HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-17 e-packet@4:00Wednesday, March 17, 2021
4:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Teleconference Meeting
The South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social
Equity
Regular Meeting Agenda
March 17, 2021The South San Francisco
Commission on Racial and Social
Equity
Regular Meeting Agenda
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF
TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER
OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS
MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND
IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/83910011151?pwd=dHF3TWpNVlJtdHJZeGJUZXhPeWdHUT09
Meeting ID: 839 1001 1151
Passcode: 925902
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
833 548 0282 US Toll-free
The Commission will now meet the 3rd Wednesday of each month 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Spanish translation available during the meeting
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
March 17, 2021The South San Francisco
Commission on Racial and Social
Equity
Regular Meeting Agenda
Chair:
Buenaflor Nicolas
Commission Members:
Edith Arias
Jeff Azzopardi
Gladys Balmas
Norm Faria
Andrea Fernandez (Alternate)
Mike Futrell
Cheska Ibasan
Vanessa McGovern
Hermes Monzon
Patricia Murray
Mark Nagales
Kayla Powers
Liliana Rivera
Bobby Vaughn
Staff Support:
Leslie Arroyo
Lisa Costa Sanders
Ashley Crociani
Christina Fernandez
Leah Lockhart
Marie Patea
Sharon Ranals
Sharron Watts
Questions: [email protected]
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
March 17, 2021The South San Francisco
Commission on Racial and Social
Equity
Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the meeting minutes of February 17, 2021.1.
NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Overview2.
Discussion on Community Safety and Equity Advisory Board
i.Small Group Discussion and Report-Out
ii.Public Comment
iii.Commission Discussion
3.
Updates from South San Francisco Unified School District.4.
Next Steps5.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-208 Agenda Date:3/17/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Approval of the meeting minutes of February 17, 2021.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/12/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MAYOR’S COMMISSION ON
RACIAL AND SOCIAL EQUITY
Meeting held at: Teleconference meeting
Wednesday, February 17, 2021
4:00 p.m.
Call to Order Meeting called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chair Nicolas
Roll Call COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Edith Arias, Jeff Azzopardi, Norm
Faria, Mike Futrell, Cheska Ibasan (4:06 pm), Hermes Monzon (4:05
pm), Patricia Murray, Mark Nagales, Flor Nicolas, Kayla Powers,
Bobby Vaughn
ABSENT: Gladys Balmas, Vanessa McGovern, Liliana
Rivera
Alternate Absent: Andrea Fernandez
Welcome/Introductions
Chair Flor Nicolas welcomed the Commissioners to the meeting and provided welcoming
comments.
Consent Calendar
1. Approval of the meeting minutes of January 25, 2021
Moved by Mike Futrell seconded by Norm Faria to approve the minutes of the January
25, 2021 meeting as submitted. Motion passed with no opposition.
New Business
2. Meeting Overview
Kym Dorman provided an overview of the meeting goals and overview of the agenda
items. Sharron Watts guided the Commission in a reflection question of black history
month, discussing how black people have changed history. Kayla Powers discussed the
campaign for universal public education, the 14th amendment and the civil rights
movement which led to immigration act. She noted that black women have been at the
forefront of women’s rights movements. Flor Nicolas noted her admiration for Nelson
Mandela, Desmund Tutu, Maya Angelo and Ruby Bridges. Bobby Vaughn commented on
all the great Jazz contributors and how it influenced music. Norm Faria commented on
the Black Panthers, the track athletes that raised their arm at the Olympics, and the civil
rights activist that walked the front lines. Jeff Azzopardi reflected on Hank Aaron,
Muhammad Ali and other athletes that faced great adversity. Hermes Monzon
commented on black community in Peru and their music and food contributions.
3. Overview of Equity and Inclusion Liaison
2
Sharron Watts provided an overview of Strategy 1.1: establish a dedicated staff position
to provide accountability, advance equity initiatives and monitor equity outcomes. She
reviewed the draft actions for Strategy 1.1, noting that the DEI training will be starting
this month for staff. Police department will also be participating in implicit bias training.
Sharron Watts reviewed the draft key responsibility for the new position; including
developing and implementing a citywide Racial Equity Action plan, foster community
engagement and track progress. She noted that the position is proposed as a staff pilot
position. Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director, discussed formation of the position.
Mike Futrell stated that the position would be in the City Manager’s office and have a
seat at key meetings. The position needs to be considered by the City Council as well as
budget authorization. Mike Futrell requested Commission input on the key
responsibilities for the position.
4. Overview of Expanding Educational Resources for Priority Populations
Kym Dorman reviewed strategy 3.3, expand educational resources to address structural
inequities, which includes enrichment programs and leadership development, supporting
low-income and students of color during and after distance-learning and implement
universal preschool and or pre-k. She reviewed draft actions to address the strategy
Cheska Ibasan and Ethan Mizzi presented the Youth Action Plan. They reviewed
several recommendations including: accessible mental health resources, accessible
reproduction health resources, review academic curriculum for all courses to implement
anti-racist education, provide college and career counseling as well as tutoring, make
after school childcare and after school recreation programs free for all and expand
municipal Wi-Fi access.
Commission discussion:
Mark Nagales thanked the Youth Advisory Council members for the presentation.
Mike Futrell noted that the city is working on expanding city Wi-Fi infrastructure
and the Council authorized distribution of laptops and hotspots. He also noted the
Council School subcommittee can meet with School Board to discuss further.
Edith Arias thanked the Youth Councilmembers for their presentation and
appreciated the diverse youth membership. She would like to see expanded
youth volunteer opportunities.
Cheska Ibasan noted Youth Council members could attend other Committee and
Commission meetings to provide input on projects. She also commented on the
allocation of CDBG grant funds.
Pat Murray commented that the School district is partnering with CORA in
student leadership class. She also noted the District is also working to form a
Youth Advisory Commission to advise the Board.
5. Overview of Strengthening Community Cohesion Through Community
Engagement
Sharron Watts provided an overview of strategy 2.2 to strengthen community cohesion
through community engagement efforts to build cross-cultural trust especially with
residents of color and low-income residents. She reviewed draft action steps including
targeting CERT offerings in specific neighborhoods (Old Town), creating a teen CERT
program and expanding workplace CERT training.
6. Discuss Considerations to Ensure Strategies Promote Racial and Social Equity
i. Small Group Discussion and Report Out
3
Myra Jolivet reported that her group prioritized city-wide action plan, track
progress and fostering community engagement for strategy 1.1. The group
also commented on need for buy in from department heads to ensure the
position can work comfortably and be successful. For strategy 3.3, they
commented on mentorship/job pipeline and convert YAC to Commission.
Commissioners also noted need for affordable childcare and affordable after
school programs. For strategy 2.2, group noted need to address language
barriers, expand promotores and include relationship brokers to build
relationships and partnerships.
Sharron Watts reported that her group prioritized the action plan for strategy
1.1, occur across departments, implement accountability, and establish a
baseline (what is missing, what is needed). For strategy 3.3, the group
commented on strengthening homeowners and renters associations,
importance of building trust, need to build-out relationships, ensure equal
representation on CERT community-wide. Group commented on strategy 2.2,
ensure youth voice at the table (convert to Commission), address financial
need with scholarships for higher education (community-based fund and
Chamber of Commerce).
Kym Dorman reported that her group commented on strategy 1.1, with
priorities on infusing DEI and anti-racism, fostering community engagement
and share data/track progress. Steps for first year; connect with community
navigators and look across city and across departments. For strategy 3.3,
prioritized leveraging the navigator program, enrichment programs, regular
meetings between City and SSUSD and other organizations to work
collaboratively, convert YAC to Commission, expand preschool. For strategy
2.2, identify additional work beyond CERT.
ii. Public Comment
None.
iii. Commissioners Discussion
Kayla Powers noted the position needs to have a vision, convince people of
that vision and interact with community. Position needs a high-level skill set.
Flor Nicolas agreed the position is important for the City.
Edith Arias noted need to engage members of the public that are being
impacted to share their needs.
Bobby Vaughn expressed excitement for new position and engagement with
youth. Need to be sensitive that they need to be given and voice and
influence.
Norm Faria noted that we need to keep in mind the senior population in
addition to the youth.
7. Next Steps
Kym Dorman reviewed meeting topics for upcoming Commission meetings including
community based public safety approaches and community safety advisory board. The
next Commission meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2021.
Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-209 Agenda Date:3/17/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Meeting Overview
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/12/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-210 Agenda Date:3/17/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Discussion on Community Safety and Equity Advisory Board
i.Small Group Discussion and Report-Out
ii.Public Comment
iii.Commission Discussion
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/12/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
DATE: March 17, 2021
TO: Members, Commission on Racial and Social Equity
FROM: Sharron Watts, Racial and Social Equity Graduate Fellow
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD
The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, sparked nationwide protests demanding heightened
police accountability and also brought to the surface long-simmering issues of racial and social
equity. The rallying cry for reform has led to many communities making a long overdue
examination of policies and practices, and making positive change. One such change to consider
for South San Francisco is the establishment of a Community Safety Advisory Board (CSA).
CSAs are multi-stakeholder investments designed to facilitate communication strategies that
improve public confidence in police, promote and ensure transparency, foster accountability and
aim to eliminate obstacles to citizen complaints and input. Many cities large and small have some
sort of CSA, varying in duties and responsibilities. A survey of CSA’s for the 100 most populous
cities found that 16% were advisory, 38% review, 21% investigative, with only 7% audit. Cities
with larger populations are more likely to have bodies with investigative and review oversight
capacity. Smaller or less populated cities have review or advisory models of oversight only
(Oversight of Police Despite Challenges and Controversy, 2020). Most CSAs level of oversight is
limited to making recommendations, community outreach, and engagement focused on
relationship-building. Note some of the most far reaching oversight agencies were not voluntarily
established, but imposed by the federal government due to chronic and deeply imbedded systemic
failures within certain police departments.
