HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-19 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present:
Staff Present:
Bergus, Mims, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner
Fruin, Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Knoche, Sovers, Havel,
Hightshoe, Liston, Bockenstedt
Others Present: Van Heukelom, Miglin (USG)
Community Police Review Board (CPRB) Recommendations Update And Discussion:
Teague: We will go ahead and start with the City of Iowa City work session for October 19th,
2021. It is just after 4:00 PM. And welcome everyone. We're gonna start with a
Community Police Review Board recommendation, update, and discussion. In our info
packet from October 14th, our city manager gave us an update and I'll ask him to present
it this time.
Goers: Mayor, if I can interrupt. I don't think we started a roll call yet. Oh sorry.
Teague: Yeah.
Goers:
My apologies.
Fruin: Okay. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, I would refer you to Page 9 of your info packet. That's
where the cover memo is. That's the again, the October 14th information packet. And we
have a number of documents that can help us through this conversation. But a quick
rewrite- rewind for you. On December 22nd of 2020, the CPRB at your request sent you
13 different recommendations. And since that time, Council's had a couple of
discussions. CPRB has had a number of ongoing discussions and staff has been working
towards resolution of each of those 13 recommendations. In terms of where we stand
today, the city council has already addressed two of those recommendations, and that was
done through an ordinance amendment that you did earlier this year that expanded the
complainant's ability to respond to the police chiefs findings and also lengthen the statute
of limitations for filing a complaint. Again, those two items were addressed through an
ordinance earlier this year. Two of the items do not require any council vote or direction.
Those concerned the, uh, type of data the CPRB was getting from the police department
and Chief Liston spoke, uh, with the CRP, gotten understand- CPRB got an
understanding of what they were looking for and agreed to supply them with that
information in their public meeting packet so that those two items have been addressed.
Council may recall that you had directed the city attorney, uh, to review five of the
recommendations I'm sorry, six of the recommendations, due to, uh, some potential
conflicts with state law. The city attorney's memo is attached to, um, my cover memo.
Uh, so it's in the information packet if you'd like to reference that. The- if I had to
summarize, I suppose to move the conversation along, five of those six, uh, were found to
have some conflict with state law. And again, if you've got questions, I'll defer to Eric on -
on those five items. A sixth one, uh, was kind of framed as, yes, you could do this, but
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 2
there may be some logistical or ethical challenges or problems that you'd need to work
through. And again, we can- we can talk through those as needed. The CPRB did discuss
the city attorney's memo. The minutes from that meeting are also in your packet. There
was not a vote taken, um, on what to do. You know, it wasn't a firm recommendation
forwarded it up to you for my read of the minutes. It seems like, um, the majority of the
commission did not want to advance those further. There was at least one commissioner
that indicated an interest in trying to challenge state law in some way, shape, or form. I'm
not exactly sure what that would look like, but you can see that conversation summarized
in the minutes. So, um, what we have left for discussion tonight is a firm resolution on
the five items that have- basically have conflict with state law. And then there are four
additional items hanging out there. Two of them are back in our court and we can- we can
decide if we want to move forward on those and then two of them are still in the CPRB
courts. So just to put the other two aside, the CPRB is still working through their budget
request and also, um, working through the logistics on how a social worker or medical
professional accommodation may be provided to complainants um, going through the
CPRB process. It does appear that they have moved on from the idea that the city would
provide an attorney for the complainant, and they're solely focused on the social worker
or medical professional aspects. So that'll come back to you. Uh, but in the meantime,
um, we can discuss the- uh, the five, uh, aforementioned recommendations that have a
conflict with state law. There's also a recommendation to expand CPR membership from
five to seven. And some details on how the CPRB envisioned that are in their original
memo to you from December of last year. And then lastly, the CPRB still wishes to have
the authority to hire an independent auditor at their request if they- if they deem that's
necessary. This was one that the council had kicked back to the CPRB for some more
discussions with the police chief. The Chief is here tonight and can kind of talk you
through, uh, what- what he shared with the Commission, which is a lot on the
departments' accreditation process. It's the CALEA accreditation process, which is
essentially an independent audit that takes place every year, um, and every four years
with an intensive on-site focus. So every four years you have an intensive review of
department policies and compliance with those policies. And then every year on a more
remote basis, there's compliance checks that go on with that. The CPRB acknowledged
that that existed, but also felt that they, uh, may encounter a situation in which an
independent auditor may be needed to essentially, um, review those same policies and
compliance with policies. So that's kinda where things stand. I'll turn it back over to you
if you've got questions on the CALEA process, when you get to that item, the chief is
here and of course, Eric is best to speak to the, uh, five remaining issues that do have
some state law conflicts.
Teague: Thank you. So I wonder if we'll start with kind of the five that the city attorney kind of
said that it's really a state law. And that is items number 1, 2, 3, 5, and 12. Maybe I'll just
open it up to Council as we want to go ahead and have, um, Eric go through them.
Weiner: I think from my perspective might actually be useful for the city attorney to walk- to
walk us through them, and maybe you could walk us through one at a time, and then we
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 3
could discuss it so we can come to a conclusion so that we're sort of focused on the legal
reasoning.
Teague: All right, great.
Goers: Sure. Okay. So those numbers again are 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 12. Ten being the, uh, attorney
or social worker. Um, that's the one that's still kinda hanging out there a little bit. So I'll
refer to the other five that are mentioned starting with, uh, CPRB proposed change
Number 1. That's that in instances of a sustained misconduct complaint, the CPRB be
given information about the corresponding discipline and that the CPRB be allowed to
include in its report its finding and whether the discipline is reasonable and fair. Like
many of these, the problem with that is that it doesn't allow for the confidentiality of
disciplinary records, which are, um, well- which is the law not only in our open records
statute, Chapter 22 of Iowa code, but also in Chapter ADF, which is the peace officer Bill
of Rights. As mentioned in my memo, um. Again, one, uh, such amendment prohibits law
enforcement agencies from releasing complaints made against officers, reading as
follows, the employing agency shall keep an officer statement, recordings, or transcripts
of any interviews or disciplinary proceedings in any complaints made against an officer
confidential unless otherwise provided by law or with the officer's, uh, consent. Again,
the underlying- uh, or one of the other underlying issues is that, uh, officer discipline
under state law is, um, under the authority of first the police chief and then, uh, the Civil
Service Commission, um, under Chapter 400 of the Iowa code. Uh, maybe I'll pause there
to see if any council members have questions about that one before, uh, I move on to
number 2.
Weiner: So- so my only question is when it talks about confidentiality. When the- when the
CPRB meets, they go into executive session so that no one except other than the CPRB
members are discussing a particular issue.
Goers: Right.
Weiner: And so I gathered that's- that doesn't count as confidentiality?
Goers: Uh, it doesn't count as disclosure, uh, or a violation of confidentiality. The other part of it
as a course in the CPRB proceedings, the officers are identified by a number, not their
badge number, uh, but by, uh, an- an assigned number in order to, uh, preserve their
anonymity. Uh, and so between those two things and instructions to the CPRB that
they're not to discuss, um, you know, those proceedings and what they've, um, received
and so far as those, uh, reports, yes. We think it's consistent with state code, uh, both
Chapter 22 to be open records, uh, statute and ADF, the piece officer Bill of Rights to
allow the CPRB to do their work. But not to have any kind of public, uh- you know, uh,
revelation of those records. Does that answer your question or or have I danced around it?
Weiner: No, I'm- I guess that answers my question, but I guess that the- the other part of the
question is then if they were- ju- just so that I understand completely- so if they were to
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 4
have access to other disciplinary materials with how- how would that contravene state
law?
Goers: Well, because chapter ADF, the piece after Bill of Rights says that, you- you know,
discipline is to- is to remain confidential. And if I understand the CPRB's requests here,
what they're asking for is that the discipline, uh, that's meted out against an officer be
revealed to them and that they would include it in their report and that they would further
weigh in as to whether they feel that it's reasonable and fair. What the CPRB doesn't have
now and what they're requesting here in this proposal is that the city or the police chief in
this instance specifically would share with the CPRB what the police chief chose to do,
um, you know, what discipline is imposed? And that's the real problem that state law
does not allow for that part of it.
Salih: They don't allow it because of confidentiality. Is that right?
Goers: Yes, that's correct.
Salih: But if they are not using their name and they referring it to like with a number for
example.
Goers: Yeah.
Saih: And is that- how does now like really- it still is confidential because you don't know who
really you talking about.
Goers: Well, the- perhaps. But the problem is that- and- and I can't remember if it was in this one
are one of the other proposals that the CPRB made where, I, uh, offered a hypothetical in
which a, uh, complainant, um, you know, was unhappy with the work of Officer Smith
and, uh, then filed the complaint that Officer Smith had exhibited and we don't have an
Officer Smith and that's why I'm using the phrase Officer Smith. Um, was unhappy with
the amount of force perhaps imposed by Officer Smith, um, you know, on- in June of
2020 and so forth. And then, well, you know, it turns out that's the only officer and, you
know, it's Officer Smith. And so now you know that Officer Smith is number 12345, or
whatever the assigned number is, and thereby you've lost the confidentiality as a result.
