger the platform, there could be a ton of posts. And let's just say, once there's like a posting going, if somehow... I don't know, and maybe in future with the younger generations, not that we're all not young, but as it becomes more and more prevalent, you could end up weighing in on these posts in ways that you don't even realize a quorum just, four of you or five of you did it. And all of a sudden we have a violation. Now we haven't seen that, but it's conceivable that it could happen. The more likely situation where you're going to get a little bit of hot water is when you do the reply all that you always want to be careful of that's where the real risk is right now what happens in the future and what other platforms they make available for public speech we'll see those as they come in but I just wanted you to be aware of the hidden one is you may be thinking that there's not another Commissioner on this or even has access to it and all of a sudden five weigh in, just be very cautious with social media. But in no way is anybody trying to impair your free right to speak on matters of public importance. Okay. The public has a right to address the CHB. This update again goes to, they're making it easier for accessibility in all different forms. Okay, this is kind of an interesting one, and it kind of impacted this meeting. So one of the ways that the 2026 rules have changed is that if somebody wants to make a public comment, they do not have to fill out a card. They do not even have to give their name. But it doesn't mean that the agency can't ask for it, but they should make sure that the other person's aware that it's not a requirement. And it doesn't matter whether they're in person or online. And you can see that there's a comment in the two bullet points. And this actually happened today. We have a person that we think was gonna wanna make a comment here probably after this presentation before closed session. But we wanna make sure that they're aware that they don't have to give any particular information about themselves, that if they do so, they can do so voluntarily. And as long as we make them aware of that, then it's okay for us to ask for that information. And it's not really to identify them, it's to have an ordered session of the meeting. Okay. So this is the rule that this board may regulate the total amount of time on a particular issue. And actually the time limits could vary depending on the speaker. So for example, generally the time limits are three minutes, but sometimes somebody conveys to a member of the public that they're going to give five minutes, maybe even in a letter, and this commission can decide, do I want to give them five minutes? But here's the trick. Once you give somebody an enlarged amount of time, you've got to give it to everybody in that meeting. That's the only tricky part. So this new rule, I will tell you, has been implemented. I can't give you too much more detail about that, but all of our meetings are available in English and Spanish because we know that that 20% threshold is met there. Agenda requirements have not changed. Here's something that's kind of interesting. There really aren't any changes, but I want to refresh your memory about when somebody does come and want to give public comment. And again, it doesn't matter whether they're online or in person. somebody will give whatever their message is. And a lot of times they might ask questions that are really more rhetorical, but they actually want answers. And I think a lot of times the commissioners want to, they empathize, and they may want clarification. And here's kind of the scope of what it is that you can do when you encounter some of those public comments and how you might want to address it. So what you're allowed to do is you can always, after the comment, ask questions of clarification, just so you understand what it is they're saying. The other thing is that you can refer the issue to staff, city manager, or like to Frank. um to obtain additional factual information so that the board um the commission can take that up um you can request the staff report back to you on the issue like you say i want you to talk them and then and instruct them that you want a response back you can request to agendize a matter so if the comment brings up something that's of interest to you you can do that and then you're allowed to have brief announcements by any of you and brief reports on your activities. So a good example is when the commissioner wanted to introduce her colleagues and let everybody know that they were here or other matters like that. You're totally allowed to do that. So on the Sunshine Ordinance, it was adopted in 2015. You, like the CHB, is an advisory board under the Sunshine Ordinance, and there's a requirement that you post a copy or image of the agenda at least three days before the day of the meeting. That's always done. You can supplement the agenda, and there are the rules up to 72 hours. That rarely happens here, but it's not that it never happens. But now there are a few rules, new rules, on board members' remote participation. Okay, this gets a little bit tricky. In fact, somebody had to explain it to me today. I'm like, really, because it's not intuitive. So I want to share it with you. So they're expanding disability accommodations. So if you have a disability, you can appear remotely. And there are statutory definitions of disability, and there can be temporary disabilities or permanent disabilities, but when you're in the category of a disability, it puts you in a special status, and I'll explain that in a second. But they've also expanded just cause remote attendance. and to give you kind of an example of where this happened recently and it and i would think it would be common child care if somebody has to take care of their kids or their grandkids and there's nobody to take him that would be just cause for you to have a remote appearance and it would be allowable even if it was mid-meeting that happened actually once with the city council one of the city council members had an urgent call during a meeting that they had to have child care so that at the after they went to closed session, she was able to go and take care of her kids and appear remotely. That would be a lot easier now that the new rules have gone into play, but we had to go through a little bit more of a process. Here's where it gets a little bit tricky. I'll get to this in a second. Here's the tricky part. If you are given a disability accommodation, and you appear remotely, it will count toward the quorum. But if you are a just cause, it does not. So let me explain what that means. Let's say, because we know a quorum is five. So let's say there are four people present, and there's one person that is calling in. And the reason they're calling in is because of a disability, you have a quorum. If the person that was calling in was because they needed childcare,

You don't have a quorum, yeah.

