Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Okay, so it's one, two, three, four. Oh, what I knew was we could actually start. Make sure I'm correct. And I see Cavani nodding.

Yeah, that's correct.

Thank you. Want to make sure. Turn on my camera. So, make sure. Good evening everybody and welcome to the Civilian Oversight Board's Monday, June 15th, 2026 meeting. And we're going to call the meeting to order. Harrison, could you please call the roll?

Hey, Kristen Griffin. Derek Kilgore. Present. Sierra Simrel. Present. Keith Rose. Stephen Rovac. Harrison Sand. Present. Jennifer Whitaker. Present. And I believe that's four people.

Okay. Thank you. With a quorum being present, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is approval of the agenda. So with that, I did receive some adjustments from the staff in the office where we're going to add and remove a couple of items underneath the commissioner's report. Oh, see, look at it on my side. They stopped the one that was provided to the public. So I'm going to go over them because it's a few of them. So with the necessary addition and removal. So line item A on the agenda, administrative closure policy. We're going to add point of information to that line. Line D, senior investigative report. We're going to remove that. We're going to remove the letter of support, CJC fiscal year 27 budget. And we're going to, oh, well, my public comments are usually three questions anyway. Okay. And that's it. So with those adjustments to be made under the commissioner's report, is there a motion to approve the agenda with the necessary changes that I did mention?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

I second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the approval of April 20th, 2026 meeting minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review those meeting minutes?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. Is there a motion to approve and accept the April 20th meeting minutes?

I motion.

Is there a second? I second it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the commissioner's report and I will yield to the commissioner.

Good afternoon, everyone. I hope that you all are doing very well. I wanted to bring to your attention that we have provided a recommendation to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board. We've recommended administrative closure policy. The administrative closure policy is a procedural action. It is, you will be used if approved to remove cases from the active docket for a full investigation when we have determined that there's no longer, an investigation is no longer feasible or necessary. So the, what we are doing regarding closing out a complaint related to the City Justice Center is our process involves including a 10-day letter. The 10-day letter is sent to the complainant and we have requested that they contact our office within 10 days. We will continue to hold on to the complaint. in the event that the complainant might determine at some future time that exceeds the 10-day period that they do want to proceed with an investigation we also have um sent those letters out to by louisa correct me if i've wronged the letters have gone out by certified let by certified mail And the other reason we might move for closure is that we are no longer able to locate the complainant. Pardon me. So this recommendation was presented to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board. We are expecting at their next meeting that they will move to approve the policy. Louisa, are there any other comments related to the administrative closure?

The comment I would make is the fact that we have not sent out any of the letters for certified mail. We determined that sending out the letters to certified mail was an expense of at least $10 per letter. what we are doing is we sent out the first letter and we're sending out a second letter. If we look on the complaint and we find that there is a telephone number or an email address, we are also using that process as well to contact the complainant. Prior to having to go send out a certified mail, we may decide or determine, the board may determine that since we do have a vehicle, we may actually go to the resident if necessary and put our business card in there for them to contact us. But we have not decided to send it out certified at this time because of expense.

I hesitate to make this next comment, which is related to the Civilian Oversight Board. We do have complaints that we have received related to the police department that were reviewed by Internal Affairs. because of the uncertainty related to police oversight, there's nothing that I can say or our office can do related to those complaints. Our position is internally for our discussions is that internal affairs reviewed those complaints prior to the March 2025 takeover of the South Bend, South Bend, I'm sorry, I'm going into a whole nother city. Internal Affairs Police Department did make a decision regarding around 300 complaints. We don't know if because Internal Affairs acted on those complaints, If we have responsibility to address those complaints, our concern is that members of the community provided those complaints in good faith. that something would be done regarding those complaints. So here we are in a predicament where we cannot act on those complaints. So until we have further clarification or there is interest by the new Police Board of Commissioners, to communicate, to work with our office regarding those complaints. There's nothing else that we can do at this particular time. It's a point that's very concerning to us because as we seek to support accountability and as we seek to have processes and procedures that are open, that invite participation by the community. We're in this predicament where we have a situation and we don't feel that there's anything that we can do within the framework that Attorney Garvin stated that our office should not hinder, should not impede, or should not obstruct any actions related to the police department. So this is just a point of information. I'm not sure how or if we can resolve it. If in the future there's an opportunity, we may be able to present this to the new board and could really ask them. what would they like to see happen as it relates to those complaints that we have?

Commissioner, I've got a question, if that's okay. Yes. When did we receive these? Is this a recent thing that we received them or did we receive them a long time ago?

Louisa, I yield the floor to you.