CSAs are highly influential in identifying and highlighting systemic racism within public safety
practices and procedures. CSAs have the authority and ability to utilize community voice not only
to address concerns regarding law enforcement but also other public safety arenas that impact
quality of life and safeguard against disaster, crime, and other threats or danger to civilian
protections. CSA’s advice and recommendations promote the opportunity for education within
and between local departments responsible for the safety of the public and the community. The
scope can extend beyond a police department to a review of all powers exercised by a city viewed
through a racial and social equity lens, including emergency management, fire departments, first
responders, code enforcement, transportation, etc. CSAs serve as positive advisory groups and
liaisons to the community by providing a safe space for addressing often difficult issues of racial
and social equity.
Role of Community Safety Advisory Boards Varies
Across the United States there are a wide range of community advisory boards tasked with
making recommendations to local departments regarding education, health care, policing, and
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 2 of 36
social services. Many are stand-alone while others work in tandem across local departments with
varying composition, functions, purpose, and jurisdiction/decision-making authority. A primary
role of a CSA is to advise and provide recommendation to the chief of police regarding
community issues that impact safety, security and the quality of life by proactively seeking the
advice and counsel of diverse groups of community members. CSAs prompt opportunities to
listen, create transparency and initiate constructive dialogue on policy, procedure, and protocols
within law enforcement.
Advisory boards can be useful in assisting law enforcement agencies with conducting research,
providing skilled volunteer services, and support community outreach efforts. CSAs are
partnerships or collaborations between the community and law enforcement agencies with a
primary focus on crime reduction, solution building, receiving citizen complaints and disaster
preparedness. CSAs do not serve as oversight bodies and have little to no authority in making
administrative change (hiring or firing) within police departments. Particularly, law enforcement
advisory commissions, boards, or committees have been established to enhance community
policing, increase public awareness, strengthen police-community collaborations to build trust
between police and the community, and to receive and review citizen complaints.
The first step in understanding what type of CSA may work in South San Francisco is to
understand what can and cannot be done legally under California law. The below input from Sky
Woodruff, City Attorney, and Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director, set the stage for an
informed discussion about establishing a CSA in South San Francisco.
Limits of California Law on Forming Community Safety Advisory Boards
(Sky Woodruff, City Attorney)
When considering which CSA model may best serve South San Francisco, it is vitally important
to have a clear understanding of the limitations on forming a CSA imposed by California state
law. There are four primary constraints on the scope of the powers of a potential community
safety advisory body, largely stemming from different aspects of California law:
1. South San Francisco is organized as a General Law City. It only has the powers granted to it
under State law. Most cities that have well known community safety advisory bodies are Charter
Cities, and as such have greater power to shape and empower a CSA.
2. As a General Law City, South San Francisco operates under the City Manager form of
government. Most California cities, including South San Francisco, have adopted a "City
Manager form of government" (also called the “Council-Manager form of government”). The
powers of the City Council and the City Manager are separate. Control over most aspects of the
administration of the City and its employees is assigned to the City Manager. Under that form of
government, the City Manager appoints all subordinate employees, including the Chief of Police.1
That means that hiring, firing, and discipline of the Police Chief is a power expressly assigned to
the City Manager under State law.
1 Gov.Code § 34856.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 3 of 36
3. State law expressly assigns control over the police department to the Police Chief. “Control”
includes the power to hire, fire, and discipline police officers, and to adopt administrative
policies, procedures, and practices.
4. State law treats public employee personnel records as private and confidential. Investigations of
allegations of public employee misconduct are confidential personnel records. Police personnel
records have heightened protections, with some recently adopted exceptions. The City Council
does not have the authority to access the personnel files of City employees. The City Council
cannot delegate to an advisory body a power that it does not possess, meaning likewise a CSA in
South San Francisco cannot access personnel files, and are subject to the same confidentiality
limitations.
A bit more on the role of the City Manager. Government Code section 34851 specifically
authorizes cities to establish a City Manager form of government. It allows a city to adopt an
ordinance creating the position of City Manager.2 The City Manager is the City's chief executive
and the head of all City staff. The policy behind the City Manager form of government is based
on the principle of separation of powers, which ensures that the council and manager can perform
their duties without unnecessary interference from one another. "More importantly, the
separation of powers provides staff with direction regarding to whom they are accountable. This
helps to avoid situations where a staff member employee feels that he or she has six bosses – the
city manager and the five members of council."3
As discussed above, the City Council has implemented a City Manager form of government and
expressly enumerated specific powers and duties of the City Manager in Municipal Code section
2.36.040, including:
“(b) To appoint, discipline and dismiss all appointed officers and employees of the city,
excepting the members of council-appointed boards and commissions and the city attorney;
. . .
(d) To make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary for the administration of affairs of
the city;
(k) To make investigations into the affairs of the city and each department and division thereof
. . .;
(l) To investigate all complaints in relation to all matters concerning the administration of the
government of the city . . ..”
Additionally, the City Council has adopted section 2.36.050 of the Municipal Code, which
expressly limits the City Council’s role in the administration of the City. It states:
“Neither the city council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution
by the city manager of the city manager’s powers and duties or directly or
indirectly order the appointment or removal, by the city manager or by any of the
2 Creating Effective Government: a High Wire Act, (October 2002) League of
California Cities Annual Conference, City Attorneys Department, pages 6-7.
3 Directing Staff in Council/Manager Form of Government, (October 19, 2004)
League of California Cities.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 4 of 36
department heads, of any person to any position in the city service. Except for the
purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal with the
administrative service solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor
any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager, either
publicly or privately. The city manager shall take orders and instructions from the
city council only when it is sitting in a lawfull y held meeting.”
Of particular relevance to a potential CSA, the City Council has made explicit that it does not
have the power to hire or fire (and thus to discipline) any City employee. The City Council cannot
assign to an advisory body a power that it does not possess.
State law includes an additional limitation on the City Council’s ability to control the police
department, and thus on the City Council’s ability to assign any aspect of control over the police
department to another body such as a CSA. Government Code section 38630 states that “[t]he
police department of a city is under the control of the chief of police.” The City Council cannot
create a community safety advisory body that exerts “control” over the police department, as such
a body would conflict with section 38630. Control includes any actions related to discipline, or
requiring the implementing of policies, procedures, or practices. Under the City Manager form of
government and as implemented by the City Council, the Police Chief is under the control of the
City Manager. Consequently, the City Manager’s power over the administration of the City also
applies to the Police Chief and the police department. Some aspects of the operation of the
department are under the control of the Police Chief because of State requirements related to
policing practices, policies, and procedures.
The final State law limitation on the potential scope of a CSA stems from the privacy rights of
public employees generally, and the particular protections for police officers. A citizen complaint
regarding the conduct of a police officer relates to an alleged violation of State law or the City’s
administrative policies. An investigation of such a complaint (except for criminal law violations)
is a personnel matter. State law provides substantial protections for police personnel records.
Under the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights (“POBR”), police personnel records are “confidential
and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding.”4 As confidential records, they can
only be disclosed to those who are expressly authorized to receive them. They may be disclosed
to a criminal Grand Jury, District Attorney, or Attorney General as part of an authorized
investigation. They may also be disclosed pursuant to a court order after a judge has determined
that they are relevant to a particular case, often called a “Pitchess motion.” State law was
reformed in 2019 to make some records disclosable to the public.5
Because of the general confidentiality of documents and investigative reports related to alleged
police misconduct, those records are generally only accessible by City employees and
4 Penal Code § 832.7(a).
5 The investigation reports that must be disclosed generally relate to the
following issues only: (1) discharge of a firearm; (2) use of force that
results in death or great bodily injury; (3) an incident that results in a
sustained finding of sexual assault against a member of the public; and (4) an
incident that results in a sustained finding of dishonesty related to a crime
or other specified matters. (Penal Code § 832.7(b).)
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 5 of 36
investigators who are authorized to view the records. As discussed above, under the City Manager
form of government and the provision of State law that assigns control over the police department
to the Chief of Police, members of the City Council are not authorized to see confidential
personnel records, including records related to an investigation of alleged police misconduct.
Because the City Council does not have the power to see those confidential records itself, it
cannot authorize a community safety advisory body to view them either.
As a consequence of those intertwined provisions of State law, any investigatory role for a CSA is
limited. If the Commission were interested in exploring an advisory body with such a limited
investigatory role, the City Attorney’s Office would need to undertake additional research to
define the contours of how such a program would work to ensure the protection of confidential
information and adherence to state law. The Commission should understand that the advisory
body members might be able to receive a report about alleged misconduct, but the report could
not include confidential information, and the members of the advisory body would not be able to
receive or review confidential information. Additionally, the advisory body would be limited to
making recommendations and would not itself be able to take any action based on the report.
Limitations to Forming a CSA Imposed by Public Employee Labor Relations
(Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
Labor relations with public employee unions in local government agencies are governed by the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”). Among the central requirements of the MMBA is that
agencies must “meet and confer in good faith” with public employee unions over wages, hours,
and terms and conditions of employment. “Meet and confer in good faith” means meeting to
discuss proposals with the goal of reaching an agreement, considering and evaluating all
proposals, and allowing enough time to meet to discuss the proposals in order to work towards
agreement. Evidence of “good faith bargaining” generally includes, but is not limited to, making
movement on proposals and counterproposals that reflect an attempt to reach agreement, avoiding
“regressive bargaining” (withdrawing prior offers), and allowing sufficient time and frequency of
meetings to occur prior to declaring an impasse. Bargaining agreements are generally contained in
Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), however, meet and confer may still be required for
other changes to policies or procedures, or programs, to be implemented by the City.
Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
These categories are interpreted broadly, including any changes that could negatively affect such
areas. “Terms and conditions of employment” include a broad range of subjects, including but not
limited to safety, job requirements, employment policies and work rules, and disciplinary
procedures. The City is required to meet and confer over changes to rules, policies, and practices
insofar as they concern a change for employees that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Under
the MMBA, the City is required to provide reasonable written notice of such changes and the
opportunity to meet and confer prior to implementing the change.
The MMBA excludes consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of work from the
scope of mandatory bargaining, which are generally referred to as “management rights.”