And we don't have a ton of complaints to- to the CPRB. And- and so that's not a wild
hypothetical. And I- I think that that's probably likely. And when you combine that with
the possibility that, um, there's, you know, news coverage, uh, for a complaint and we've
certainly seen that on a repeated, um, basis whereby the officer- I'm sorry, the media
would specifically identify the officer who was involved. You know, if we're assigning,
you know, an anonymous number to that officer, it's- it's still not going to be any mystery
about who that is. And now you're going to be able to look to see what else that officers
had for discipline and that officers lost all sense of, uh, confidentiality and that would be
a violation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 5
Salih: But it was a good sibling on reward by the police chief, that corning to the Police Review
Board is not- is confidential itself. Is not like disclose to know one and they would go in
like, uh, confidential session or wherever we call it, uh, how that- the public will know
about it, so they can say, Oh, that's the, for example, Officer Smith is a number here now
on this complaint. You understand where I'm coming from like?
Goers: Well-
Salih: If we make it like really that when- when we get the discipline from the police chief
about the city and what happened to that officer. If that's what will be only confidential,
not public record is between the police chief and the CPRB only?
Goers: The report by the chief as to what discipline was imposed, is that what you mean?
Salih: Yes.
Goers: Uh.
Salih: And without even mentioning name give it a number and even- at that point it doesn't
matter really because it's not going to go to the public as Janice said earlier?
Goers: Well, I- I think- yeah, I mean, given- based on the hypotheticals and- and again, they're
not wild hypotheticals. I- I think that that would be- I think we would be found to be in
violation and because the city would be liable if were found to violate Chapter ADF, the
peace officer Bill of Rights. I think we'd really be exposing the city the liability if we
were to engage in any kind of disclosure that this discipline imposed by an office or by
the chief against any specific officer.
Salih: But let me ask this, I- I remember when I was- correct me if I'm wrong, Kellie, sometime
they go to executive session right? And that like during that session everything is
confidential, right?
Goers: Ye- yeah. I'm sorry. I don't know if you're asking Kellie or me. Yes, they- they meet to
discuss, you know, for example, the chiefs report as to whether or not he finds that the,
uh, allegations were sustained or not sustained and so forth. He- that's all in- in executive
session. Yes?
Salih: Okay. Same thing. If we are talking about that in executive session. Why not the same
thing coming from the police chief about that the civilian and it will be in executive
session also. So it's not going nowhere.
Goers: Well, because I think that difference between, um, the chiefs assertion that the allegation
is sustained or not sustained is different than a disclosure of the discipline imposed. It's
kind of the disciplinary records that are specifically protected. I mean, there are others as
well, of course, but that is one thing that is clearly protected under state law. And so
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 6
whereas I- I think that, you know, as is presently the case, the chief can say I think that
Officer Smith, um, you know, this violation is sustained to this far, this allegation was
sustained and this allegation was not sustained and so forth. I think that's functionally
different than to say, and as a result, I suspended that officer for one day or something
like that. That's really crossing a line that I don't think state code allows.
Bergus: And just to be clear, these are only for- as far as the recommendations from the CPRB
these are only for sustained misconduct, right?
[female]: Yes.
Goers: Uh, that's where I'm reading it.
Bergus: And we've had how many of those in the history of the CPRB?
Goers: I don't have those statistics.
Bergus: Very few, right?
Goers: I think that's fair.
Bergus: Um, so would- could we know if discipline was imposed just yes or no without the
contents of what that action was?
Goers: Uh, I- I don't think so. Yeah, I mean, I get that that's more quantitative versus qualitative.
But you're still saying that Officer Smith got disciplined. And- and again, I understand
that it's Officer 12345. But you're indicating that discipline had been imposed against that
officer who hypothetically could be identified. And I think that would be a violation.
Taylor: In the case where it may go before the Civil Service Commission is confidentiality, uh,
continued throughout that process also?
Goers: No. Civil Service Commission hearings are fully public. Uh, and so if the officer- the
significant difference being here that that's an officer's appeal, the officer chooses to go to
the Civil Service Commission to appeal discipline and so forth. And at that point, that's
fully public, uh, because of course, the whole nature of the, um, of the discussion is
whether the- whether the officer should have been disciplined and if so, was that the
appropriate level of discipline? But again, the significant difference is that that's an
officer making that choice, um, you know, under Chapter 400. Here, the officer isn't
given that choice. Uh, at least as I understand, the proposal from the CPRB, they're
saying regardless of the officers wishes, we would send it to the CRPB for them to
comment.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 7
Salih: I just don't get that like how- how the like between only the police chief and CPRB
members, that still will be a disclosure of information, if it's like really between only
those two party like police chief and the CPRB member during executive session not like.
Goers: Well, I, er, yeah I mean, it's- it's a fair question. Um, but- and I think I've probably
answered that part of it as best as I can, but the other part of it is that, you know, the- the
disciplinary authorities under state law are the chief and the, um, Civil Service
Commission, period. Um, and so the notion that there would be any legitimate reason for
the CPRB to have again, individualized as opposed to just a- a broader idea of trends
within the department and so forth, but individualized disciplinary information based on a
specific officer I- I think would violate the, you know, Chapter 400 structure of, uh, the
chain of command and who has authority to discipline, and it's clear that the CPRB does
not. I- I know that that's not what they're asking for here, but I- I think it would be hard to
justify the release of this information to them given that they have no control over
discipline ultimately.
Salih: Okay, since you using the word, I think, is there is any way you can make sure by like
reaching out maybe to just civil services and ask them if that's something will be -
Goers: Well- well, this is- this is not my opinion alone. Uh, this was something that was tapped
in an office. Uh, this is a memo that was started by my predecessor, Eleanor Dilkes, uh,
and, uh, I know that she's m agreement with all the conclusions. Um, so- so I wanna be
clear that this isn't me, just by myself coming up to this conclusion. This is a- a product
of our office discussions. I'm not sure who also would ask frankly, at this point, um,
although you know I could certainly-
Salih: You just said this is violation by the civil what? What's the commission?
Goers: I'm sorry?
Salih: Civil- you said this is violation by?
Teague: Well, you're referring to, um,- Civil-. Civil Service Commission.
Salih: Civil Service Comm- the- the Civil Service Commission will consider this is a violation
of the confidential.
Goers: Oh, I don't know, I may have misspoken. I don't know that the Civil Service Commission
would consider the violation. It's- it's- it would be a violation of state code-
Salih: State code.
Goers: -because state code, uh, [OVERLAPPING] gives them the sole discretion to, uh, after the
chief of police, of course, uh, to impose discipline and to hear appeals of- of discipline.
Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 8
Salih: I don't know, but given the fact that CPRB is like a unique commission that is not been
like in any state, any cities. I think it was the some researches about whether disclosing
discipline, uh, by the police chief to the CRB member and keeping that confidential is
really breaking the state law.
Goers: Right. Well, it's- I'm not sure I would characterize the CPRB as unique. I mean, many of
the cases I cited in the memo, um, are for comparable, um, civilian review, uh, boards in,
um, other states, Denver, and, um, and New Jersey, and New York City and so forth. So
they're- they're out there and a lot of times their powers again, are dictated by, uh, the
state law in those respective states, and again, you know, for example, in the- in the
Jersey case, it made clear that, you know, we've gotta follow the state law and we're
constrained by state law and that resulted in a different outcome, then in New York law
because the there, uh, that review board actually did have authority to discipline the
officers and so forth, and that was a significant distinction. Here, they don't, um, under
Chapter 400, and so, um, and- and I feel pretty confident about the results. If- if you'd
like I'd be happy to run it by some of the other metro, um, attorneys to see if they
disagree or if they think that there's, um, if they have their own bodies that are similar, I
don't know if they do or not, but- but I- I- it's with a strong degree of confidence that I've
come to this conclusion.
Weiner: I mean, it- it sound like when- when I go back through your memo, un1, you- you
actually use cite something that the CPRB itself -
Goers: Yeah.
Weiner: -um, said in their reports that they had recognized that there's issues with the
confidentiality of discipline records and they sta- because they stated careful
consideration must be given to protect the confidentiality information such as discipline
information. It is understood that some legislative changes must occur to allow for a
CPRB review to be an exception to the confidentiality laws regarding discipline
information. So to sound- it sounded as if they and their attorney had already recognized
that this conundrum exists.
Goers: I- I read it that way too. Should I go onto two?
[female] Yeah.