So they gotta be really clear on, I mean the city manager's office will take care of that, but that's, I don't think that's intuitive.

And so that's kind of the tricky part on that.

And you can appear two-way audio and video, and when you're doing that, you have to disclose adults over 18 present in the remote location. Okay, so updates to the Sunshine Ordinance. Only the City Council, Board of Ethics, I think we're in their CPRC, so it applies to you. Notice meeting is 12 days in advance, audio and visual recording of the meeting, and all the other boards have a different requirement. Digital. I don't know how it got in this presentation, but I was talking to a colleague of mine, and they said that the ethics presentations that they've had, because they're the same presentations to all the different commissions, they don't really go into much detail on the digital misconduct. So they add it to this presentation. So let me explain the way I understand this. So you see here that digital misconduct is prohibited, which you would anticipate would be right. If you've had misconduct, it should be prohibited. But the question is, what constitutes digital misconduct? And here's the thing. All six of these things have to be present. If one is missing, it's not digital misconduct. So it has to be online activity or messages that create or appear to create bias, partisanship, or predisposition on city matters.

And you have to be acting in an official capacity.

And it has to fall within the subject matter of your official capacity. And it has to be a quasi-judicial proceeding, which by the way, is not an easy, they're not common. And you have to be using Citi accounts. All of those have to be present or it's not digital misconduct. Now I have been advised that none of you have Citi accounts and it would be almost impossible for anything you do digitally to rise to the level of misconduct under the ethics. Really, the only people that are gonna be at risk of this is gonna be council members, as a practical matter. But I wanted to let you know that if, there was a lot of effort in creating all of these to protect free speech. And so you can have, number one, online activity or messages doing all of these other different things, and if you don't have any of the others, you're okay. Obviously, you want to be careful with quorums and that type of thing like we talked about earlier. But other than that, I think there's a very low risk of you having any digital misconduct, potential risks. So that concludes my presentation. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Otherwise, I'll defer to you to have a discussion on your own.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

So I didn't see anything about the use of the actual hardware that's assigned to us and perhaps somebody having digital misconduct based on not complying with the technology use agreement, perhaps something that is unethical on it. So I just wondered about that as well as perhaps the use of AI if there's any quandaries. But it seems like it's quite simplistic as opposed to more evolved.

So as far as ethical misconduct under the Riverside Municipal Code, it would be very difficult for you to take any action that would rise to that level and be actionable against you. Whether any other agreement might govern your conduct with regard to city-issued equipment I can't say for sure on that. So for example, I have AI restrictions in my role here. And even if I use AI on other things in my personal life, I'm very, very limited to our AI policy, which is very restrictive, frankly. I think that will change over time. But there are also a lot of restrictions on what you can view. Like if you try to go online and pull up a website, they'll block you if it's not within the policy. But if there are any issues with that, that's separate and apart from the ethics rules.

Thank you.

OK. Well, I'm happy to answer any questions from the dais. Otherwise, I'll leave it at that.

Any other questions or comments? Awesome. Thank you, Ms. Cook.

Thank you for your time.

All right. Before we go to closed session, we do have a public comment. Mr. Lewis, if you would like to approach. Mr. Lewis, you will have five minutes.

I'm not going to go to five. So I understand you guys have seen the video that I sent in, right? I graduated out of here in 94, 17 years old, joined the Marine Corps. First time I got called a nigga by a cop, 14 years old, out here. Still going through the same stuff at 50. It's like, come on. So now I'm hearing from you guys' discussion, thank you for trying to get this committee back together again. Because it's ridiculous. You guys' cops are out of control out of here. From the time I was a graduate for Canyon Springs to now, it's been the same thing. There's you guys' data. You guys' cops out here suck. Like, for real. There's a memorial sitting outside for vets. And this cop had the nerve to tell me to take down my Marine Corps flag. Like, come on. How many of you have ever served in the military? What branch?

Marine Corps.

To me, it seems like nothing's gonna get done until you guys fix you guys as cops. Then finish. It seems like you're trying. It seems like you're trying. It seems like it's not going to get fixed no time soon, so I'm done.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you announce our closed sessions?

so pursuant to government code section 54957 the commission will discuss cases pc2603009 and pc2605015 we are now in closed session thank you

all right welcome back communications number nine city attorney report on closed session actions no reportable actions chair thank you thank you number ten Riverside Police Department updates no pertinent updates from the police department for this meeting do we have an update on how the drones worked for the fourth of July

Yeah, for more in-depth, I don't want to speak because it's not my area of expertise, but the program was operational, and as we're still demoing some other, I believe, in joint with FIRE, there will be more thorough information about that from the guys who handled it. Awesome.