However, to the extent that changes to services or the organization have an effect on wages,
hours, or terms and conditions of employment, the City is still required to meet and confer over
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 6 of 36
the effects of such decisions. A common effect that decisions may have is a reduction in the
workforce. The City has the right to implement a reduction in the workforce, however, the City
must meet and confer with the union over how such changes are implemented. This may include
order of layoff, transfer rights, rehire rights, separation benefits, timing and content of notices,
and other factors associated with employment changes. Bargaining may also include impacts to
the remaining workforce due to reduced staffing levels.
In the event that the City and the Union are unable to reach agreement during meet and confer,
either party may declare impasse. At this stage, the City would issue a “last best and final offer.”
Either party may request mediation from the State Mediation office, but this is not required. The
next stage in the process is a fact-finding panel. This involves a panel including one panelist
appointed by the City, one by the union, and one by the State Mediation Office. The fact-finding
panel hears evidence on both sides and issues a non-binding recommendation to the City Council.
Council may implement the recommendations, or may impose the terms contained in the City’s
last, best and final offer.
In terms of enforcement of the MMBA, either the City or a Union may bring a charge of an unfair
labor practice (violation of the MMBA) before the State Public Employee Relations Board
(“PERB”). Charges of unfair labor practices involving peace officer associations are not within
the jurisdiction of PERB, but disputes of this nature are typically brought before an
Administrative Law Judge6.
Labor Relations - Disciplinary Actions and Appeals: While most private employment in
California is at-will, federal, state and local government employees (except where explicitly
exempted) have due process protections for their employment and income. This means that
disciplinary action involving termination or loss of pay must be for “good cause,” and employees
have a right to advance notice and a pre-disciplinary hearing prior to the implementation of
discipline. In South San Francisco, in accordance with our Personnel Rules and Regulations, the
Department Head issues the proposed discipline in consultation with the Human Resources
Director, and the Assistant City Manager serves as the pre-disciplinary hearing officer. The
purpose of the hearing is to determine whether good cause exists for discipline, which includes
but is not limited to factors such as the nature of the violation, employment history (including
history of prior violations or lack thereof), the degree to which the employee was put on notice of
the policy, any mitigating factors or circumstances, and consistency of penalty among similarly
situated employees.
Under the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations, Employee-Employer Relations Resolution,
and Union MOUs, employees also have the right to post-disciplinary appeals. The Police
Association MOU contains an appeal process as follows: For discipline involving less than 40
hours of suspension or wage loss, the discipline may be appealed to the City Manager, and the
final step is an appeal to the City’s Personnel Board. For discipline involving more than 40 hours
(up to termination), the appeal is advanced to the City manager, followed by binding arbitration.
6 There is currently some dispute over whether PERB has jurisdiction over
Peace Officer Associations, as evidenced by recent PERB and Court cases,
however this is likely immaterial to the role of a Public Safety Advisory
Commission.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 7 of 36
In binding arbitration, an arbitrator is mutually selected by the parties or assigned by the
California State and Mediation office. The decision of the arbitrator is final and binding.
In addition to MOU provisions, the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights Act (POBR) stipulates
procedural requirements for investigating disciplinary cases, timelines and process for issuing
discipline, and administrative appeal rights. The City retains the right to select an investigator and
determine the method of investigation; however, procedural rules must be followed. Therefore, it
is important that the City assigns an investigator that is familiar with POBR requirements.
Labor Relations - Grievance Procedures: Under the Police Association MOU, binding
arbitration is also the final step to resolve grievances, brought by an employee or the union,
alleging that the City has violated the terms of an MOU. Prior to advancing to arbitration, the
grievance is reviewed by the Police Chief, followed by the City Manager.
Labor Relations - Implications for a CSA: If a CSA is considering policy changes or
recommendations, the Commission members must be aware of the City’s duty to meet and confer
on anything that affects wages, hours and working conditions. When negotiating an MOU, the
City Council works through a negotiator (who may be the Human Resources Director or a
consultant hired for this purpose) and provides direction on bargaining parameters in closed
session. If a Commission’s scope includes recommendations impacting an MOU, or wages, hours
or working conditions, including processes for investigations and appeals of discipline or
termination by police officers--the CSA would to make those recommendations to the City
Council well in advance of the beginning of any bargaining. the City Council would then decide
whether to incorporate the recommendation into direction to the labor negotiator. Given the time-
intensive process of negotiations, it would likely not be feasible to have both Council and
Commission review proposals at each stage of the process. In addition, this may create confusion
over which body has authority to provide direction to the negotiator on various types of proposals.
As noted in the discussion above from the City Attorney, any investigatory role for a community
safety advisory body would be limited because of State law and the processes described in this
section. If the Commission were interested in exploring an advisory body with such a limited
investigatory role, the City Attorney’s Office would need to undertake additional research to
define the contours of how such a program would work to ensure the protection of confidential
information.
With respect to disciplinary appeals, a Commission hearing could be included at any stage in this
process, however, this change must be negotiated with the union and agreed to during MOU
negotiations.
A copy of the South San Francisco Police Department’s policy concerning investigations of
alleged police misconduct is attached.
Labor Relations - Legal and Policy Resources
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) Gov. Code § 3500 et. seq.
Police Officers Bill of Rights Act (POBR) Government Code § 3300, et seq
Employee-Employer Relations Resolution City of SSF Municipal Code
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 8 of 36
City Personnel Rules and Regulations (Approved by City Council Resolution)
Police Association MOU – (Approved by City Council Resolution)
Review of Types of Community Safety Advisory Boards in the United States
With an understanding of the legal limitations imposed by California law, below is a thorough
review of the various types of CSAs in the United States. Specific characteristics of oversight
bodies, include their size, term length, member qualifications and ability to implement
disciplinary action. Noting the organizational structure, benchmarks, expert insight in the creation
and maintenance of these models aid in the categorization of high, medium, or low capacity of
civilian oversight.
The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, (NACOLE) works
nationally to build police accountability and public trust. NACOLE is a non-profit organization
that brings together individuals and agencies working to establish or improve oversight of police
officers in the United States. Established in 1995, NACOLE promotes the following:
increase the knowledge and skills of staff members and volunteers who work in oversight;
act as a resource when considering the creation or revitalization of oversight bodies;
identifying best practices as they emerge from the experiences of members;
encouraging networking, communication and information-sharing to counter the isolation
inherent in the profession, and;
furnishing information to government officials and community representatives that will
support their advocacy of oversight in their states, counties, cities and towns.
NACOLE notes the benefits of oversight include; the protection of civil rights, the support of
effective policing, greater accountability, building bridges, risk management, and increased
confidence in police. A published report in 2018 claims that there are more than 200 oversight
boards across the nation but not every jurisdiction has opted to implement an oversight model.
This is important to note before analyzing the oversight models to ensure the model
recommended for South San Francisco is relevant to the city, its citizens and its police.
Oversight Models
Civilian oversight models have three distinctive categories with clearly identified
characteristics, responsibilities, and opportunities for community investment. These oversight
models focus on investigation, review, and a process to auditor-monitor police conduct while
strengthening community cohesion, promoting transparency, and providing alternative spaces to
receive, process, review and respond to citizen complaints. NACOLE recommends selecting an
oversight model based on the goals of the community, level of authority granted to implement
change, funding, as well as size and community relationships with the police department.
Investigative Model
Investigative oversight models operate independently of police departments and are proven
effective in spaces of heightened community distrust of local police departments. These bodies of
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 9 of 36
oversight are often assigned to agencies that monitor or contract with outside investigators to
address complaints against law enforcement. This board or commission has authorization to
investigate pre-identified classes of complaints and allegations as set by the establishing body, for
example, the City Council. Members/investigators within this model must be trained to identify
police policy with supporting evidence in which a complaint or allegation is founded; conduct
witness interviews of both civilian and police; gather evidence, prepare investigative reports, and
make recommendations of findings based on evidence reviewed. One strength of this model is the
use of full-time civilian investigators with highly specialized training, which may reduce bias in
investigation into citizen complaints and rebuild trust.
Identified weaknesses include cost and opposition from local police departments. Investigative
models increase costs to staff whether or not investigators are paid through the police department
or oversight board/commission. Though community trust is strengthened through this model there
is a high level of resistance from police personnel to partner with non- police investigators and the
propensity of community disillusionment due to slow process to make transformational change. It
is also likely that the structure of the investigative model to address specific individual complaints
may not address larger systemic issues of policing and community relations.
Review-focused Model
The review-focused model allows the community the opportunity to review the quality of
completed police internal affairs investigations. Variations of authority are based on the
professional attainment of the staff; size of the review agency and the time allotted to review and
provide feedback on closed Internal Affairs investigations. Review model authority includes the
ability to receive and forward complaints to authorized investigators, return cases to internal
affairs for further investigation, hear appeals, make recommendations for disposition, discipline,
policy or procedure revision.
The opportunity for community input into the complaint process and community outreach efforts
are strengths of review-focused models. Collecting community input and facilitating police-
community conversations addresses law enforcement transparency and involves a multi-
stakeholder engagement to improve communication strategies and rebuild trust.
Auditor/Monitor-Focused Model
The auditor/monitor focused model is an attempt to advance systemic change in police policy and
trend analysis and was shaped out of opposition to civilian or investigative review boards.
Auditor/monitor oversight models may encompass a director of an oversight program to perform
ongoing reviews of the overall complaint process. This ongoing engagement includes the
complaint intake process (received from multiple avenues to ensure equity and accessibility);
classification of complaints (probable misconduct), investigation (interviews and evidence
gathering), report (timely, thorough, objective), and analysis (fact-based, need of supervision or
training, corrective measures or discipline); and assistance with dispute resolution. The auditor-
monitor model is the most in depth and efficient engagement of the community complaints of
police conduct. This model is recognized to promote broad organizational change by conducting
systematic reviews of police policies, practices or training and making recommendations for
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 10 of 36
improvement and while being less expensive than full investigate agencies, but more expensive
than review-focused agencies.
Strengths of the auditor/monitor model are their effectiveness to recognize and identify gaps in
handling complaints, areas of bias in investigations, to recommend the necessary tools for
capacity building, technical support, and training on policy, supervision, and the consistency of
fair discipline.