Goers: All right. So CPRB proposed change number 2. Um, the CPRB shall have the authority
to request the city council have a disciplinary hearing. This one is even more
straightforward but is based on the same root that is, uh, the chief of police, and after the
chief, the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission alone has that
disciplinary authority. Even if the city council wanted to have, um, that, uh, you know,
disciplinary hearing, that would be a violation of state code they- they could not. So this
one's pretty straightforward. Uh, moving on to CPRB proposed change number 3, then an
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 9
accused officer be required to comply with a CPRB investigation or be disciplined by the
chief of police and the city manager. Again, this would require a- a change in state law,
uh, because of the CPRB's lack of authority over discipline. There's a whole body of case
law regarding employee, uh, discipline and employees being forced to be interviewed and
answer questions, um, and- and to take part in investigations and so forth. And following
the, uh, Garrity case and its progeny, uh, the, uh, I guess political and legal compromise
that it's been made is this, that employers can force people to, uh, take part in
investigations and answer questions so long as those answers can't be used against them
in a court of law, uh, in a criminal court, I should say, such that criminal charges can be
filed against them. That's everyone's Fifth Amendment privilege. Uh, however, uh,
Chapter 80F, goes on to describe, um, the process pretty thoroughly, um, in, um, state
code as to what an officer needs to do and doesn't need to do, um, and- and as a result, I-
I don't- I- I think, as I- I mentioned, I think in the body that I think the ultimate outcome
of the PCR here, CPRB, um, you know, trying to take some of the authority to require
officers to participate in interviews would just be the officers pleading the fifth every
single time and they would be entitled to do so. Uh, I think as a result, it would be rather
fruitless, um, exercise, um, and there's nothing that we could do, we the city could do
upon a- a failure by a police officer to cooperate with the interview in the language I
quoted from ADF 0.1, sub 16 which states that an officer shall not be discharged,
disciplined, or threatened with discharge or discipline in retaliation for exercising their
rights of the officer enumerated in this section. That section being the, you know, 80F,
um, regarding the interview process and the investigative process. So, uh, there's not, I
mean, yeah. I mean, so I- I think it would be an exercise in futility to- to do anything here
because officers would just immediately plead the fifth and that would be it, and that's -
there wouldn't be much we could do about that. All right. If there's no questions, I'll move
on to ah, proposed change number 5. Ah, the online database of officer complaints shall
be improved to allow for quick searches of complaint history and a computerized risk
management system to analyze trends. Again, this one has the same root of problem as
the others. It involves the disclosure of confidential ah, disciplinary records. Um, and
unlike some, you know, for example, police disciplinary, I'm sorry, police investigatory
reports, where there can on occasion be a balancing test and pose, you know; what's the
public's right to know, what's the public interests in this case, how important is this to the
public discussion versus the ah, privacy interests of the officer and so forth. When it
comes to purely to the disciplinary records, there's no such balancing records has takes -
has taken place. There has been repeated and fairly consistent case law in the state of
Iowa indicating no, you don't get disciplinary records ah, that can't be disclosed. And so
one of the- I kind- and I see, um, toward the end of my discussion of this one by quoting
again the er, Peace Officer Bill of Rights, including some of the language that was added
with the recent Back the Blue bill, which reads as quoted, "The employing agency shall
keep all complaints made against an officer confidential unless otherwise provided by
law or with the officer's written consent." Now, obviously, that last clause about, "with
the officers written consent" would in theory, open the door to some kind of gathering of
data. But a- again, I'm gonna state the obvious here by saying that I suspect that no
officer would be willing to give their written consent to their disciplinary records being
disclosed to any kind of database made available to the public. And thus again, I think
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 10
you'd have an exercise in futility with that one. Um, propose 10, ah, we've- I guess we're
going to skip over that one. That's the lawyer and social worker one, but are still kind of
waiting for the CPRB as Geoff indicated, I think that they have moved off for the lawyer
part, but are still kind of trying to decide, based on my reading of their minutes, whether
they want to um, continue with the social worker part or whether they think they're gonna
be getting into therapy and so forth. So I won't comment further on that one, but that
leaves the last one which is proposed change number 12. CPRB complaints should be
permitted whether filed anonymously or through third persons, so long as there is
sufficient knowledge of the underlying circumstances. Here again um, the obstacle is the
Peace Officer Bill of Rights, talking about complaints made against ah, peace officers.
They have a formal definition of what a complaint is, and that means a formal written
allegation signed by the complainant or a signed written statement by an officer receiving
an oral complaint stating the complainant's allegation. And it's that second word, signed
ah, referencing the oral complaint that was added recently, that implies well- suggests
through statutory construction clearly that, that needs to be signed by the complainant.
Ah, obviously, having it signed by the officer who's merely writing down the complaint
would be relatively meaningless. Ah, you know, obviously the legislative intent was for
the complainant to sign it. Because the other part of that is the protections given in ah, the
Peace Officer Bill of Rights such that ah, the officer can pursue ah, civil action against
complainants who have filed false claims against them. Obviously, if those complaints
are anonymous, that would be a difficult complaint to make ah, but again, the state
legislature had done some balancing ah, of considerations and um, decided to um, you
know, weigh it in this way. Obviously, as I said, I think in my memo, we might disagree
with that decision at the local level, but we are of course follow- are obligated to follow
ah, state law, particularly in this case where failure to do so may result in our liability ah,
against- from complaints or claims made by our own officers. So I believe that was the
last one that ah, the council had asked my office to review.
Teague: Any other questions for Eric or discussion on these? I think we can probably go one by
one just to see what people thoughts are.
Bergus: I do have a couple of questions. Ah, so broadly, Eric, if you could just kind of describe
the distinction, if you think there is one between kind of the conversation or the- the
explanation that you just provided as far as the city facing liability if we don't comply
with the law, and compare or contrast that with ah, the mayor's action to impose the mask
ah, order that- just this last summer after the legislature's partial banning of- of that. Can
you just explain that?
Goers: Certainly. Yeah, and I saw that one member of the CPRB raised the same point. So I'm
glad you raised the question so that I can address it. Ah, the contention was made that we
were in violation of state law when the mayor issued his mask mandate. As council
members will recall, um, that is not my opinion. I believe that we ah, ah, were in full
compliance with state law, with the mayor's mask mandate. Um, again before um- with
the earlier ah, mandate that the ah, Mayor had laid down ah, previously had two
components: one was that every individual shall wear a mask. Again, except for various
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 11
circumstances that are delineated in ah, that first mandate and in the Mayor's second
mandate. The second component was ah, all er- essentially all owners of real property, all
business owners shall not serve patrons or um, allow their employees to work ah, without
a mask, thereby imposing obligations on business owners and real property owners. Well,
what the state passed in that law this spring was basically ah -prohibiting local
governments from doing the second of those two, but not the first. So we were no longer
allowed to tell business owners or in the language of that statute, owners of real property
to impose ah, a mask mandate. But instead, we were just mandating that individuals do
that. So there- we- in- in my opinion, we were not, you know, violating the law with the
mayor's mask mandate. Here, if we were to do any of the things that we've discussed this
far, I believe we would be in- in clear violation of state law.
Bergus: And then to the question of the, um, the disciplinary action and the very harsh
restrictions on disclosing any of that. Um, I- I- I- I just want to pull back and think about
the purpose of the CPRB as some kind of, um, mechanism for providing some amount of
civilian oversight r- relating to our department and that the idea that there can be
sustained complaints. And right now we have- I don't think but maybe you can clarify or
maybe Chief can clarify, um, that if there's any correlation, even without identifying
officers between sustained misconduct and disciplinary action, some anonymized
understanding of whether the function of the CPRB relates to discipline of officers when
there is sustained misconduct, I think is- is a pretty important policy understanding.
Goers: Right. Um, I guess I'll say two things. First is that, uh, I certainly have not compared in -
in any, uh, substantial way discipline imposed on police officers versus complaints to the
CPRB, uh, to look for the kind of correlation that you are describing. Uh, however, I am
aware that the vast majority- hav- having had worked with HR for the last several years,
maybe five or even 10 years, I'm aware that the vast majority of discipline imposed by
police officers i- is not the result of a CPRB complaints. Um, it is, you know, self-
directed within the police department or may have come to, um, you know, a- a less
formal, uh, complaint, uh, but had- had not gone through the CPRB. Again, uh, I haven't
actually studied that, but that's certainly been my impression based on my experience.
Bergus: Would we be able to- to obtain even just say and again, I think is a very small number,
those, uh, sustained misconduct complaints. But just to say, if, you know, 12 of those
have occurred in x number of years of those incidents, 10 of them had disciplinary action.
Goers: Oh, that would give me great pause. Uh, just because of- of the things I've mentioned
before about the, uh, potential ability of members of the public to be able to identify
officers based on the number, uh, you know, er, uh, and they are fairly limited, I'm aware
of sustained, uh, complaints to the CPRB. I- I- I don't think I would be comfortable with
that.
Teague: Uh, I guess, I have a question just about sustained and maybe the Chief can answer this.