Oh, yes. We received these complaints prior to the state takeover. One of the things that's concerning to me as an investigator is the fact that we will probably in the future be asking that they review the concept of us impeding, interfering, or hindering because the investigation is our the active investigation itself has already been taken has taken place by the police department so there's no danger of us uh uh Taney any of the evidence that they may have. There will be no garrity right violations. And frankly, we would be in adherence with the state law for Section 509.653 that says the boards can review. And we will not be making findings and recommendations. As I explained to the commissioner earlier, if we were to be reviewing Anything that we would determine would be presented to the COB board and any type of discipline the board may even recommend. That's all they can do is recommend a completed report would be presented to the director of public safety and a completed report from our end would be presented to the police department. And whatever they decide to do with that particular point would be something that you'd have no jurisdiction over at all. That's how it was done in the past. So reviewing would be just looking at the documentation, determining whether or not the board agree or disagree with what the police department says. And we'd be documenting that information, that's all.

So it's a little sticky. But again, until we have further direction, we are in a holding pattern as it relates to those complaints. I had hoped that we could show you information, although we have no authority to examine, look at policies and procedures related to concerns by members of the community. Our office continues to receive phone calls or emails or people will come to the office regarding their concerns about an encounter with SLMPD. We have, as of beginning in April, we have received over 30 complaints. Right now, we're just documenting when we hear the information. We do respond to email inquiries related to the police or concerns that people have related to the police and we refer those individuals to internal affairs or to their local police office so that they may be able to follow up regarding the complaint. I believe in terms, oh, I did send a letter to Mayor Spencer and also to the chairman of the City Public Safety Committee, Alderman Narion, and also to the vice chair and to the members of the committee. My letter was to say to the mayor that it's imperative that the City Justice Center becomes accredited. By having accreditation for the City Justice Center, it establishes professional standards in terms of its operations, as it relates to its staffing, as well as it relates to the training of its staff. Besides saying that we are in support of the City Justice Center becoming accredited, we provided to them about two pages of potential grants that could possibly support the accreditation of the City Justice Center. At our fiscal year 2027 budget hearing, when We arrived, Commissioner Hayward was already speaking to the older people regarding his budget. And we know that the commissioner has in his budget accreditation, but the decision, as we understand, really reduced the funding for accreditation. So it's just an FYI, a point of information for you, because as we proceed with our responsibility to investigate complaints at the jail, we know that those complaints are going to be in defined categories. Those categories are going to relate to the facility, the conditions of the facility. There probably are going to be complaints related to health. And there may be some situations related to detainee to detainee encounter that result in a complaint to our office. So we know that the investigation is underway. We are commending and have commended publicly the leadership related to Commissioner Hayward. We have more access to the City Justice Center than we have ever had before. Our investigators are scheduled to meet with the detainees. We also know that the City Justice Center is inviting our investigators to attend their housing meetings. The term is escaping me right now, but there are ongoing regular scheduled meetings that the City Justice Center has related to each of those floors. And our staff is invited to come to those meetings to hear from the detainees, So I think this is very positive, and it certainly does contribute to our having a productive relationship with the City Justice Center. You have a copy of my May report. I want to acknowledge that Louisa Ansoir-May and Reddit Hudson are providing written reports on a weekly basis. Those weekly reports are then compiled by our senior investigator, Louisa Lyles, and those reports are provided to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board. So that is it for my report, unless there are questions.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you. So it looks like the next line item is my section. Let's go over a few things and of course I'm going to take a few notes to make sure I wasn't missing anything. So of course my first item, police board budget litigation update. I'm sure everyone has been following the the recent information regarding the. Can force between the police and the funding with CSN Lewis. The court ruled in favor to see the city of St Louis. The interpretation of general revenue and what that actually means. And of course, as you followed it, I'm sure that they have tried to appeal twice with two failed attempts to appeal this decision. and that will continue monitoring developments and any impact regarding public safety and accountability because with these things going on we don't know what could happen so i'm crossing my fingers and hoping that with the conversations around it in the community people that are this decision being removed from the voters of the city of St. Louis, what impact this actually has on our community being able to effectively review or be able to provide any services to the community because the Civilian Oversight Board was created to be a transparent body for the people that may have encountered a situation and needed to resolve it or needed some answers or clarification. The second portion I have around public safety, accountability, and community engagement. Of course, just reaffirming the public's trust in this, hoping that people don't give up on civilian oversight. Also wanting to continue to encourage collaboration between residents. as city leaders and community stakeholders because i think that's the only thing that's going to be able to kind of help us survive through this because the civilian oversight board was created from the collective group of people that had the idea to create this in the first place um and of course thanking all the community members that have been vocal have been at the meetings that have been advocating and speaking on what the budget is how this is affecting each and every one of us, because obviously it's deeper than just reviewing complaints for people. I mean, unfortunately, this body is responsible for reviewing incidents of people being, you know, bravely injured and passing away. So, of course, we take this duty very seriously as we sit in these positions. And even though it is difficult, it's very challenging for us to be at a standstill. And it's definitely not something that we could have ever predicted that would have occurred. As far as my next item under the community portion, NACO has their 2026 conference announcement. I know previously in the past with the Civilian Oversight Board, us as members, they never covered us as far as our travel or anything to go participate in this. However, they send us the information around it where if you do wish to participate with this event where all the civilian oversight agencies get together for this conference so the conference is in louisville kentucky this year from november 8th through the 12th and the theme is protecting rights fighting for accountability from what i've heard about it it brings together oversight practitioners and the kids academics law enforcement leaders and community members across the country and they get a chance to brainstorm and learn different ways to innovate and to work around the various things that impact the community around civilian oversight. The keynote speaker is very welcome Sean and just I think it's really important that all the oversight agencies increasing challenges because unfortunately, I hate to say it, but a lot of people don't want oversight. You know, it's like you have a handful of people that do and then you have some that don't. So like coming together to learn about different collective ways to be effective and then also encouraging everyone to participate. So if you do happen to have some time on your calendar and you feel like you want to take a week to go see what oversight looks like with other people around the country, this would be something that you could actually sign up to go for. Because honestly, protecting rights takes all of us. Writing for accountability takes everybody. And that's definitely something that I believe each and every one of us really wants for the community. And of course, I'll come with any other further updates or anything else that I learn around what we're currently dealing with. I do know that the Board of Police Commissioners is hosting their first public meeting on this Wednesday. I believe that police headquarters are going to allow people that wish to give public comment to speak. I think they make you sign 30 minutes prior to the meeting. So that is open to the public. So if anyone does have the time and availability that wish to go, please go. if you're not able to make it, try to send someone else. And I believe that is all of my section on the agenda that I can think of at this moment.