Challenges associated with this model include a significant amount of expertise required to
conduct systematic policy evaluations. Additionally, the primary focus on examining broad
patterns rather than individual cases may be treated with skepticism by the local community. Data
collection is a time-consuming process and the trends that come from the data are often grossly
underreported by prioritized and vulnerable populations. This creates a “gap” in the trends as
unreported complaints of misconduct are not brought to the attention of the auditor/monitor
agency. This concern calls for another level of oversight that the model has not accounted for,
adding to the systemic maltreatment often experienced by marginalized communities.
Hybrid Model
This category is often a combination of the three models based on the agency and community
needs: it builds and maintains trust, ensures quality of delivered services, and enhances
accountability. Recent changes and additions to civilian oversight systems give rise to hybrid
models. Hybrid models provide the opportunity for cities to reimagine public safety and take into
consideration harm of systemic injustice that have compromised community- police relations. The
Center for Policing Equity (COPE), recommends advancing models that promote assessing,
maintaining, and fostering public trust.
In response to community demands and aiming to improve police accountability, oversight
systems are often merged with others, serve in conjunction with others, or are redesigned to
strengthen capacity of existing oversight models. A few examples are listed below:
Anaheim, California
In 2014, Anaheim launched a two-year pilot program regarding civilian police oversight. The City
created the Public Safety Board in response to protests and civilian unrest that erupted following
two fatal officer-involved shooting incidents. In 2018, the City formally established the new
Police Review Board. According to its website, the Board receives “real-time input on major
police incidents,” reviews current and proposed police department policies, and reports statistics
on officer-involved shootings, uses of force, and complaints. Anaheim also employs the Los
Angeles–based Office of Independent Review as an external auditor for its police department.
Sacramento, California
Civilian oversight was initiated in Sacramento in 1999 with the creation of the Office of Public
Safety Accountability, which tracks and monitors serious police-misconduct investigations. In
2016, the City added the Community Police Review Commission to its oversight structure. The
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 11 of 36
new entity was created to review and recommend police department policies and practices and to
“monitor the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and
programs.
Buffalo, New York
In 2017, facing increasing community concerns regarding the conduct of Buffalo police officers,
the City agreed to form a community advisory board. At that time, the Buffalo Police Department
was overseen by the Buffalo Common Council’s Police Oversight Committee. In May 2018, the
Buffalo Common Council unanimously adopted a resolution that created the Community
Advisory Board, made up of eleven residents, to make recommendations to the Common Council
and the Buffalo Police Department. The Board conducts public meetings to hear community
concerns and reports its findings and recommendations to the Common Council’s Police
Oversight Committee. The Community Advisory Board complements the oversight provided by
the Police Oversight Committee.
Details of other CSA’s are attached in Appendix A.
Analysis of Police Oversight
Civilian oversight is most successful with full participation and adequate resource investment.
Barriers to effective oversight and accountability include the interdependence and close-knit
relationships between police commissions and police departments. “Police policing the police,”
has been identified to lack true checks and balances on misconduct and poor policing practices.
Lack of resources contribute to unequal distribution of power and responsibility to maintain
community safety and ensure accountability. Additional barriers include:
oversight teams that are not independent from police;
police and police union-imposed restrictions on what information oversight teams’ access
and release;
politicians compromising rather than sufficiently empowering oversight teams;
municipalities inadequately funding oversight teams so they cannot perform the full range
of oversight necessary;
municipalities inadequately funding and supporting oversight teams to ensure that
members are perceived as lacking professionalism or expertise;
communities lack the expertise of evaluation and review processes;
lack of diverse selection of evaluators, investigators, auditors to support the racial and
equitable change in oversight, and
civilian oversight authority is subject to organized labor protections and city law
provisions on boards and commissions
An ill equipped and untrained oversight body is positioned to fail. Most effective oversight
models are independent from police departments making their recommendations more trusted
from the community. Strength in authority or capacity does not necessarily attest to a more
effective body. The effectiveness of civilian oversight is difficult to measure as no oversight
model is the same. However, with true metrics in place to monitor the number of complaints
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 12 of 36
addressed, the time needed to address them, and the level of engagement civilian review agencies
have in administrative policy and practices, communities can be aided in the achievement of a
level of law enforcement accountability and reductions in police misconduct.
Other National, State and Local Initiatives
Outside of a community forming its own CSA, there are legislative and advocacy efforts to
influence and/or direct the activities and policies surrounding public safety. National and state
laws have been implemented to address law enforcement conduct. Examples include the
following:
Banning chokeholds: Assembly Bill -1196 Peace Officers: Use of Force
Investigation of use of force: Assembly Bill 1506 Peace Officers: Use of Force
National laws in discussion include
1. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021- passed the House March 3, 2021 awaiting
on the vote of the Senate Fact Sheet: George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020
comprehensive package to address police accountability, end racial profiling,
culture shift for law enforcement which empowers communities and works to build
trust
2. Justice for Breonna Taylor Act (S.3955) introduced June 11, 2020 read in the Senate and
referred to Committee on the Judiciary:
Prohibits no-knock warrants
Unanimously passed by Louisville, Kentucky metro council
Other states are adopting
South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) had also adopted the Eight Can’t Wait
framework and fully complies with seven of the eight policy changes; while partially complying
to one. SSFPD is consistent with and aligned with state and national requirements and also
participates in ongoing training which includes but is not limited to:
Bias- Based Policing – Remaining Fair & Impartial
Crisis Intervention
Defensive Tactics
Domestic Violence
First Aid/CPR
Racial Profiling & Cultural Awareness
Sexual Harassment
Strategic and Tactical Communication
Use of Force – Decision Making Simulators
Use of Force – Totality of the Circumstances
Workplace Violence
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 13 of 36
PROPOSED MODEL FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCSICO:
Considering the various CSA models around the country, and the legal limitations placed on
South San Francisco as a General Law city, a hybrid community safety advisory board is
recommended for South San Francisco, to be named the Community Safety and Equity
Advisory Board (CSEAB). Focusing on a holistic approach to community safety which includes
housing, education, social services and policing. CSEAB aims to achieve not only transparency
and accountability but also a reduction in fear and misconduct associated with law enforcement,
while offering enhanced safety nets that support communities previously harmed by isolation and
systemic injustice. The CSEAB also seeks to build trust and to restore dignity and equity in
community participation and decision making.
Applying an equity lens to CSEAB provides a sense of safety through strengthening partnerships
that aid in crime reduction, fair treatment through investment in arenas that promote and create
safe, healthy, and thriving communities. Equity implements metrics of data collection,
mobilization, and participation in service provision by measuring what matters to the community.
The CSEAB will provide that safe space for residents to raise issues of racial and/or social equity
which impact all areas of our city, including public safety, and will provide an environment for
making recommendations for change. Final decision-making authority remains with the City
Manager, City Council, and/or Police Chief depending on the nature of the policy change or
procedure requested.
The CSEAB would function with a racial and social emphasis with authority to do the following:
Make recommendations which will assist in identifying areas to improve equity, diversity
and inclusion in all areas, including public safety;
Initiate and lead courageous and honest conversations that increase employee awareness
and accountability to issues of race, privilege and inequity;
Act as a liaison between the community, law enforcement, City Council, and other Boards
and Commissions;
Promote and adhere to transparency models and periodically share its efforts externally to
encourage equity and inclusion among the community and officials;
Keep the Police Chief apprised of the community’s need for police services, and assist in
informing the community’s need for police services, disaster preparedness, and function
and role of the SSFPD;
Review policies and practices, and advocate for early intervention strategies that minimize
involvement of youth in the criminal justice system;
Promote positive police-community relations in an effort to provide better services and
expectations from the community and police;
Receive and forward complaints regarding police personnel for alleged misconduct,
designing an alternative, confidential and neutral way to make a complaint with objective
investigation which also respects the rights of citizen and/or officer and maintain integrity
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 14 of 36
of policy and process (process to be determined to ensure full alignment with legal
requirements of General City Law and Bargaining Agreements);
Recommend appropriate changes of public safety policies and procedures toward the goals
of safeguarding the rights of persons and promoting higher standards of competency,
efficiency and justice in the provision of community public safety services;
Work within national, state and local law, and collective bargaining agreements to build a
collaborative process to maintain community safety and equity;
Provide intentional and effective community outreach to stay apprised of community
concerns, and;
Establish rules of conduct, bylaws, etc. with a racial and social equity lens.
Composition of the South San Francisco Community Equity Safety Advisory Board
Volunteer advisory board with nine members plus one alternate, with staggered four-year
teams, appointed by the City Council following the standard model used for other South
San Francisco Boards and Commissions;
Board members must be residents of South San Francisco;
Applications, interviews and appointments are conducted when vacancies occur;
City Council is encouraged to consider appointment of members that represent or
demonstrate knowledge of the experiences of limited-English speakers, homeless people,
and/or people living with mental illness and/or substance use disorders; one or more of the
following communities: Indigenous and First Nation, African-American, Latinx, Asian,
etc. representative of SSF diverse community, immigrant, refugee, LGBTQ, youth, faith,
business, justice impacted, youth and other communities reflecting the overall
demographics of South San Francisco residents; and least one member with some level of
expertise in law and/or labor relations, if possible.
Conclusion
The formation of a CSA can further the goals of the Commission on Racial and Social Equity,
providing a community forum to address issues of public safety and a permanent body to continue
the work of this Commission in the arena of racial and social equity. Considering the limitations
imposed by California law, and tailoring a CSA to meet the issues in South San Francisco, the
formation of a formal, permanent advisory body addressing public safety and equity concerns is
recommended, to be named the Community Safety and Equity Advisory Board.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 15 of 36
Appendix A:
A. Community Safety Advisory Board models
1. Walnut Creek, California: Chief's Community Advisory Board
Population: 70,812
Composition:
The Chief’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) is established under the direction of the
Chief of Police.
The Board will be comprised of 10-15 stakeholders, featuring a diverse cross-section of
active community members throughout the City of Walnut Creek. These members will
represent a range of interests and experience, such as business owners, education, non-
profits, public relations, faith community, youth representation, and more.