Uh, when there is a sustained complaint, is it fair assumption that disciplinary action
always accompanies that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 12
Liston: Uh, Chief Liston, Iowa City Police Department. Um, if there is a sustained complaint,
there is some sort of action taken. I think we're- we're hesitant to say discipline or not
because of the confidentiality, but there is some sort of- and then you guys know what
discipline can range from a verbal counseling to termination. So if there is a sustained
complaint, that means there is a violation of some sort of procedure and some sort of
action would be taken. Whether that's- whether we consider that discipline or not, um, I- I
don't know. If- it seems like the city attorneys uncomfortable saying that. I think there's
an assumption that some sort of corrective action is taken. Now, we- that's why we don't -
the, uh, CPRB gets the report on every- every complaint we get. Now, that's one of the
things we've changed. Whether it comes in through the CPRB, whether it comes in
through the city website, whether it's generated internally through our supervisors, they
get a report of every single complaint and whether or not it was sustained or not
sustained. But it's like we said, the- our officers are not identified, they're identified by a
random number.
Salih: But my understanding is that the- when the CPRB members sustain a complaint, they
already disagree with the police chief finding. So how we- you both are disagreeing and it
will be like discipline by somebody, say, I don't agree with you. This is my report and
that's what I find after I investigate the problem. That's what the police chief would say.
And the Police Review Board members with him we can't we say, huh, we disagree with
you because we think this is what happened. And after that, from the- my experience with
the CPRB, you know, we just- we will say a sustain even though we disagreeing. The
police chief say something, we said something, nothing happened. It was just submitted.
And you are saying like sometime will be discipline. I know that we send- when I used to
be on the police roll, we sent like recommendations saying maybe we need training for
that officer in certain- like some recommendation by the CPRB. I don't know how it
happened. Uh, but my understanding is all the time, like, I don't recall, you can tell me if
there is one. But by discussing- it was as a member of the CPRB, I don't recall there is a
time when the complain is sustained, there is agreement between the police chief and
CPRB. Always disagreement.
Fruin: And I- I think that's more common than the alternative where- where the Chief and CPRB
agree on a sustained, uh-
Salih: Right. Yeah. Not citing.
Fruin: - complaint. It's- it's very rare that the CPRB would disagree with the Chief.
Salih: When?
Fruin: That is- that is the most rare outcome, um, that- that we've seen over the years. And we
have that in the report that we sent out last year, uh, that's up on our website. We have,
kind of, uh, the percentage breakdown of all those- all those different outcomes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 13
Salih: Yeah. I don't want to talk about that here because that's not true because I was being there.
And what happened is, we did not sustain a complain not because there is no- for this
time, all the time the police was right and we agree because the member who was serving
in the Police Review Board, it does not reflect that the community. The police complain
has been sustained when Royceanne and I and another Latina person joined, so we
become a quorum. That doesn't mean anything. I- I just don't want to talk about that here.
We don't. But we know that there is many time both agree when it's not sustained. What I
mean, when it's sustained, and never agreement on that. None of the sustained complaints
so far has the agreement between the police chief and the Police Review Board if we talk
about the few sustains that happened. That what I mean.
Fruin: So I have the stats if you want me to go through them.
Mims: I think you should. I think- I think you should, because I think the public that's listening
should have the facts.
Salih: What are you saying?
[female] I hear you.
Fruin: Again, this is referencing the report that we issued last year. So a 23 year period, 119 total
complaints. The board sustained, um- uh- uh, 16 of the 119 complaints.
Salih: When the first time has been sustained?
Fruin: Uh, I- I can see if that's in the report, um, half of the cases is - is- in which they differed.
So the police chief and the board reach the same disposition 93 percent of the time. So
there were eight times out of 119 in which the CPRB disagreed with the Chief.
Salih: I guess I'm I asking what is- when is the first complain has been sustained?
Fruin: I- I don't have that. It does not appear that it's in the report.
Salih: Yeah. Because it's recently it's too unsustaining when we have people look like the
community on the police review board. So let's be clear on that. We don't have to count
this like as a percentage of 93 percent. Whatever that percent is, that means we don't have
a lot of disagreement. That is not true because before that, there is no complaint has been
sustained because there is no people on the commission look like the community look at
this. That what I really believe. And now when it start become sustained because we have
people who look like the community on that. Maybe we disagree with me on that, but that
what I believe. So we should count from now and on. The point I want to raise here, not
like talking about what's going on on the police review board, the point I want to raise
here is those sustained complain always disagreement with the police, like- with the
police chief; not like there is agreement on one sustain complaint. Like when the Police
Review Board say this is sustained, the chief of the police, of course, he's saying different
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 14
thing. They are not agreeing in one of those sustained complain. It doesn't matter how
much they are, but they never been an agreement. So it would be discipline. I mean, if
they agree, it will be definitely be discipline but if they are not agree, there is no
discipline. That what I'm going to take it- how I'm going to take it I mean.
Taylor: I have a question for the Chief. When I sat on the board of nursing and a licensee would
come before us with possible infraction, we had certain levels of standards that we follow
depending on the severity, um, of- of the incident. Um, do you as a- as a, uh,
administrative officer have those kinds of standards or guidelines that you use ranging
from say, continuing education, to leave without pay, those kinds of things -
Liston: Sure.
Taylor: -so that there's some consistency in your discipline?
Liston: Yes. Yes.
Taylor: Okay.
Salih: Okay. I have a question for Eric. You said that- we was talking about how the- like the
police chief cannot disclose information to the CPRB because that's against the state
code. If there is another like something like them, city manager, the city council, who
else the police chief will- can disclose information about discipline without violating the
state code?
Goers: Well, certainly the I -R department has to keep those records, um, of any discipline
imposed. Is that what you're asking about?
Salih: Yes, who else?
Goers: So human resources department would keep those disciplinary records. Certainly my
office, uh, is- if discipline's being imposed is probably aware of that. Again, depending
on what it is, I mean, the chief had indicated the kind of full range of corrective positions
being from, you know, counseling and coaching versus, you know, termination. We
probably wouldn't be aware if- if there was, you know, verbal counseling going on, but
certainly would if there's a, you know, suspension or- or something like that. Uh, I
suspect that city manager's office would be aware, um, as the supervisor of the police
chief. Um, I think that's about it.
Salih: If all those who know and we supposedly, we are the manager of the city manager, he
cannot share this information with city council members?
Goers: I would say no. No, I would- I would not say that he would share that with you. And for
the reason being that there's again, the state code lays out very specifically who has
authority to overturn, you know, or challenge that, uh, discipline. You know, the chief is
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 15
the one who makes the initial decision, um, you know, depending on whether it is a
grievance or a Civil Service Commission appeal, then the Civil Service Commission
appeal or the Civil Service Commission, uh, would, uh, have the voice that can be, uh,
taken to district court. We're there now for our last one, um, where a police officer was
terminated. He went the course of a Civil Service Commission appeal. Um, he was not
successful and has appealed to district court. But nowhere in that, you know, chain of- I
mean, I understand what you're saying because, of course, the city manager works for
you, the Chief of Police works for the city manager. I mean, I get all that. But the state
code makes it clear about who has that disciplinary authority, and city council is nowhere
in that link.
Salih: But for example, if the person who'd been disciplined for any reason took the city to the
court, the city manager can come and disclose that to us?
Goers: I'm sorry. If- if someone appealed, uh, like a disciplinary decision to the district court?
Salih: Uh-huh.
Goers: Uh, I think probably what would happen is our office would alert you probably in a
confidential memo.
Salih: Yes. Okay. But that's okay. But not like if it doesn't link to that point, it's supposed to be
court, you know, not sharing with the city council. [OVERLAPPING]
Goers: Well, because if there's- if there's litigation filed against the city, then we feel it's
important that the council know, and so we would share that with you. It would be in a
confidential memo, like I say. And in that point, you would not be in a position to
determine whether that discipline should be enhanced or reduced. It would just be, at that
point anyway, letting you know we've been sued, presumably for some money. Here's our
stance on the case, you know, that kind of thing.
Salih: Last question and I will not talk. Even through a confidential memo, he cannot tell us
whether there is a discipline or not. That would be a violation of the code even if it come
to us through a confidential memo?
Goers: Yes, I would not. And again, outside of the context of litigation filed against the city, I
would say no, that that would be a violation.
Salih: Okay. Thanks.
Mims: I think there can be lots of different views on state law obviously whether we agree or
disagree, whether it's this related to Peace Officers Bill of Rights or anything else of the
state law. But I do think as elected officials, uh, when we look at the liability, the city,
and protection of our staff, uh, it's our obligation to do the best that we can to follow that
law. Um, you know, there- there may be times that you would want to challenge the state
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 16
law, but I think when it comes to the confidentiality of our personnel and- and their
issues, I think it's important that we follow that. And with the years I've spent on this
council, I've had the utmost regard for the professionalism and knowledge of our legal
staff. And based on, you know, looking at the request of the CPRB, uh, looking at the
analysis done by our legal staff, I'm in support of following the recommendations of our
legal staff on these.
Teague: I think given that even the CPRB noted, uh, the challenges at the state level, that was
very- it was clear that there is some limitations placed on the city of what we can do at
city council, and so, uh, I'm going to be in agreement with 1, 2, 3, 5, and 12 that we don't
have that ability to give them further, um, authority or access.