Chairwoman, I do want to clarify that they're probably only going to allow nine speakers at that. Yeah, because they're giving five minutes each to a speaker and only allowing 45 minutes for the So just keep that in mind if you do go.

Thank you.

I'm glad you said that.

Thank you. Chairwoman, may I? Thank you. Thank you, Harrison, for pointing that out. I think it's important for us to state as members of the Civilian Oversight Board that a process where people must come in person, where they have to come 30 minutes before a meeting to sign up, they can't send something in advance to say, hey, I'll be there when it starts. Please put me on the list. A process where the amount of public comment is limited by time and the nine apparently people who show up is extremely disappointing. And I think that as people who've put a lot of time over the years into looking at civilian oversight, looking at accountability and what real transparency looks like, we know that not only is that not transparency, it is about as far from it as you could possibly imagine. And so I do think that we as a board do need to be clear that it is extremely insufficient to have a quarterly meeting where nine people who camp out in line for as long as possible are able to talk for a few minutes is not at all public comment or transparency. And anyone who is purporting to say that that has met the criteria of engagement is sadly mistaken. I think it really goes to show that the people who are on that Governor appointed board do not have the background to be doing this work. And I would really like to just mention that. Well, we have experts like Dr Milan or Milan. I'm sorry who have been looking at this. We have experts who have been going to national conferences. We've been going to trainings on what accountability and transparency looks like. We know that the individuals on that government appointed board have not done so, and it shows. And so I think that we need to continue working to be the voice for the citizens of St. Louis in this process and make sure that we are not falling into the trap of accepting that as an acceptable form of public comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead, Dr. Malin.

Keith makes a very good point. I am not sure how the city's budget streams follow the city St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. What I can tell you is if any of the funding supported by the city that comes in from the federal government Community participation has always been one of the major contentions of the use and access of community development block grants. So to have a provision that really inhibits participation by members of the community That is, this is not what you want to do or have the city be in a position to do. So, you know, we can look at participation. Not only as it relates to the regulations of using that funding. But we can also look at participation from a theoretical perspective and also from social sciences perspective. So there are various supports. around inclusive participation as it relates to government, as it relates to civic engagement, as it relates to how we work with neighbors, corporate structures. So I'm disappointed to hear this, but I really do understand when you have an open process that involves the community, and then a process that is going to limit or hinder the community, this is not acting in good faith.