Members must be Walnut Creek residents or Walnut Creek business owners and are
selected from the pool of applicants by the Chief of Police, a community representative
and the City’s Communications and Outreach Manager. Members are chosen to serve on
the board for their professionalism, integrity and commitment to their community.
The term for board members is limited to two years to allow for greater participation by
all interested parties.
Extensions for sitting on the board will be considered on an individual basis at the
discretion of the Chief of Police. Members may be removed prior to the end of their term
at the discretion of the Chief of Police
Primary function
The Board is created to act as a resource for the Chief in the formation of strategies,
development of community policing concepts, increasing public awareness, furthering
engagement and transparency efforts and identifying best practices. The Board is intended
to provide a forum for discussions concerning community issues and the goal is to have a
broad spectrum of viewpoints represented. The Walnut Creek Police Department is
committed to community engagement and providing exceptional and transparent police
services.
The committee will be provided with an annual summary of statistics such the number of
police uses of force, the number of police pursuits, crime rates, and the number of citizen
complaints received.
The CAB meets on the third Thursday of every month, currently in a virtual setting. It is
expected that each board member will contribute and provide input on the topics the board
and Chief of Police deem appropriate and timely.
Capacity
The CAB acts solely in an advisory capacity and will be driven by the active participation,
creativity and vision of its members. It will not receive or review complaints initiated
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 16 of 36
against personnel of the Walnut Creek Police Department, nor play any role in civil or
criminal litigation.
Although the CAB is expected to be proactive, it will not have power or authority to
investigate, review or otherwise participate in matters involving specific police personnel
or specific police-related incidents.
Purpose:
To carry out its purpose, the Board will address issues associated with police-community
relations, the improvement of the Walnut Creek Police Department’s operations, and
public safety issues in order to further enhance the quality of life in our community. The
CAB will act as a sounding board for the Chief regarding community needs and concerns,
keep the Chief apprised of the community’s need for police services, and assist in
informing the community at large about the function and role of the Walnut Creek Police
Department. The Board will focus on contemporary challenges that impact the community
and its Police Department. Examples of topics include, but are not limited to, the
following: Use of Force Mental Health Response Criminal activity and trends
Transparency Homelessness Technology.
Media:
Mental health issue shouldn’t be a death sentence
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Family-of-mentally-ill-man-shot-dead-by-Walnut-
15579414.php
2. Mountain View, California: Public Safety Advisory Board
Population: 81,656
Composition:
The City of Mountain View Public Safety Advisory Board was established in 2020. The
PSAB includes up to seven members.
Appointments to the first PSAB will include three positions serving 2-year terms expiring
in 2023 and four positions serving 4-year terms expiring in 2025. Subsequent
appointments to the PSAB will all be for 4-year terms.
To bring diverse representation to the PSAB, the City Council strives to appoint members
from different neighborhoods, of varying ages, races, professions and cultures.
The PSAB will have a staff liaison and receive support from both the City Manager’s
Office and Police Department.
Melvin Gaines, Principal Management Analyst from the City Manager’s Office, serves as
the lead staff liaison. The lead liaison is responsible for developing the agenda and
overseeing the information and recommendations presented to the PSAB. Captain Michael
Canfield serves as a support liaison from the Police Department.
Primary function:
Advise and make recommendations to the City Council, City Manager and Police Chief
on public safety matters.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 17 of 36
The PSAB will review topics discussed at the Ad-Hoc Council Subcommittee on Race,
Equity, and Inclusion meetings in 2020 and propose a work plan for City Council
approval. Potential work plan items include review of MVPD contact data demographics,
exploration of alternative responses to mental health related calls for service, and review
of community input from the Human Relations Commissions 2020 community listening
forums on local policing, MVPD x Partnering for the Future participants and other
sources.
Capacity:
The Public Safety Advisory Board serves solely in an advisory capacity.
Purpose:
Providing the City Council, City Manager and Police Chief with community informed
input and recommendations on public safety matters
Serving as a forum for public discussion of public safety matters, including community
policing concepts, furthering MVPD engagement and transparency efforts, and identifying
best practices
Acting as a liaison between the community and Police Department
Resource:
City of Mountain View Race, Equity and Inclusion Action Plan
Media:
Mountain View’s Commitment On Race, Equity And Inclusion
https://patch.com/california/mountainview/mountain-views-commitment-race-equity-inclusion
3. Hayward, California: Hayward Police Department Community Advisory Panel
Population: 158, 089
Composition:
Members of the Community Advisory Panel (C.A.P.) are selected from a pool of Hayward
community members recommended by members of the City Council. At its inception,
each City Council Member will recommend two to three community members for
consideration.
Members will be selected following the approval of a majority of the Chief of Police, the
City Manager, and the Mayor.
The Chief of Police, City Manager, and Mayor will hold equal stakes in the decision-
making process and no one member will be able to override another.
The Chief of Police, City Manager, and Mayor may involve additional staff, City
commissioners, or other City officials in the selection process but will retain their
decision-making power.
The C. A. P. will be led by the Chief of Police or his/her chosen Chairperson. Members
will serve a renewable two-year term. At its inception, half of the original members will
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 18 of 36
serve an initial two-year term and half will serve an initial one-year term. This is solely to
establish rotating terms.
Panel members may serve a maximum of three (3) terms. The number of panel members
selected to represent the community shall be at least eight (8) and a maximum of twelve
(12).
Primary function:
The C.A.P. was created to provide the Chief of Police and Hayward Police Department
with direct community input and provide community members with direct access to the
Chief about perceived issues related to the department, the formation of strategies and
concepts around community policing, increase public awareness and provide neutral,
third-party insight that supports a productive and inclusive exchange of ideas to be
considered in the department’s decision-making process.
Acting as a sounding board for the Chief of Police regarding community needs and
concerns; as well as provide community feedback about proposed police programs and
priorities.
Assisting in educating the community at large about the function and role of the Hayward
Police Department.
Connecting with community members, particularly persons or communities who may be
reluctant to approach the department on their own, to better understand the needs of the
community and how the Hayward Police Department can support meeting those needs.
Advising the Chief of Police directly about the public perception or perceived image of
the Hayward Police Department or any specific aspect of it.
Capacity:
The scope of the panel does not include participation in departmental disciplinary actions,
legal issues, ongoing criminal or internal investigations, or active critical incidents. The
panel does not make or dictate department policy and is not a policy-making body
Purpose:
The purpose of the C.A.P. is to strengthen the relationship between HPD and Hayward
community members by creating a structured and intentional vehicle for dialogue between
community members and the Hayward Police Department. In strengthening this
relationship, HPD aims to advance the following ideals:
Ensure that the Chief and HPD personnel receive timely information and feedback about
community concerns, crime, policing practices, and policies directly from community
members that will be incorporated into the decision-making process;
Build stronger partnerships between the department and the Hayward community to
reduce crime and improve safety for all community members; and
Develop a pathway for increasing HPD’s understanding of the perspectives of community
members who have not traditionally been engaged or included by the department and
including those perspectives in policy development.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 19 of 36
Resource:
Hayward Police Department Community Advisory Panel Roles and Responsibilities
Media:
Hayward police shooting: Body cam footage released
B. Investigative Model Cities
1. Atlanta, Georgia: The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (ACRB)
Population: 6 million +, Metropolitan area
Composition:
ACRB Appointment Structure (Code Section: 2-2202)
One (1) member shall be appointed by the Mayor
One (1) member shall be appointed by the City Council
One (1) member shall be appointed by the President of Council with previous experience
as a law enforcement professional.
One (1) member shall be appointed by Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU) Group A – F
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group G – L
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group M – R
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group S – Z
One (1) member shall be appointed from the Gate City Bar Association
One (1) member shall be appointed from the Atlanta Bar Association
One (1) member shall be appointed by the League of Women Voters
One (1) member shall be appointed by the Atlanta Business League
*Note: The members of the ACRB may make recommendations to the Mayor, President
of Council and Council members of prospective members to be appointed by the Board.
ACRB Composition of Board (Code Section: 2-2203)
For the purpose of section 2-2202(A)(4), experience as a law enforcement professional
shall include experience as a police officer, criminal investigator, special agent or
managerial or supervisory employee who exercised substantial policy discretion on law
enforcement matters in a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, other than
experience as an attorney in a prosecutorial agency.
Other selected shall have skills and experience in areas relevant to the work of the Board.
Areas that should be represented are: civil rights work and litigation; community and
business leadership; and relevant academic expertise.
No member of the Board shall hold any other public office or hold employment with the
City of Atlanta
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 20 of 36
The chair of the Board will be elected by the Board from among its members. At the first
meeting of the Board it shall, by majority vote of all of its members, adopt rules governing
the conduct of its meetings, proceedings and other procedural matters.
To enable the Board to conduct its work, the Board is authorized to hire its own Director
and appropriate investigative and clerical staff. Additional staff support to the Board shall
be provided by the Office of the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Department and
Corrections upon the request of the Board.
Primary function:
“The Atlanta Citizen Review Board investigates and mediates cases of alleged police
misconduct by sworn officers of the Atlanta Police Department (APD) and the Atlanta
Department of Corrections (ADC).”
An explanation of the ACRB’s complaint procedures shall be made to all police and
corrections officers in a general order to be included in the manual of rules and procedures
of a law enforcement unit and be included in the training program for new corrections and
police officers.
Each member of the ACRB receives training on the issues of abusive language, false
imprisonment, harassment, use of excessive force, serious bodily injury, death which is
alleged to be the result of the actions of an employee of the Department of Corrections or
Police.
Capacity:
The Board shall advise the Mayor, the President of Council, Council members and the
Chief of Police and the Chief of Corrections on policies and actions of the Police and
Corrections Department with the purpose of improving the ability of police personnel to
carry out their duties and to improve the relationship between the Department, Corrections
and the community.
The Board shall have the power to conduct investigations and public hearings.
The Board shall have full discretion to select appropriate individual incidents to review
and broader issues to study which may be of concern to the community, the Police and
Corrections; provided, however, that the Board shall, to the best extent possible, minimize
duplication of effort between the Board and any other existing agencies which have
jurisdiction over the same matter. The Mayor, the President of Council, Council members
and the Chiefs of Police and Corrections, and other responsible officials shall ensure that
all such agencies cooperate to the greatest extent possible in the performance of their
respective activities, studies and operations.