Taylor: I agree.
Thomas: Yeah, I certainly agree. For now, I do think it- It may be something that we revisit. I
don't really have a time frame in which to revisit, but in so far as, you know, some of
these opinions were based on issues related to state law, uh, you know, that's- that's -
those are facts that could change over time. So I'm- I certainly hope we can be mindful of
that. And you know, as- as- as these things unfold and, you know, again, looking at- in
my mind, what- what's the- what's the trajectory of the complaints and those that have
been sustained. I know that we're kind of focusing on, you know, the proposals of the
CPRB but, you know, as a member of city council, one of my main concerns is trying to
understand the- the nature of the complaints, the pattern of those complaints that are
sustained. Uh, for example, you know, when revisiting the- restructuring the ICPD
document, you know, there were six types of calls for service that were identified. Is
there any pattern related to those six types of- of calls for service with regard to
complaints against the CPI- ICPD? You know, is there a preponderance of complaint that
occurs with certain types of actions and calls for service? And I didn't- I didn't really see
that in the restructuring document in terms of- yes, in fact, it's when this type of call for
service is initiated that we see the largest percentage of calls for- for complaints gen-
generated by that action. So my goal would be, you know, how- how can we- zero come
as close to zeroing out on complaints and sustained complaints as possible? um, and I do
think, you know, we are making, I think, headway on that with trying to understand what
are the best situations in which to put- place our police officers, so they and the public are
at the least risk. You Know, we've talked about, you know, bringing in medical
professionals, for example. I- wouldn't- I wouldn't be surprised if some of these
complaints about police behavior were associated with that type of interaction. So- so to
the degree we can get our police officers working in the right situation with the least
amount of risk to themselves and to the public, uh, generating the fewest number of
complaints that's- you know, that's what I'm shooting for. You know, we certainly at the
back end when things go badly for whatever reason. You know, that's what we're
discussing tonight, sort of the- the downstream of all these activities, these interactions
that our police officers have with the public. But, you know, I think the- the restructuring
was trying to go upstream and say what- what can we do to make sure we establish a
better relationship with our- with our community.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 17
Bergus: Yeah. Thanks for framing that, that way, John, I think that's really important, especially
as the CPRB, uh, recommendations that kind of sought to insert city council in the
process. And where are we- at least I am not in favor of overly attempting to violate state
law. I don't think that's a good idea. I do think we need to be creative and looking at, you
know, to what end, right? What is- what is the intention of trying to understand better
whether there is discipline that occurs in relation to complaints or why complaints are
occurring in the first place. And, you know, keeping that the- the plan in mind and the
idea that we've talked about of the continuum of response and preventing and diverting
and making sure that the government response to calls matches the need, I think probably
would help with some of the complaints. And I also think that, you know, we- we should
be looking at what is within our control, uh, like the collective bargaining agreement that
we have with our bargaining unit, as well as, um, those parts of the city code and the
policies that go through this CPRB and make their way up, um, to us as well. So I think,
you know, we should be to identify those places where we can have that influence and
make sure we're keeping that overall goal m mind.
Taylor: Laura, I'm glad you mentioned the- the union in bargaining units because our- our law
enforcement officers are represented by a union, and I'm sure there are some very strict
guidelines out there as far as when it comes to discipline. And we would need to know
those and the CPR would need to know those. And I- I just think that they're not set to
understand those kinds of rules and guidelines, and as- we aren't either. We haven't been
trained in any sort of administrative guidelines for discipline and I wouldn't want to be
put in that situation.
Weiner: I agree with both Laura and John, really appreciate the points that you made. The one
that I would add, and I think that- that Eric alluded to is the- a number of the provisions
that were written into the so-called Back the Blue law this past session were specifically
aimed at curtailing our ability to act, curtailing our ability to, uh, to do the sorts of things
that CPRB wants to do, that we would like to do. So we have to start it back- back off and
say what- what space is left for maneuver because they're working very hard to reduce
that right now and- and intentionally so.
Salih: I did this [mumbling]. I'm gonna say we are- there's nothing no city council will have like
really the intention to break the law. But yes, challenging the law sometime is worth it.
And that's why we have somebody like the city attorney, so he can tell us how can we
challenge it in a legal way. So same thing like the mask mandate, the way that you just
phrase it. And all the time we're going to be asking you a question to try to do something
in favor of our residents and the city. But of course, at the end of the day, I've been
asking all these questions, trying to figure out like, is there's a way, there is a room we
can do this, we can tickle things in and out because I know you sometime you have those
kind of [inaudible] just like the mask mandate and how you make it a way that it will
benefit our resident in the same time, we're not breaking the law. So I- I think also at
times there is a way we can challenge, uh, you know, uh, the state code that we don't like.
We can do that as long as we're not breaking the law. And I think that exactly why we
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 18
have city attorney, so he can guide our way through doing that. The last thing I will say to
the police chief, uh, since you- since we don't have anything in our hand, we are not
going to break the state law. But hopefully you will work as close as with those CPRB
because they tried to improve our community. We're not going to ask you how to
discipline somebody, but I think not everything has been written in the law. That's why
sometime we use the heart of the law. So work with them and if there is that training
needed to our police officer, why not? Because I think your goal- I know that your goal is
to improve everything in the city that you need to be improved, like regarding the police
department, I hope you continue doing that. Thank you.
Teague: All right. So it seems like we have consensus to - there are no changes we can do to 1, 2,
3, 5, and 12. And so we'll just- we will just have it- we'll just probably respond to CPRB
and just let them officially know that there is no changes there. We're gonna go on to the
next four recommendations. Awaiting, uh, some final discussion by council. That is
number 8, 9, 10, and 11. I wanna maybe bring up nine and 10 first, and then we'll go to
eight and 11. So number 9 is to provide CPRB be funding to promote awareness. Um,
and then this- the, um, city manager's report did state the status was awaiting further see
CPRB details related to a budget request. So my proposal is that we, um, just kinda
reiterate that we would like them to make a budget request to us for- for further, um,
examination. Any comments on that one?
Weiner: I- I'm definitely positively inclined toward any- anything that can- that can get the word
out in any ways- in any way that's effective to, um, to different parts of the community.
So that, I mean, I think we could indicate that, er, at least from my perspective that it's a
forward -leaning, please give us what you're looking for as opposed to a- we're looking for
a reason to say no. I think we're sort of looking- my- my personal senses I'm looking for a
reason to say, yes, I just want to see what it is that you want to- what- what funds you
want- what you want to use them for.
Teague: Uh-huh.
Taylor: I agree with that. I think they- they got to the plaintiff saying even CapEx should be a
dollar each. I- I don't need anything quite that specific. I think maybe what Janice is also
alluding to is give us a budget figure and so much of this would be used for the business
card. So much would be. And I do like their idea that they should have more forums,
public forums, and they can have a guesstimate of how much and they don't have to tell
us, well, we need 750 of those and 650 for that. Just a global figure. So they don't need to
do the tedious work of- of itemizing things. Just give us a ballpark figure of what you
think you would need and I would be in favor of it.
Salih: I agree too.
Teague: I would also expand, maybe the thought process to be some of our existing agencies in
the community that could have literature. And so just, you know, sharing that these are
some places where it can be placed. Um, and I would agree, I think that the pro- to
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 19
promote it is gonna be very beneficial. So then we'll just ask them for a little more
information as to what their hopes are.
Weiner: And I know it's always complicated, um, cooperating with other minutes- municipalities
and so forth. But if this were something where we're possible to cooperate with Coralville
or for example, didn't they just create one so-.
Teague: They did.
Weiner: -that that information for both of them is- um is on whatever the material is that could be
helpful for people as well.
Salih: Uh-huh.
Tegaue: I almost wonder if we couldn't start with our own communications department and
maybe ask them to rec- make some recommendations, because they're already doing this
on so many levels, especially our human rights department, just to see if they have some
recommendations that can give the CPRB some standard guidance.
Fruin: Yeah, we- we've assisted with that before. We've created videos, um, on this topic. We've
disseminated information out to different parts of the community, different organizations,
so well continue to provide that support.
Tegaue: Do you think it'd be helpful if the CPRB was aware of kinda the outreach plan and
[OVERLAPPING] see if they wanted to enhance it?
Fruin: That's part of what they're putting together.
Teague: Okay.
Fruin: They wanted to- to develop their own outreach plan, but we can certainly supplement it
and, assist, so I think we've done that throughout their- their existence.
Teague: Okay. All right. Any other comment? Moving on to item number 10. Provide
complainants access to a social worker medical professional. And the status on this is
awaiting further CPRB details related to the social worker medical professional
accommodation. And at this time we're just really waiting for them to come back with
some more information. So, um, and that's what we'll just ask or just state unless there is
some more comments. On to number 8, provide CPRB authority to hire an independent
auditor. And the status here is that the CPRB refined the recommendation, and it is
awaiting our consideration for this item.