Thank you. Number 11, brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by CPRC.

All right.

Number 12, city manager's office updates.

Hi, Ruby Castillo from the city manager's office. A brief update. Edward Enriquez is currently the interim city manager. The July safety, I wanted to, for a commissioner award, that you know that the July safety wellness and youth commission committee was canceled. We do have a new council member, council member Hernandez. And so they are in the process of reshuffling committees. So there will be a new chair. There will be a new vice chair, hopefully, and a new member. so that may change what's going to happen with the ripa just so you know um and parking um the parking will be disabled august 3rd so since we meet after 5 p.m this parking lot that's right outside the council chamber is available for everyone to park in um if not ward six i'm sorry um garage six very good it's available word six is far walk

I have a problem with that but I plan on putting it in writing. I know firsthand because I used to work for Riverside downtown partnership. The activity that takes place particularly at night in garage 6 is hideous. There is no way absolutely no way that I would park in that garage. And I also have a problem with not being able to. For me to get here at 530, I get here on time because I can go straight to the city garage and know that I can park. So I had actually responded and asked, who do I need to park?

address this too because I am very much not and we received your email and also the public works director is aware and I'd like to add to that I also responded to that email this parking is not always there depending if there's something going on in the city in the evenings it's not available and that alternate parking structure is not a valid option i made it clear in my uh response regarding the parking um i have not heard back even though the term was used we'll get back to you soon that was three or four days ago we need a response because it's going to be an issue any other comments

I would like to concur. You know, here in the community and often in downtown, there are a lot of things that are transpiring as a female alone at night when we exit the building. There have been times that none of the commissioners are headed in the direction where I had to park. So I'm not comfortable with that. Thank you.

Do we know why they made that change?

I'm not 100% sure, so that's something parking can discuss when they follow up with the email.

Thank you. All right, item 13, items for future community police review commission. Consideration as requested by the members of the CPRC. Only items that fall within the powers and duties of the CPRC are set forth in the city charter and or Riverside Municipal Code will be agendized for future discussions.

I'd like to add one thing to a future meeting or at least put on the discussion. It's regarding flock safety and the automated license plate readers. Recently, Los Angeles has just suspended their contracts with flock safety regarding some false alerts that are going out to officers. it really can put people at risk because these false alerts can be things like you know that vehicle is wanted for homicide or something and if it's false the police response to that is going to be much more escalated um you know depending upon what the crime is so we need to understand um where riverside is with their contract or commitment to flock safety? What are the terms of Riverside's contract with flock safety? Who signed off for flock safety? to be in the city is there any local control of the data that's gathered in Riverside I understand the police department regulates their officers use of the flock safety data but flock is a completely separate company. What they do with that data is of concern to the citizens of Riverside and the police department. How were the installs of those cameras permitted? There's been some issues with The standalone flock safety installation, the way that they're installed, normally when you're within so many feet of the pavement, there has to be a shear safety mount so that if it gets hit by a car that the camera shears off and it doesn't cause a bunch of damage or go through the windshield, things like that. there is some documentation showing that none of those things were taken into effect so it's a pretty broad thing to agendize however it does need to be discussed I think that might be multiple departments RPD public works all traffic I think that's they kind of all played a hand in that in the placement and

Commissioners, before we move to see if Frank has anything, is there anything else you... Good evening once again, Commissioners.

I had heard the conversation about the ride-alongs and just wanting to let you know, make sure that you contact me and I'll get it arranged for you, whether it be a ride-along in a patrol car or the fly-along. Commissioner Teichert, I had arranged for her to do a trip with the helicopter, but I don't know if she went yet. But I just wanted to put it out there to contact me, and I'll get it arranged for you. Thank you, Frank. That's all. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioners?

The only thing that I was going to add is a lot of this concern about flock was brought to me in non-formal meeting arrangements, you know, July 4th gathering, things like that. People are asking a lot of questions about this. So just so the rest of the commission is aware.

Thank you. Anything else that we would like to have on the agenda?

Yeah, I definitely would like to say I do want to continue to hear more about the drones, so I know we did mention that. It's something I'm still interested in knowing a lot more about. And as to the effectiveness for Fourth of July, it's critically important. Being a resident near the riverbed, it's just very important that I understand what's happening with that in terms of how they're utilizing it to curb potential fire in that area.

Yeah, definitely. And I think we already have it on the the list, but we will have to discuss establishing an ad hoc for the policies and bylaws and meeting with the city attorney and city manager's office and RPD just to make sure we're all in line. So that's something that will be on the agenda coming up. So if you're interested in joining that ad hoc, think about it, ponder it. It's fun.

All right.

If there's nothing else, the next regular scheduled Community Police Review Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, August 26th at 530. This meeting is adjourned.