The Board may initiate studies upon request to the Board by any member of the public or
the Police Department and the Department of Corrections or at the Board’s own
discretion. The Board may review specific complaints or incidents of misconduct against
individual police officers; including those involving language related to race, ethnicity,
religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 21 of 36
In order to accomplish its goals as set forth above, the Board shall, have full access to
relevant Police Department and Corrections personnel for interview and to relevant
documents.
All employees of Atlanta City government are hereby directed to fully cooperate with the
Board by promptly producing documents, records, files and any other information that the
Board may request. In addition, employees on request of the Board, shall be available to
meet with and be available to meet with and be interviewed by, the Board or its
representatives and/or to testify before the Board.
Purpose:
This impartial body of citizens serves to help ensure the highest level of equality under the
law for all people by providing a voice to citizens of the Atlanta community at large.
Resource:
(Ordinance and bylaws attached) https://acrbgov.org/service/ordinance-bylaws/
Media:
Executive Director for The Atlanta Citizen Review Board Calls for More Community
Involvement
How police killing of Rayshard Brooks could empower Atlanta’s Citizen Review Board.
2. Chicago, Illinois: Civilian Office of Police Accountability
Population: 9.5 Million, Metro Area
Composition:
COPA is comprised of a diverse staff with many years of investigative and legal
experience.
COPA’s Chief Administrator is required to be an experienced attorney in criminal, civil
rights, labor law, corporate and/or governmental investigations.
As of October 31, 2019, there are 145 budgeted positions (COPA Team )
All investigators (60) completed a weeks-long training program called COPA Academy,
which provides our investigative and legal staff training on investigative processes,
practices and principles. The hands-on-training is taught by subject matter experts and
COPA senior leadership, and covers a variety of subjects, including implicit bias,
complaint intake, procedural justice, investigative strategies and tactics, and legal
concepts.
Primary function:
COPA receives complaints from residents and individual police officers, as well as
incident notifications from the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Some of these
complaints fall within COPA’s jurisdiction, whereas others fall within CPD’s Bureau of
Internal Affair’s (BIA) jurisdiction. These complaints are sorted and classified based on
which investigative body has jurisdiction over the matter
Capacity:
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 22 of 36
On October 5, 2016, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to establish the COPA, which
replaced the Independent Police Review Authority as the civilian oversight agency of the Chicago
Police Department. Under the direction of the Chief Administrator, COPA is directly responsible
for:
conducting investigations into allegations of the use of excessive force, domestic violence,
verbal abuse, coercion, improper search or seizure, and unlawful denial of access to
counsel.
investigating all incidents, including those in which no allegation of misconduct is made,
involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm, an officer’s discharge of a stun gun or taser
in a manner that results in death or serious bodily injury, where a person has died or
sustained serious bodily injury while in police custody, and all incidents of an “officer-
involved death.”
COPA also has the power to investigate patterns and practices of misconduct in any form.
Effective April 13, 2018 - based on information obtained through such investigations, to
make policy recommendations to improve the Chicago Police Department and thereby
reduce incidents of police misconduct within its jurisdiction with integrity, transparency,
independence, and timeliness.
Purpose:
It is COPA’s vision to contribute to the public safety of all Chicagoans by promoting
quality and fair policing and police accountability. COPA performs the intake function for
all allegations of misconduct made against members of the Chicago Police Department.
The goal of every COPA investigation is to determine whether allegations of misconduct
are well-founded, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard; to identify and
address patterns of police misconduct; Civilian Office of Police Accountability Rules and
Regulations.
COPA strives to conduct investigations with the highest level of integrity and
independence in order to make findings based on a thorough review of the evidence and
accurate legal analysis, without regard for political influence
Resource:
COPA Investigative Procedures
COPA Ordinance in Relation to Police Oversight
Media:
Appeals court tosses $44.7 million verdict by off duty Chicago cop
3. Long Beach, California: The Citizen Police Complaint Commission
Population: 463, 218
Composition:
The Citizen Police Complaint Commission shall be composed of eleven (11) members
who are broadly representative of the racial, ethnic, religious, labor, business, age, gender,
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 23 of 36
sexual orientation, and disabled members of the general public, and who reside in the City
of Long Beach.
Each member shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City
Council.
There shall be one Commission member appointed to represent each of the nine City
Council districts, and two members appointed at large.
Each member of the City Council shall nominate an individual to the Mayor to represent
each respective Council district.
The term of each member of the Commission shall be for two years; provided, however,
that of the eleven members first appointed after the effective date of the Article, a drawing
will be held at the first meeting to determine who serves for two years and three years; six
shall serve for three years, and five shall serve for two years. No person shall serve more
than two full terms. Serving any portion of an unexpired term shall not be counted as
service of one term.
The City Manager shall appoint an Independent Investigator, as needed, who shall serve at
the pleasure of the City Manager. The investigator shall have the authority to receive,
administer and investigate, at the direction of the Commission, allegations of police
misconduct, with emphasis on excessive force, false arrest and complaints with racial or
sexual overtones. The investigator shall thereafter report the results of said investigations
to the Commission.
The office of the investigator shall be located outside of the Public Safety Building.
Primary function:
Established April 10, 1990 through a City Charter amendment with authority to receive,
administer and investigate, through an Independent Investigator, allegations of police
misconduct with emphasis on excessive force, false arrest, and complaints with racial or
sexual overtones
The Citizen Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) is one of six chartered commissions
established to provide feedback and input to the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council
on specified matters.
To receive, and in its discretion to administer and investigate, through the Independent
Investigator, allegations of police misconduct, with emphasis on excessive force, false
arrest, and complaints with racial or sexual overtones.
To conduct a hearing into allegations of police misconduct, when such hearing, in the
discretion of the Commission, will facilitate the fact-finding process
To subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses, and the production of books and
papers pertinent to the investigation and to administer oaths to such witnesses to the extent
permissible by law.
To thereafter make recommendations concerning allegations of misconduct to the City
Manager, who shall have final disciplinary authority.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 24 of 36
To recommend to the City Council the provision of such staff as is necessary to carry out
its powers and duties under this Article. Upon authorization by the City Council the City
Manager shall select staff members, who shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.
The Commission shall advise the City Manager of the performance of said staff, and the
City Manager shall thereafter take such steps as he deems necessary to assure their
satisfactory performance.
Capacity:
The CPCC investigates allegations of police misconduct and reviews the service provided
by members of the Long Beach Police Department
The Commission cannot, however, recommend discipline or penalty. While the
Commission does not set policy, its findings have resulted in policies being changed or
clarified to best serve the community.
The CPCC is neither an advocate for the complainant nor for the police personnel.
Their findings can result in the accused personnel being disciplined, trained or exonerated.
Purpose:
To establish guidelines for the receipt and processing of allegations of police employee
misconduct
Commissioners provide a valuable insight into the community’s perception of and
experience with members of the Long Beach Police Department.
Resource:
Long Beach City Charter and Bylaws
Media:
Long Beach Police Commission to Access Officer Statements
C. Review Model Cities
1. Baltimore, Maryland: Civilian Review Board, (CRB)
Population: Metro area 2.3 Million
Composition:
Board members are composed of a member of the public from each of the nine police
districts in Baltimore City.
Members of the Board are selected by the Mayor and subject to the advice and consent of
the City Council.
On the Commission as nonvoting members, are one representative of the Fraternal Order
of Police, one representative of the Vanguard Justice Society, the Baltimore City Police
Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee, one representative of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Maryland (ACLU), and one representative of the Baltimore City
Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Primary function
The Civilian Review Board of Baltimore City is an independent agency in the city through
which members of the public can issue a complaint against officers of various law
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 25 of 36
enforcement units. The Civilian Review Board takes complaints that allege the use of
excessive force, abusive language, harassment, false arrest, and false imprisonment.
The law enforcement units that the Civilian Review Board handles complaints for are: the
Baltimore City Police Department, the Baltimore City School Police, the Baltimore City
Sheriff's Office, the Baltimore Environmental Police, the Police Force of the Baltimore
City Community College, and the Police Force of Morgan State. The Civilian Review
Board also reviews Police Department Procedures and makes recommendations to the
Commissioner.
Capacity:
The Civilian Review Board is also empowered to review policies of a law enforcement
agency and make recommendations.
The Civilian Review Board of Baltimore City is the only independent City agency
authorized to investigate complaints of police misconduct
Purpose:
Civilian Review Board is established as a permanent independent agency through which
members of the community can lodge complaints regarding abusive language, false arrest,
false imprisonment, harassment, or excessive force by police officers of a law enforcement
unit.
Resource:
Baltimore City Civilian Review Board Bylaws
Baltimore City Civilian Review Board Statement, 2020
Media
CRB Enabling Statute
Misconduct complaints against police drop 40%
2. San Diego, California Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB)
Population: 3.2 million, Metro area
Composition:
The Review Board is composed of eleven volunteers from the County's five Supervisory
Districts.
Members are not affiliated with the Sheriff's Department, Probation Department, or the
County of San Diego.
Review Board members are nominated by the County's Chief Administrative Officer and
appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
The Review Board currently is supported by three County employees: an executive
officer, an investigator, and an administrative assistant.
Primary function:
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 26 of 36
Prepare reports, including at least the Sheriff or the Chief Probation Officer as recipients,
on the results of any investigations conducted by CLERB in respect to the activities of
peace officers or custodial officers, including recommendations relating to any trends in
regard to employees involved in Complaints.
Prepare an annual report to the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer,
the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer summarizing the activities and
recommendations of CLERB including the tracking and identification of trends in respect
to all Complaints received and investigated during the reporting period and present the
annual report to the Board of Supervisors within 60 days of its adoption by CLERB.
The Review Board also investigates deaths that arise out of, or in connection with, the
actions of these peace officers, regardless of whether a complaint is filed. The Review
Board makes advisory findings on complaints and recommendations for policy and
procedure changes to the Sheriff, Chief Probation Officer, and the Board of Supervisors.