Salih: Uh-uh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 20
Fruin: So again, on this one, I think the di- the discussion that took place at the CRP- CPRB was
on our CALEA accreditation process and if it would be helpful for the council to learn a
little bit more about that Chief Liston can explain what's all involved, but CALEA is
essentially, er, an internal audit that- that takes place. Um, the decision is whether to
allow the CPRB, um, to do an extra audit on top of that.
Liston: Uh, Chief Liston, Iowa City Police Department. What, uh, Geoff was mentioning was the
CALEA and that stands for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies. It's an organization we've been involved with since the late 90s. And just this
last, uh, spring, we got our seventh accreditation award. And- and what it is, and forgive
me while I read it so I don't misstate it. "It was an organization created in 1979 as a
credentialing authority through the joint efforts of major law enforcement executive
associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National
Organization of Black Enforcement- Law Enforcement executives, National Sheriffs
Association, and the Police Executive Res- Research Forum. And the purpose of the
Accreditation Program, which is what we've been involved in with over- for over 20
years, is to improve the delivery of public safety services by maintaining a body of
standards developed by public safety practitioners that covers a wide range of up-to-date
public safety initiatives. While also establishing and administering an accreditation
process and recognizes professional excellence. Um, this voluntary accreditation process
begins with a rigorous self-assessment, requiring a review of policies, practices, and
processes against internationally accepted public -safety standards. This is followed with
an assessment by independent assessors with significant public safety experience. Public
feedback is received to promo- to promote community trust and engagement and
structured interviews are conducted with select agency personnel and others with
knowledge to assess the agency's effectiveness and overall service delivery capacities. At
least one member of the current CRB participated in the latest, uh, CALEA accreditation
process. And again, as I mentioned, Iowa City began the- the accreditation process in the
late 90s with the initial accreditation awarded in March of 2002. And we see- we received
our seventh accreditation in March of this year. And it's an ongoing four-year process that
culminates with the accreditation decision by 21 member- 21 commissioner panel,
following a public hearing and review of the documentation." There are only 10 other
municipalities in the- in the State that are accredited by CALEA. So it's an ongoing, uh,
four-year process that we'd been participating in for over 20 years that audits our policy,
makes sure we're following the- the best practices and we're actually following those
policies. In addition, just recently, we've, uh, contracted with a company called Lexipol,
which is a- er, we're embarking on a policy rewrite that'll coincide with our city, uh,
website, our new city website. And that's to make the policy more forward -facing and
more user-friendly to the public. And this will contain updates based on recent, uh, law
changes and case law. So we're having an organization help us do that. Most of the- I
think almost every law enforcement agency in the county al- already uses Lexipol. It's- a
lot of smaller agencies use it because they don't have the mechanisms to write policy on
their own. We've had a pretty decent policy, but we saw- thought we had some gaps in
the policy that we could address with this Lexipol organization. So I just wanted to give
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 21
you an overview of what CALEA does and what we're doing with our policy, um, just so
you know where we're at. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Teague: Sounds like there are none. Thank you. Great. All right. So what are thoughts on this? It
does, at least for me, it appears that is every four years that we're kinda getting this
review or.
Liston: Working in the, uh, formal award every four years, but it's a continuous process. We
send- they- they- we send proofs of standards consistently.
Teague: Okay.
Liston: It's an ongoing process.
Teague: Yeah. The CPRB requests was for, um, a regularly scheduled independent audit every
one and two years at the CPRBs discretion. And it would provide an opportunity for the
police department to receive constant review recommendations for improvement that can
be implemented in the interims. That's kinda what they stated.
Weiner: But then in the- when in the- in the sort of summary of the various requests that says the
CPRB discussed refming the request to require that ICPD give the CALEA report to the
board when received and to authorize the board to request an audit on an as -needed basis.
Um, and so the- so then CPRB board, readf- redefined the recommendation, is that?
Fruin: Yeah, that- that's correct. And their July meeting, they refine their recommendation based
on the chiefs, uh, feedback on the CALEA process. So really what they're- they're
seeking is access to the CALEA report, the accreditation report, which is already a public
document. So there's no- no- no issues there. And then their ability on an as needed basis
to hire an independent auditor if they believe they need one.
Salih: And within them and then auditor will be doing? I- I don't get that here.
Fruin: It's- it's procedure ensure that the department is following the correct procedure. If- if
they felt, I guess, that the department was, uh, um, operating outside of a normal
procedure, they could presumably hire, uh, independent auditor to- to check that.
Salih: For the department. Okay.
Fruin: Yeah.
Bergus: So if we get to CPRB the authority to hire an auditor and an auditor conducts an audit
and comes back with recommendations for changes, then what? Like what- what does it
look like from that point? And I guess maybe to Eric, what are our limitations on making
changes?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 22
Goers: Yeah. It's pretty wide open. Because I'm not sure what the- if the- if the audit is nothing
more than as Geoff suggested, you know, compliance with our present policies and so
forth, then I would assume that that could be a public document and conflict and do with
that information what it- what it wishes. Um, you know, I assume it would be
recommendations to either change policies or, you know, make sure that we're doing a
better job of, uh, training officers and- and complying with those policies, you know,
whatever the case may be. But it kinda depends on, you know, what the audit says and -
and what CPRB recommends. You know, we or you as a council do about it.
Fruin: Generally, most people are familiar with fmancial audits and when you have fmdings on
fmancial audits, they often are- are recommendations for training or separation of duties,
uh, may be ways in which, uh, there can be more checks and balances in a pro- in a
process, or if- if- if they found that a process was not, um, uh, completed according to
policy, they're gonna make recommendations to ensure that next time it does follow,
which could be another set of eyes on it, um, that thing. In my view, most of the findings
in an audit are going to be kind of internal administrative recommendations to ensure
compliance. I don't think the intention of the audit here is to evaluate whether the policy
is appropriate. There are already doing that through the regular course of work when they
review updates to our general orders. So it's not- it's not really seeking an analysis of our
policies. It's seeking an analysis of compliance with our policy.
Salih: I have a question. How the CPRB we're gonna fmd out whether the department need an
outside auditor or not?
Fruin: I- I- I couldn't answer that. I don't- I don't know that I think that's a big question for us,
like what- what- what may lead them to want an audit? I couldn't.
Salih: Yeah. That's I don't know.
Fruin: I mean, through the complaint process, so if someone's going through the complaint
process. They have access to- to interviews and body cams and things like that so they
can. [OVERLAPPING]
Salih: But they have access to that already, and, uh, I see the police keep provide all of that to
them to access it. How from just reviewing this will- they can fmd out the departments
really need an outside auditors to edit it or something like that? I think we should ask the
Police Review Board for more clarification on that. Like, because I really don't
understand how they are gonna find something out just so they can ask for outside
auditor.
Teague: I- I guess for me, I- if- if there was a concern where they needed an auditor to come in
after they've seen the CALEA report, my assumption is that they can- I- I mean, I hate to
put the council at the at the- at the, you know, front of every thing that they want to do an
audit for. But, um, my assumption is that something they can request during that time to
counsel and- and state their claim that there is a concern. Because my assumption is there
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 23
would have to be an identified a concern for that audit to take place. And so- and instead
of saying yes, you know, just do it free reign, maybe they would bring- present that to
council and then the council can at that point make decisions.
Weiner: So- so I have a question for, um, on this for the- for Chief Liston which is during the
CALEA process or since it's an ongoing process, if the CPRB or anybody else would
identify something that seemed that- that- that we're not proper procedure. Is that
something that could- that- that can be brought to CALEA as part of that process to- to
take- to take a closer look at?
Liston: Yes. And they are invited to participate in the process. One of the members did
participate in the last process. Some of the members, I guess, weren't able to participate,
but one of the members did participate in the interviews and they can certainly bring up
any concerns they have to the outside auditors.
Fruin: Yeah. Some of you- some of you council members, I don't remember who's participated
in the past, but we usually would invite council members to meet with the accreditation
team too. And I always do those interviews as well. And it's always, you know, the first
question is, what concerns do you have? Have there have been issues where you feel, um,
you know, we need to really dig deep into they're- they're basically looking for leads
going into that process. And, you know, um, so they- they seek to- to kinda cast that net
why they do public surveys, they do public hearings, they'll meet with council members.
We invite CPRB. Um, and- and they're open to meeting with anybody and that's the
whole point of those discussions so that they can make sure they focus on any, um, issues
that are raised by those various stakeholders.
Salih: Uh, how did you choose who to talk to them?
Fruin: Well, again, we invited CPRB members to say, who wants to do it. And we had a
volunteer. We invite council members to do the same. Uh, we invite the public, uh,
through, um, media releases and social media posts to do that. Uh, and I believe- is there
a survey component to it chief?
Liston: There is an a- and they will randomly pick members of my staff that they want to talk to
as well.
Salih: Okay.