I agree. And I'll say I was invited to sit on a panel that was supposed to be, it was supposed to be around Juneteenth actually. And from my understanding, one member of the police board was invited So I yield to speak on police because I want that person to speak. Because I want people to be able to come and get that to be able to speak directly to because where that panel is being strategically organized for people to get their questions. Because I think it's very important know that us as a body, we're kind of restricted as of right now, kind of like as to what we can and can't do. But I also understand that we're also residents and taxpayers of the city of St. Louis. So I feel like if this is able to happen, which from my understanding is supposed to happen in July, and it's supposed to be at Harris, that be able to let everybody know as soon as the information goes out because in that way we can make sure that we have transparency in that room because i feel like if you're able to come to that room and speak but not be able to listen to however many people decide to come to that meeting and sit there for that amount of time i mean for me personally i guess under speaking as being a long-tenured board member of this body you have to be open and receptive and want to listen to the public you have to be able to understand where they're coming from and their frustrations around things and how things impact them if that's something that's not for you then i absolutely feel like you should not serve on any board of commission because it's not about you in that situation it's about the people i do feel like With the extra politics that have been added to this Board of Police Commissioner, I think it has caused a very hard strain among the community in feeling like our voice had been stripped away. I feel like the only way we're going to get to a point where we can voice everything ourselves is when we create those spaces ourselves because i have learned you can wait for other people to give you the opportunity and give you since you have to just go take it and this is one of these this is one of the instances where this will be a great time to hold them accountable in space um so let you all know when that is so everyone can be in attendance to it because questions will be, you know, provided, you know, of course, like through a card, things like that, but then also allowing the community to ask those questions because you can't rush progress and especially things that we're being impacted in our city, you can't rush those conversations. Go ahead, Harris.

I was just, out of all this conversation, you're saying, you know, we have to create our own things. if they're going to limit public comment could we have our own session where it's our own meeting where we have a large public comment section and we're inviting people to give their current opinions on anything police related well that was something i think we talked about before and we were trying to make sure that we weren't treading unsafe water in the sense of

Violating or I guess maybe overstepping or putting us in the line of fire regarding what they're stating shit. But we can probably talk more about it in both sessions different on movers the call session. So we can discuss Because there's a couple things that we do have to go over During that Anybody have any other questions. Hearing none. I move for us to move to the next one on the agenda, which is public comment. So we're going to limit those public comments to three minutes. And if anyone does have a public comment, if you could use your, let me find it. Where is it on my screen? Where you raise your hand. I don't see it. You should have the raise your hand feature. I don't see mine though. Oh, there it is. You click the reaction button. And you could raise your hand or lower your hand. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to give a three-minute comment? I don't see anyone's hands going up. Okay. Going once, going twice, okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and move us to go into closed session. So, I move that we go into closed session pursuant to section 610.021, section 1 for purposes of discussing legal actions, cause of actions, and litigation regarding public governmental body and any confidential privileged communication between public governmental body or its representatives and attorneys. Is there a second? I second. And this will be a roll call vote.

Stephen Rovac. Kristen Griffin. Derek Kilgore.

Present.

Keith Rose.

Is the question, shall we move into closed session? Is that the question?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Sierra Simrel. Yes, present. Jennifer Whitaker. Yes. Harrison Sand. Yes. I believe we have four yeses and one present. I'm not exactly sure how to count these.

Whitaker, can you just clarify your vote is yes or present? I think you said both.

Yes. Yes.

Yes for me as well. I apologize. No worries. That's five yeses. Passes.

Thank you. Motion passes. We'll move to the next round.

Jennifer, I think we missed it. Let me go text Anwar, because we're still in the regular room.

Okay. We have returned back from closed session. For the public record, there was a vote taken in closed session. The next item on the agenda is new business. Do we have new business? I do not hear any. um so our next meeting i believe stated earlier that it's tentatively july 20th and of course her usual oh jennifer says she got disconnected um Okay so July 20th tentative time roughly based off of I guess the time that's available for everybody to confirm that everyone is in attendance. I know Candace sends out those notifications and I know this is still the summer until people are taking vacations. So if everyone could please respond to those to confirm if you're able to attend that'll be great as well as a time. And I move to adjourn at 6 36 p.m. Mr. Isaac.

second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye aye madam chair yes sorry to interrupt but is the next meeting is it the 13th or the 20th because the 13th would be the second monday the 20th is the third monday of the month I don't have the calendar in front of me, but I believe your meeting would be on the second Monday.

We're always on the third Monday. Okay. I stand corrected. Thank you. Okay. So, did we finish? Derek said second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody. See you all next month. Thank you. Bye.