The focus of the Review Board is fact-finding, not advocacy for complainants or peace
officers. The Review Board also publishes meeting agendas, minutes, summary and
statistical reports and provides "early warning reports" to the Sheriff and Chief Probation
Officer.
Capacity:
CLERB shall have authority to receive, review, investigate, and report on Complaints filed
against peace officers or custodial officers employed by the County in the Sheriff’s
Department or the Probation Department that allege: (a) Use of excessive force; (b)
Discrimination or sexual harassment in respect to members of the public; (c) The improper
discharge of firearms; (d) Illegal search or seizure; (e) False arrest; (f) False reporting:
(g)Criminal conduct; and/or (h) Misconduct.
CLERB shall have jurisdiction in respect to all Complaints arising out of incidents
occurring on or after November 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CLERB shall not
have jurisdiction to take any action in respect to Complaints received more than one year
after the date of the incident giving rise to the Complaint, except that if the person filing
the Complaint was incarcerated or physically or mentally incapacitated from filing a
Complaint following the incident giving rise to the Complaint, the time duration of such
incarceration or incapacity shall not be counted in determining whether the one year
period for filing the Complaint has expired.
CLERB shall have authority to review, investigate, and report on the following categories
of incidents, regardless of whether a Complaint has been filed: (a) The death of any
individual arising out of or in connection with actions of peace officers or custodial
officers employed by the County in the Sheriff’s Department or the Probation Department,
arising out of the performance of official duties. CLERB shall have jurisdiction in respect
to all deaths of individuals coming within the provisions of this subsection occurring on or
after November 7, 1990.
The Review Board’s decisions on complaints and any related recommendations are
advisory and non-binding. This means the Review Board does not have authority to
compel the Sheriff’s Department or the Probation Department to adopt its decisions, act
on policy recommendations, or impose discipline on a deputy or probation officer for a
sustained misconduct finding.
CLERB is not established to determine criminal guilt or innocence.
Purpose:
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 27 of 36
To increase public confidence in government and the accountability of law enforcement
by conducting impartial and independent investigations of citizen complaints of
misconduct concerning Sheriff's Deputies and Probation Officers employed by the County
of San Diego.
The County's Charter Section 606 charges the Review Board with receiving, reviewing,
and investigating complaints about the conduct of peace officers performing their duties
while employed by the Sheriff's Department or the Probation Department.
Resource:
San Diego City Charter
CLERB Rules and Regulations
Media
Review board reverses an earlier decision
3. Las Vegas, Nevada Citizen Review Board, (CRB)
Population: 2.2 million, Metro area
Composition:
In response to the 1997 fatal shooting of Daniel Mendoza by off duty Metro police
officers, minority communities from the city joined in efforts to establish an independent
citizen police review board with subpoena power and the authority to recommend
sanctions for officer misconduct.
Panel members will be randomly selected by the director, who shall notify the members of
their selection. No more than one former peace officer may be selected to serve on any
panel.
Members must reside within unincorporated Clark County or the City of Las Vegas to
qualify for appointment to the Board; may not be an elected official or a current or former
employee of the LVMPD.
Participation in a mandatory training that is required for all new members including over
forty hours of classes, ride-a-longs and jail tours.
If a panel member is selected but is unavailable to serve, the director shall randomly select
another member until the panel is filled.
Eligible review board members who decline appointments to serve on a panel or who fail
to attend meetings of a panel are subject to removal from the review board pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2.62.040(k).
The CRB is composed of twenty-five citizens who are appointed by two members of the
Las Vegas City Council and two members of the Clark County Board of County
Commissioners.
Primary function:
L.V.M.P.D. Citizen Review Board is to serve as an independent civilian oversight agency
to review complaints of misconduct against Metro peace officers and to review internal
investigations done by the L.V.M.P.D.
Capacity
The Review Board shall have jurisdiction to receive and review all citizen complaints or
requests for review of an internal investigation concerning peace officers employed by the
Metropolitan Police Department.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 28 of 36
Purpose:
The Citizen Review Board was established for the purpose of providing civilian review of
the investigations of alleged police misconduct of peace officers employed by the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The Board reviews complaints of misconduct
filed by citizens, and makes recommendations to the sheriff for discipline, as well as,
advising on departmental policies and practices. The goal of the Board is to ensure the
integrity of investigations of police misconduct and to enhance community confidence in
METRO.
Resource:
Complaint Process Flow Chart
Media:
Back log of complaints
D. Auditor Model Cities
1. Fresno, California: Office of Independent Review
Population: 777,000, Metro area
Composition:
Independent Police Reviewer for the Office of Independent Review, which provides a
neutral, third-party review of police policies, procedures, strategies, and internal
investigations.
The Independent Auditor is tasked with the establishment and implementation of an
inspection process for the FPD, focusing primarily on individual units and their adherence
to the policy manual of the FPD. The Independent Auditor examines each unit for
compliance, rates of compliance and advises the department on any issues.
Primary function:
OIR analyzes complaints filed by citizens with the Police Department Internal Affairs
Division to ensure they have been investigated fairly and thoroughly.
The OIR also provides an objective analysis of individual units within the police
department to ensure compliance with policy and procedure, best practices and the law.
This includes recommendations on findings to increase thoroughness, quality and
accuracy of each police unit reviewed.
Capacity:
Each OIR audit will focus on evaluating the adequacy, thoroughness, quality, and
accuracy of the Police Department’s investigation report. The OIR also reviews Police
Department Inquiry and Complaint logs, identifies and monitors trends within the Police
Department, provides guidance to police officers and police managers when requested;
and serves as an informational resource for the community.
Purpose:
The Office of Independent Review (OIR) works to strengthen community trust in the
Fresno Police Department by providing neutral, third-party review of police policies,
procedures, strategies, and internal investigations.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 29 of 36
OIR works independently of the Fresno Police Department (part of the City Manager’s
Office), and provides the City’s leaders and the public with objective analysis of policing
data, actions, and outcomes.
The work of the OIR is guided by the following principles: Independence, Fairness,
Integrity and Honesty, Transparency, Participation of Stakeholders, Acceptance,
Cooperation and Access, Obedience to Legal Constraints
Resource:
Office of Independent Review Quarterly Report
Media
Excessive force case
2. Los Angeles County, California: The Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight
Commission
Population: 10 million
Composition:
The Commission is comprised of nine members representing the Board, with four
members of the Commission recommended by community and other affiliated groups.
Each shall be a resident of the County of Los Angeles.
Five members shall be appointed by the Board, one nominated by each Supervisorial
District.
The following individuals cannot serve as members of the Commission; (a) A current
employee of the County of Los Angeles; (b) A current employee of any law enforcement
agency, including a police or prosecutorial agency for a government entity, or any
individual who has been an employee of such an agency within the previous year.
Each member shall serve for a three-year term. No member may serve on the Commission
for more than two full consecutive terms unless such limitation is waived by the Board of
Supervisors. The term for all members shall begin on July 1st and end on June 30th.
However, the first term of all members who are the initial appointees to the Commission,
shall be deemed to commence on the date their appointment is approved by the Board of
Supervisors and will end on June 30th of a succeeding year
Each commission member must successfully complete a comprehensive training and
orientation program within six months of appointment. Failure to complete the training
may result in disqualification.
The training program shall be robust and cover constitutional policing including such
topics as use of force, firearms, custody, mental health issues, juvenile justice and patrol.
Each commission member shall actively participate in the ongoing training program.
Primary function
The cornerstone of the Commission’s work is community engagement and such
engagement is encouraged and valued.
Capacity:
Review, analyze, and where appropriate solicit input, and make recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff on the Sheriff's Department's operational policies and
procedures that affect the community or make recommendations to create additional
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 30 of 36
operational policies and procedures affecting the community and request a response from
the Sheriff
Investigate through the Office of Inspector General (OIG), or through its own staff,
analyze, solicit input and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the
Sheriff on systemic Sheriff - related issues or complaints affecting the community.
Review policy recommendations made by outside entities at the request of the Board of
Supervisors or the Sheriff or recommendations made in other reports that in the judgment
of the Commission merit its analysis, and report to the Board of Supervisors or the Sheriff
whether or not the recommendation(s) should be implemented by the Board of
Supervisors or the Sheriff or, if the recommendation(s) is being implemented, the status of
implementation.
Only at the request of the Board of Supervisors and/or the Sheriff, serve, either
collectively or through one or more of its members, as the monitor of the implementation
of settlement provisions in litigated matters.
Function as a liaison, or at the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, and/or
community groups or organizations involved, serve as a mediator to help resolve ongoing
disputes between the Sheriff's Department and members of the community, or
organizations within the County of Los Angeles
Obtain community input and feedback on specific incidents involving the use of force,
detention conditions, or other civil rights concerns regarding the Sheriff's Department,
convey to the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff community complaints, concerns or
positive feedback received by the Commission, and where appropriate, make
recommendations
Commendations or complaints concerning the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department will be
handled by the Office of the Inspector General.
Purpose:
The purpose of the Commission is to improve public transparency and accountability with
respect to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, by providing robust opportunities
for community engagement, ongoing analysis and oversight of the department's policies,
practices, procedures, and advice to the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff's Department
and the public.
Four community members shall be appointed by the Board upon recommendation by the
Executive Officer of the Board of Supervisors, in consultation with County Counsel.
Subsequent appointments shall follow a process set forth in the Commission's Handbook.
Resource:
County of Los Angeles Ordinance: Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission
COC Meetings and Agendas
Media
Atty. Gen. investigation, Sheriff accused of blocking commission investigations
3. Wichita, Kansas: Wichita Citizen’s Review Board
Population: 389,000
Composition:
There are no more than thirteen (13) members who serve on the board. The thirteen
members are appointed by the City Manager;
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 31 of 36
Be at least eighteen (18) years of age;
Be a resident of the City of Wichita;
Not be employed by the City of Wichita or be the immediate family member of an
employee of the City of Wichita;
Not be a member of or the immediate family member of any member of the Wichita City
Council;
Be a citizen of the United States;
Have no pending criminal charges in any local, state, or federal jurisdiction or court of
law;
May not currently be on probation, parole, or participating in a diversion or deferred
judgment agreement for any misdemeanor conviction for the following offenses:
Is not registered as a sex offender with any state, county, or local government;
May not have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor domestic violence offense as
defined by Section 1.06.010 of the Code of the City of Wichita or the statutes of the State
of Kansas;
Is not an elected local, state, or federal public official or a candidate for any such office;
Is not a party or representative of a party making a claim against the City of Wichita for
any action or inaction of an employee of the City of Wichita;
Not a present law enforcement officer or the immediate family member of any such law
enforcement officer;
Once appointed: Submit to a criminal background check
Be enrolled in the Wichita Police Department's Citizens' Police Academy within the third
available academy session beginning after his or her appointment;
Complete racial profiling training presented by the Kansas Attorney General within six (6)
months of appointment;
Participate in KOMA/KORA training provided by the City of Wichita within a reasonable
time after appointment.