Mims: Yeah. I would agree with the Mayor that, you know, this would always be an option for
them to make this request if they saw a, you know, major reason, I- I have a concern
actually with the way they have worded it and what their understanding is of what an
auditor might do. I mean, they- they asked to basically to have the authority to hire an
independent auditor if the CPRB believes there is an immediate procedural issue that
cannot be reconciled through other means. An auditor, in my experience, is not gonna
reconcile anything. They are gonna look at things and ask questions and gather
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 24
information, um, and provide a recommendation. But there's- they can't reconcile
anything that wasn't- that couldn't be reconciled through other means. So I- I just I'm not
quite sure that they, um, like Geoff said, when you have a financial audit, they can make
recommendations based on things and I think, uh, to leave that option open, obviously,
they could come back to any future council and request if they saw some major reason,
but I don't- I don't see putting it in here where it's kind of a carte blanche that they could
do it anytime without getting authority for having some specific reason for it.
Teague: Let's say that, um, given the fact that they'll have knowledge of when that'll- that'll be
coming, um, they could, you know, as a- as a group, CPRB groups say this is, you know,
take a timeout and say what are some important issues that we want, you know, research.
And I think they can maybe make that, uh, claim for further investigation and whatever
items they found to be priorities. So that's another, you know, option that seemed like it
was ind- individual CPRB members corning. But the CPRB could do it as a- as a unit,
make a recommendation for investigation. Any other thoughts on this?
Thomas: Well, I'm- you know this is a little confusing, but it- it does seem in looking at this kind
of matrix. It talks about, you know, they've refined the requests they- that would require
the ICPD to give the CALEA report to the board when received and to authorize the
Board to request an audit on an as -needed basis. So it's not something that we're really
asking to do necessarily on a regular basis, but on an as -needed basis. So, I'm- I'm okay
with that. I mean, it- it does seem that the- it's based on a review of the CALEA report.
It's not something that they would necessarily schedule in- in any regular manner. But
should they have concerns upon seeing the CALEA report that they would be authorized
to request an audit on an as -needed basis? You know, I'm- I'm okay with that.
Mims: I- I don't think that's what it's saying.
Fruin: Yeah, I don't- I don't think that's -
Mims: Because the 7- they modified it again on 7/13 in the left-hand side of that matrix. And
there it's saying that they would have the authority to hire an independent auditor. They
wouldn't have to request authorization. They would have the authority to hire.
Fruin: And I don't think it's tied to the CALEA. I said- I think they basically said the CALEA
thing is, you know, nice. We wanna see that report. But of circumstances outside of that,
not necessarily because of the report, but outside circumstances dictated, they'd want to
hire an auditor, or, yeah an auditor.
Bergus: I wonder if this relates to their budget request. I mean, it feels like logistically, if they
were hiring an auditor, it might be a contract that would have to come before us anyway,
depending on the scope and the terms of it. Um, I mean, maybe it's something that they
would wanna propose, kind of figuring that out and throwing numbers in there because, I -
I'm not opposed the idea of an independent body being able to, you know, at some point
in time sort of, you know, look at the- the process even in relation to the CALEA process,
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 25
but I don't, you know, it- it seems like there could be a point at which it would be either
redundant or, you know, not actually leading to policy improvements or procedural
improvements. I don't know of what other accounts are saying about that, maybe asking
the CPRB to scope it a little bit as to what they have in mind for this independent auditor?
Salih: Yeah. uh- Because I- I thinks also sometime I believe they referring to a 13 investigation
or this is just in general for the whole department. I really did not get exactly what they're
referring to for auditing.
Teague: We heard, um, Susan Mims just talk about, um, an immediate, right? You refer to
something more immediate.
Mims: Well, I mean, if you look at the- the grid on page 46 of our packets, all right, then the
bottom of Page 46 is Item Number A, and they started out and their first request was an
in- to be able to high- the authority to hire an independent auditor to review the police
department's internal investigation procedures. It was a very narrow focus of what they
wanted to be able to hire an auditor for. They- if- then if you look in the right-hand side
that we requested more information assigned back, they made a change. They talked
about CALEA. They modified it by the board again on July 13th, and that is in the
bottom left-hand side where it says, "Now that what they want is the authority to hire an
independent auditor if the CRP believes there is an immediate procedural issue that
cannot be reconciled through other means." My perception is an auditor is not going to
reconcile anything. They're not gonna solve any problems. An auditor is going to look at
what is happening, um, make their recommendations on what should be changed, what
issues there are, and bring that to the forefront. But they're not in a position to actually
make changes or reconcile anything. So I- I again would go back in support of what the
Mayor mentioned earlier is saying to them, hey, anytime that you think there's a major
issue that's not being addressed by staff, by CALEA, or whatever, then come to us and let
us know and make that request that, hey, we've really feel we need an outside auditor or
body of some sort to come in and look at things, and this council would hopefully always
be open to that kind of request if there's justification for it.
Weiner: Yeah. I'd also point out that- that- that I am a liaison right now with- with the CPRB so
if they felt- if they, you know, anytime I've had some people from- from them call me
about issues, if they feel that there's an issue, I would certainly- and they talk to me, I
mean, there's plenty of other- there's plenty of other channels, but if they- if they talked to
me as liaison- current liaison, I would defmitely bring it to you Mayor, to you Mayor Pro
Tem and others to start- to- to try- to try and flush it out and see what's happening.
[OVERLAPPING] To be resolved.
Salih: But I really think that. There is like two thing going on here. Sometimes he did like
auditor and sometimes investigator. And- I think it was to ask them what exactly they're
referring to. Do they need somebody to investigate certain, you know, like problem that
happened, or they need auditor to audit the whole department and give them
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 26
recommendations how to improve. This is- we need clarification on that so we can
understand exactly what they are referring to.
Teague: I do hear, you know, kind of the, um, the auditor versus investigator, you know,
language that you bring up, but here they are specifically saying an auditor.
Salih: But on the beginning over there. They say to investigate certain -
Teague: In- Internal inv- investigation procedures.
Salih: Yes. Internal, yeah.
Mims: But again, they're still- we're talking about an auditor. It was just there were a very
narrow focus of what they wanted the auditor to look at. I mean, I think we sent this back
to them once already and this is, you know, they've discussed it and, you know, we fmd it
on June 8th and we fmd it again on July 13th. So to me we're at a point we ought to-
Salih: No is it?
Mims: -act on what we have in front of us.
Salih: Do we have a timeline for this?
Tegaue: No, we don't have a timeline.
Salih: Can we ask them that question.
Teague: You know, I would- I would be interested m their response to the Mayor's proposal.
Salih: Yeah. To make sure we give them the right, you know.
Taylor: I would be interested too because perhaps they misunderstood what an auditor truly is
and what- what their role would be.
Teague: So do you think we- I mean, we can give, you know, the direction of, if you would like
an independent auditor one, you have the liaison.
Salih: Yes.
Teague: As well as they can come to the council. Are we comfortable with that? I mean, they'll
still make their response.
Bergus: I still think they could put it in their budget if they think it's something that we're gonna
do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 27
Salih: Mayor, they are coming back to us for bad days, they are corning back to us for another
thing that for the emergency. [OVERLAPPING]
Weiner: They have a couple of other issues to -on -on the budget with us.
Salih: Yeah. They can come back for this too.
Teague: So I wanna make sure that, um, I- I have a clear understanding of why the majority is
here. I did hear that it can go on the budget. You know, they can put it in the budget,
which I think they can still submit a budget, independent of what we decide on this one
item. Do we then, you know, just state that if they want an independent auditor that they
present it ultimately to council for final approval?
Mims: I would suggest if they want an auditor, they present it to council. The issue I would see
about putting it in the budget is I don't think unless you know what you're trying, what
you're auditing for, and what you're really looking at. I don't think you're going to have a
clue what your budget needs to be.
Bergus: That's what I was hoping they might know that we don't.
Mims: I mean, If -if it's something fairly narrow, then you might be able to get an idea of what
it's gonna cost you. But the broader the audit is, the more it's gonna cost. So if they have
no clue right now, because they're just looking at this in general for the future, then I
think it's pretty difficult to put a dollar amount into a budget that could accommodate it.
So that- that would be my only concern about trying to address it through the budgetary
process.
Salih: That's what takes us back to ask them to notice our focus and tell us exactly what they
mean by that. So we can see this is something to be within the budget or not.
Mims: But also the way I read it right now is I don't think they have anything right now, is the
way I read their fmal thing. They- they don't have anything right now that they feel they
need to audit, but it's something potentially for the future.
Bergus: If we said yes, they should have the authority to do this, would that be a change m their
ordinance, like governing them, or what wo- would that actually mean?
Goers: Well, the city manager has authority to hire a consultant. I believe it's up to $60,000, is
that right, Geoff?
Fruin: Um, that- if -if, um- Close. Yes. I think I don't know. I can't remember the exact number
but pretty close.