Sign a confidentiality agreement that information reviewed and discussed regarding the
post discipline review of a Professional Standards investigation will be kept confidential
and not be disclosed to the public. (Ord. No. 50-603, § 6, 10-17-17; Ord. No. 50-912, § 2,
1-8-19)
Primary function:
The Wichita Citizen's Review Board assists the Wichita Police Department with
community outreach and advises the Police Department about community concerns;
The Board also will conduct reviews of post discipline findings of the Professional
Standards Bureau in alleged officer misconduct matters upon the request of the Chief of
Police.
Capacity:
The Board may review, at the request of the Chief of Police or the Board, cases of
misconduct of Wichita Police Department personnel investigated by Professional
Standards Bureau;
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 32 of 36
Only cases which are post discipline may be reviewed. Review shall not be heard until all
pending case(s) and any applicable appeals, grievances or other review of the incident
have been concluded. A request by the Board to review post discipline findings must be
made no later than one year from the date the discipline was imposed or completion of the
investigation by Professional Standards;
Review of post discipline or administrative matters heard by the Board shall be considered
to be the review of personnel matters. Disciplinary action is a confidential personnel
matter and will not be revealed to the public. Pursuant to K.S.A 75-4319(b)(1), the review
of these matters will not be open to the public;
The Board shall establish all necessary procedures to implement the review of post
discipline matters brought before them. Including within these procedures will be
notification to applicable police personnel involved in the review in accordance with the
Police Department Procedure Manual;
All police reports, videos, interviews or other investigative files submitted to the Board
for review shall have the personal identifiers of all involved citizens, witnesses and
officers redacted;
The Board's review will be for the purpose of reviewing an y applicable administrative
regulations and advising the Chief of Police on practices and training relevant to issues or
concerns uncovered as part of the investigation;
All deliberations and recommendations of the Board will be confidential;
The Chief of Police, Professional Standards Bureau, City Manager and any involved
personnel will be notified in writing of the Board's decision;
Members of the Board shall serve a term of four years. In order to establish staggered
terms, appointments shall begin January 1, 2018 and will include five members for a four-
year term, four members for a three-year term, and four members for a two-year term.
Thereafter, all members shall be appointed for a four-year term. No member shall serve
more than two consecutive terms.
Purpose:
The Board serves to aid in policy development, education and communications related to
racial and other biased-based policing.
Resource
Wichita, Kansas Citizen's Review Board Ordinance
Media
Questions and controversy
Wichita police will soon have citizen review
E. Additional Examples Hybrid City Models
1. National City, CA The National City Community and Police Relations Commission
Population: 61,638
Composition:
The Commission shall be comprised of eight individuals appointed by the Mayor with the
approval of the City Council.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 33 of 36
Of the eight members, seven shall be voting members, and one shall be non-voting
members. Of the seven voting members, five shall be residents of the City of National
City.
The non-voting members shall be a member of the National City Police Officers’
Association.
The terms of the members shall be for three years.
The community and police relations commission shall annually elect its chair from among
the appointed members and, subject to the provisions of law, may create and fill such
other offices as it deems necessary.
The city council shall provide such staff assistance to the commission as the council
deems appropriate.
Primary function:
The commission will provide a forum for citizens to voice their concerns about police
conduct, practices, and policies;
Examine police practices and policies as they pertain to conduct issues; and
Identify opportunities to ameliorate adversity between the National City Police
Department and citizen complainants.
Capacity:
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission is empowered to receive
and review complaints regarding National City Police Department personnel for alleged
misconduct, and to recommend appropriate changes of Police Department policies and
procedures toward the goals of safeguarding the rights of persons and promoting higher
standards of competency, efficiency and justice in the provision of community policing
services;
Determine the order of business for the conduct of its meetings, and hold regular meetings
once every three months, and such special meetings as are necessary on call of the chair or
a majority of the members of the commission after at least twenty-four hours' notice in
writing has been served upon the members;
Receive and monitor or investigate citizen complaints regarding police conduct, but
without interfering with the administration of the police department;
Request and receive supplemental information from the police department regarding
citizen complaints and such other matters as the commission may request.
Allow parties the opportunity to mediate their disputes;
Make recommendations to the city council regarding additional duties that the commission
may perform;
Make an annual report of its activities, findings and recommendations to the city council.
Advise on police department operations, and make recommendations on police policy
issues;
Conduct investigations and hold public hearings. The commission has the power to
examine witnesses under oath and compel their attendance or production of evidence by
subpoena issued in the name of the city and attested by the city clerk. It shall be the duty
of the chief of police to cause all such subpoenas to be served, and refusal of a person to
attend or testify in answer to such a subpoena shall subject the person to prosecution in the
same manner as set forth by law for failure to appear before the city council in response to
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 34 of 36
a subpoena issued by the city council. Each member of the commission shall have the
power to administer oaths to witnesses;
Keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations, which record
shall be a public record unless the city attorney determines otherwise.
Purpose:
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission serves as an
independent, unbiased and impartial Commission that is readily available to the public. It
is a Commission for the improvement of police and community relations and the
facilitation of disputes whenever possible. It provides a forum for citizens to voice their
concerns and comments about police conduct, practices and policies and improves
communication between residents and the National City Police Department;
It is the intent of the mayor and city council that because of the commission's actions, the
relations between the citizens of this city and the police department will improve, and
positive communications and cooperation between the police department and the
community will be facilitated.
Resource:
National City Ordinance
National City Bylaws
Media:
Man dies after police use taser
2. Portland, Oregon: Portland Police Bureau Equity and Inclusion Office
Population: 645,291
Composition:
The members of advisory bodies are public officials. They must become familiar with
rules and responsibilities described at the “Oregon Government Ethics Law- A Guide for
Public Officials” (Oregon Government Ethics Commission);
The Board will comprise 11 seats; six seats for one year; and five seats for two years;
Members must be skilled at communicating effectively in the moment and knowledgeable
when it comes to the communities most identified with i.e. connected to community
wants, needs and able to give voice to community desires;
Members may serve any number of terms not to exceed eight years of total consecutive
service. Completion of an unexpired term does not apply toward the eight-year
cumulative;
At the completion of each term, regardless of term length, incumbents are required to
complete notice of intent to continue to serve and discuss mutual benefits of continuing on
the Body with the designated bureau staff liaison.
Primary function
The body exists to provide community input on both the special projects worked on by the
Equity and Inclusion Office (EIO) as well as advising on EIO’s progress on the Racial
Equity Plan more generally;
Its members are expected to give advice around how EIO can best advocate for
vulnerable communities including but not limited to communities of color, people with
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 35 of 36
disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community and individuals experiencing homelessness.
The committee initiates and champions courageous conversations that increase employee
awareness and sensitivity to issues of race, privilege and inequity;
The committee will create transparency, the committee will periodically share its efforts
externally to promote equity and inclusion among the community and officials;
The Body shall meet at least five times each year and as otherwise necessary to conduct is
business. Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the operating procedures
specified herein.
Capacity
It will not receive or review complaints initiated against personnel of the Portland Police
Department, nor play any role in civil or criminal litigation.
Purpose:
To carry out its purpose, this committee is charged with holding PPB accountable for
achieving the objectives of our REP. To achieve this purpose, members are requested to
assist with the following tasks and other things that organically develop from these tasks:
Provide EIO level feedback on the REP implementation and rollout to include but not
limited to the willingness and ability to: connect EIO with stakeholders in the community,
hold EIO accountable for plan benchmarks serve as a thinking partner for EIO
Media:
Portland committee recommends new department to promote racial equity
3. San Francisco, California: Police Commission
Population: 882,519
Composition:
The Chief’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) is established under the direction of the
Chief of Police.
The Board will comprise seven members; four of the commissioners are the Mayor’s
choice and the remaining three are the Board of Supervisor’s choice.
Commissioners have a term of four years with the vote taking place in April.
Commission members receive a $100 per month stipend.
Primary function
The mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department and to
conduct disciplinary hearings on charges of police misconduct filed by the Chief of Police
or Director of the Office of Citizen Complaints, impose discipline in such cases as
warranted, and hear police officers’ appeals from discipline imposed by the Chief of
Police.
The Police Commission regular meeting shall be held at 5:30p.m. every Wednesday of the
month in Room 400 at the San Francisco City Hall.
Capacity
The Commission appoints and regulates Patrol Special Officers and may suspend or
dismiss Patrol Special Officers after a hearing on charges filed.
The Commission’s powers are limited to just policy and cannot interfere with day to day
operations.
Purpose:
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EQUITY ADVISORY BOARD
Page 36 of 36
The mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department and to
conduct disciplinary hearings on charges of police misconduct gilded by the Chief of
Police or Director of the Office of Citizen Complaints, impose discipline in such cases as
warranted, and hear police officers’ appeals from discipline imposed by Chief of Police.
Media:
SF Police Commission rejects police budget and layoffs. Will it matter?
Damali Taylor the vice President of the San Francisco Police Commission Resigns
San Francisco Police Commission votes to put Black Lives Matter signs in every police station
Gaps in SFPD discipline ‘alarming’ to Police Commission
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-211 Agenda Date:3/17/2021
Version:1 Item #:4.
Updates from South San Francisco Unified School District.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/12/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-212 Agenda Date:3/17/2021
Version:1 Item #:5.
Next Steps
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/12/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™