Goers: I wanna say I'm not certain either, but I- I think it's 60. Um, and normally, you know,
boards and commissions don't have their- I mean, unless it's a board or commission like
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 28
the airport or the library that's, you know, quasi -autonomous and they kinda run the show
for department. Normally boards and commissions don't have, you know, spending
authority to spend, you know, a whole lot of money and much of anything. Um, but yeah,
I mean, I guess I'm not sure what's meant. If- if the idea is that they're given a budget line
of, you know, x dollars and they can hire, uh, an independent auditor to perform an audit
of their specifications whenever they want, um, I mean, we can certainly fmd a way to
make that happen. Um, that may require a change in the ordinance, I'd need to review
that. But if- if that's the councils will I'm sure that that can be realized.
Fruin: I would- I would just urge you- wouldn't get hung up on the dollar amount on- on the
budget, whether it's in the budget or not, we- we've had to do special audit of the city
before and- and we have contingency funds and reserve funds to be able to do that. So I- I
don't- I don't anticipate a situation in which there is no money available for an audit. All
right? Um, and because it would be irregular, it's probably just not something we would
budget for, ah, on a regular basis. I would focus m more on regardless of what- what their
scope is, you know, you can go back and get clarity. Is it on investigations, is it on kinda
department policy -wide? Regardless, um, if you want them to have that checkpoint with
council, if you wanna have that discussion with them before that audit is initiated, then -
then that's kind of where it needs to- to rest. Just come to us if you have a concern and we
can help craft the appropriate audit if you wanna proceed. Um, if you truly want to give
them the ability to act outside of council approval, that's probably where you'd need that
clarity m that scope. Um, really well-defined.
Bergus: Okay, so since they didn't define the scope, I think our choice is to say, come back to us
when you have a proposal. I guess that's where I'm landing.
Teague: An -and I think I'm comfortable for that right now, you know, until we have our first
incident that they want to investigate or have a- auditor for. I'm seeing some shaking of
heads. Okay. So we will just have them come to council with that request and council
will make a decision, um, during that conversation with them. We're gonna move on to
number 11, which is expanding PRB membership from five to seven. And this, um, was a
request where they're asking that at least four members be from a minority race, and at
least one member be a current or a former member of the police department or a police
expert.
Goers: The one thing I would say about this one Mayor is I would caution against having explicit
quotas, uh, based on race. I think courts have made it pretty clear that that's not
permissible. Certainly, uh, we can include language to the effect that, um, you know, life
experience should be considered, uh, you know, diversity will be a consideration and -
and a factor and so forth. But when you say explicitly, at least this many members shall
be of a minority race, I- I think that would leave us vulnerable to challenge.
Taylor: So we agree that that number should be increased. I think five is that- that a big
challenge for them to do the job they've been charged with, and so seven would be great.
I think and I- I agree with Mr. Goers that, um, perhaps just a suggestion on- on the
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 29
membership because as it is challenging now for us, we- we try as best we can to be
diverse on- on commission- board and commission appointments, but it's difficult. But I-
I see this is going along with the public awareness one where we're- we're letting them
have funds for that for the CPRB, uh, I- I think that members, um, should maybe attend
events, um, community events, and encourage people to apply for these positions. I- I
think that would be the best way to- to go about this. And the brochures, the budget for
brochures, they can be handing those out so to increase the public awareness. And I think
that goes along with this as that would be great if we could have at least three be the
minority members. But that's a challenge.
Mims: I would agree with increasing the number, I think with five. Now, what I would suggest
again, just because sometimes we have a challenge getting the applications of going to -
from five to seven and then re-evaluate in a couple of years and look at, you know, does
it make sense to even go as far as nine. Um, but I think having more people to- to do that
workload and just to provide more opportunity across the community, I would agree with
increasing the number.
Weiner: I think they would benefit from having slightly, somewhat larger commission and if we
can, you know, at least include encouraging language for prefer- preferential or
encouraging without requiring. Because it's absolutely- it's absolutely- from my
perspective, it's absolutely essential that the- the communities most affected be
represented, but we can't require that.
Bergus: I think similar language regarding anyone with, kind of, the police background I don't
think it should be a requirement because we might just end up with a vacancy or, you
know, be put in a position of appointing someone when, you know, maybe they lack
other qualifications, but I think having that recommended language, if that's what the
CPRB is asking for is good.
Tegaue: I do wonder if we could not have the specific language for at least a, um, someone from
the law enforcement or a law enforcement expert.
Goers: Yeah, that would be fine because that's not a member of a protected class. We have that
in a number of other boards and commissions or adjustment, for example, that's fine.
Fruien: And there's language referencing that in the current ordinates?
Taylor: There is, yes.
Teague: Because I know that that's there's request and so I wanted to-
Fruin: Yeah, I don't think they were aware that that's already -
Taylor: It's already in there. Already in there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 30
Fruin: -a preference. It's not a requirement.
Teague: So I think they are wanting to- I will take that leap and say make it a requirement.
Fruin: Yeah.
Teague: So I would be comfortable with that requirement and then, of course, you know, um,
when we're looking- looking at all boards and commission, I think Mayor Pro Tem has
talked about just making sure that it looks like the community. Um, and especially as
Council Weiner just mentioned, you know, a lot of the people that are affected are, um,
minority groups, and so just make sure that we are having that representation, so I- I'm
comfortable going to seven.
Mims: The only question I would have is moving from the recommendation to require- to
requirement on somebody with police or police policy experience. What if you don't get
any applicants? How long are you gonna let that seat sit empty before you take somebody
that doesn't fit that category? Because I think it's important that you have all the seats
filled. And so to me, I- in the 12 years I've been sitting here, I've felt pretty strongly that
council has really tried to do a good job in terms of looking at recommendations and
preferences, in terms of assignments to commissions and, um, diversity issues, and
obviously by state law now we have to do the gender issues, etc. Um, so I think of
recommendation rather than a requirement, would probably go just as far. And then you
don't risk having to set a certain date by or if we don't fill this position, we take anybody,
so, just my [OVERLAPPING]
Teague: And I'm comfortable with the, uh, recommendation.
Weiner: Yeah. I agree. The only thing I would say is that, um, it's- I could really see the
difference from attending meetings between when they have someone with that
knowledge, that background, and when they don't. So, um, I would hope that council
would really take that into account when we're both- when people are both recruiting
folks to serve on this because it's very helpful- it is incredibly helpful to have someone,
just one person with that background to help inform the discussion.
Teague: So it seems like we have a majority there. Any other comments?
Fruin: So staff will draft that ordinance update, and we'll send it to CPRB for comment before
we bring it back to you.
Teague: Great. Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move on to clarification of agenda items.
Clarification of Agenda Items
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 31
Teague: I will state that for item number 7b, The SSMID, I'm gonna ask, um, our attorney- city
attorney to, kind of, just make a statement before we get into that item on the consent
agenda. During the formal meeting. Otherwise, any other item from the consent agenda?
Information Packet Discussion [October 7, October 141
Teague: Alright. We are on to info packet October 7th. We did get a letter from, uh, Pat Heiden
with the border supervisors about the Fringe Agreement Policy. Did you want to speak to
that?
Fruin: Yeah. So there might be a small period where we don't have a Fringe Area Agreement,
there might be a little gap, um, uh, the, um, Fringe Area Agreement is working its way
through the planning and zoning process. So we've reached agreement, uh, at a staff level
with the county. We have reasonable assurance that it will be supported at the County
Board of Supervisors and believe it'll meet your expectations too, so, um, I wouldn't read
too much into this I just think we might have a short period where we don't have an
active Fringe Area Agreement.
Teague: Any other items from October 7th?
Weiner: Um, only to comment that there were some really interesting information in the National
League of Cities, um, piece about, sort of, where different cities stand financially, who's
using which funds for what, and so forth.
Teague: October 14th? A large part of that was the CPRB, so I don't anticipate there's anything
else there. Um, I do wonder if- I know in, uh, we did have some minutes from the, um,
Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission in our formal agenda, I do wonder if we
shouldn't, um, put them on our November 16th work session just to have a conversation.
Um, I know that they're- they've been stating that, you know, we haven't talked about
some of the items related to them and so I feel like we should have a conversation in a
work session. What are your thoughts?
Fruin: We did schedule a joint meeting with the County Board of Supervisors at 4 o'clock that
same day. So if you do want to add another topic that might be lengthy, we'd probably
have to consider starting the work session a little earlier.
Weiner: Or move it to the 30th or whatever the date of the next meeting is. So that we don't have
two big items on the [OVERLAPPING]
Teague: Yeah. Because that's going to be a big item. Yes. We want to move it to the 30th, that's
out there. But-.
[female] Yeah.
Teague: Okay. 11:30. Alright. Council updates?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.
Page 32
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Teague: We did have our joint meeting yesterday. Joint entities meeting yesterday. And I think
that the most significant is that, um, there are some cities, you know, working on the
ARPA funds and they just, kind of, laid out what they're doing as far as public input, and
I guess giving a general overview of where they are. So we reported as well and we'll
have our meeting with the county on the 16th of November.
Weiner: Yeah, they're having their final public input session next week on the 27th I want to say,
26th or 27th so.
Teague: Alright, anything else? We are adjourned until 6:00 PM.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 19, 2021.