Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence- #22 Middleton, Samuel From: Chelsea Boyle <cdrake1221 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 6:42 PM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment meeting 10/18 item 22 Hello, My name is Chelsea and I am a concerned community member commenting on agenda item 22 regarding police oversight. Effective police oversight is long overdue. Santa Ana residents have been calling on the city to create a Police Oversight Commission since the 1960s. It's time to deliver on this campaign of 60 years and listen to residents' demands for accountability and transparency of the Police Department, and I urge to adopt the ACLU and Chispa's amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents over $20 million in lawsuits settlements over the last decade. I'm in full support of a strong and robust Police Oversight Commission to rein in abuses by Santa Ana police officers, and ensure accountability and transparency to residents. Bad oversight is worse than no oversight so Santa Ana must get it right. As currently written, the draft ordinance put together by City Staff would create a Review Model similar to Anaheim's, which is completely inadequate and insufficient. I urge you to adopt the ACLU and Chispa's amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. It must be meaningful independent! Thank you, Chelsea Boyle i Middleton, Samuel From: Taylor Vivanco <tvivanco1999@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:11 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments To the City Council, Phil Bacerra, and Mayor Sarmiento, I would like to voice my concerns about the current state of the Police Oversight Ordinance and would like to request changes to make this oversight more impactful and more accountable. First, we need an oversight committee that is independent from SAPID. For those who claim to be supportive of "Law and Order," police officers must also be held up to the same standards that they hold the citizens of our city to and not be permitted to circumnavigate laws by overseeing themselves. Second, we need to broaden the scope and ability for public complaints. The current ordinance is limiting complaints but if we truly want to listen to, acknowledge, and respond to the people who are at times targeted by police who break the law or overstep the boundaries and expectations of what their role calls for, then it should be made easier to make public complaints. Third, any commission that exists should be granted access to police department records. Any commission will not be able to make a decision or recommendation without a full picture of any given incident. A commission should not have to wait months to years for a FOIA to be processed and grant access to important information necessary to make a decision. A commission should not have to hope that persons involved may volunteer themselves to speak to the commission as a witness. The commission needs access that the current oversight ordinance does not grant. Fourt,the commission should be able to make disciplinary recommendations. When the commission comes to a conclusion based on all the evidence they are able to acquire, the commission should have the authority to come to a collective agreement on the types of discipline that should be granted. Finally, the commission should be representative of the city, its demographics, have qualified members, and be more inclusive of employees of some municipal agencies. These are all common sense reforms and as a citizen of Ward 4, I would like to also voice my support for the recommendations made by Chispa and other grassroots organizations in Santa Ana calling for similar changes to the Police Oversight Ordinance. For 60 years, Santa Ana residents have been calling for true accountability and oversight and now is the time to grant that! Thank you for taking the time to read this comment and I hope that you take some of these measures for accountability into consideration, Taylor Vivanco i October 17th, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecom entC s�.tnt�.t....ana o g Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, UFCW 324 represents over 22,000 union members in the grocery, retail pharmacy, hospitality and cannabis industries. We have thousands of members who live and work in Santa Ana. Although we primarily focus on improving the lives of our members by fighting for better contracts and work standards in the workplace, we know our members also come home and deal with a wide range of issues, from housing insecurity, immigration, and even issues with police misconduct. To that end, we are committed as an organization to making sure that our members and the community at large are best served by the police departments that serve them. We believe that a Citizen Police Oversight commission is a crucial step to making sure that there is mutual respect and trust built between law enforcement officers and the communities that they serve. However, it also equally important that oversight is not just in name, but also done in a real and comprehensive way. To that end, we would like to echo the concerns and comment being brought forth from community organizations regarding the current version of the legislation scheduled to be discussed on October 18th, 2022 as agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board,which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. 1 Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Our recommendations align with community organizations and include the following recommendations: 1) Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD. 2) Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. 3)Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. 4) Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. 5) Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. 6) Police Department Transparency and Reporting 2 One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, UFCW 324 strongly supports taking into consideration these recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Derek Smith Political Director of UFCW 324 CC: .....................arbra;�eiito,( )santa....aiaa.ony .. I` ,a � I,�..(..5���1�,,,,,,�1a;�,,,, �g I"P iata(i g},san�a....a aa.ou DPetaaIoza, i>,santa ataa.on) Jesse➢ o,1?� „( >„ 1a ,,,,,,a1a„ ,,,, 1, era,,,,,,,, �;,(��>,s�;�1;;�,,,,,,�1a,�,,.o fS 3 Middleton, Samuel From: Greg Camphire <gcamphire@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:36 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #22: Draft Ordinance Establishing a Police Oversight Commission Hello, I'm writing today to let Santa Ana's leaders know that effective police oversight is long overdue in our city. Residents have been calling for the creation of a Police Oversight Commission since the 1960's, so it's way past time to listen to citizens and deliver on this campaign for accountability for the many abuses of the Santa Ana Police Department. Therefore, I urge you to adopt the ACLU and Chispa's amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents over $20 million in lawsuit settlements over the last decade. Their unjust killings have caused immeasurable loss of life and pain for the grieving friends and families left behind. So we must get it right when creating an effective, independent, and transparent Police Oversight Commission. This commission must have teeth! Bad oversight is worse than no oversight, as it would continue letting police misconduct pass without any repercussions. As currently written, the draft ordinance put together by City Staff would create a Review Model similar to Anaheim's, which is completely inadequate and insufficient. The oversight board must have broad authority to investigate complaints, serious incidents, and use of force by SAPD. The commission must be able to access appropriate SAPD documents in order to investigate and make formal judgments on the most serious issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. The commission must be explicitly authorized with the power of subpoena and the ability to issue disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD as well as the City Council. Police oversight must also be truly independent, which means that no law enforcement officers should serve on the board. We've seen the results when police investigate themselves, leading to zero accountability and officers being fired and rehired. Instead, the commission must include the people most affected by police violence in Santa Ana; and they must be selected through an independent selection panel process. Transparency and reporting are also essential components of an effective Police Oversight Commission. It is important that our communities are aware of the commission's role and responsibilities, and it must create public opportunities for residents to learn about related issues so that they can make informed decisions. Per Assembly Bill 71, the SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953, SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. I urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data. This is one of the most important issues of our time. We need to police the police. I support the ACLU and Chispa's proposed changes to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance and urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. Thank you, i Greg Camphire Ward 2 92701 2 October 14, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, ACLU of Southern California and Chispa write to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations.We are concerned,however,that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lan,-ua,-e As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.1 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely 1 Kpetman,Roxana. (2021,August 3). "Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange County Register.l�I I //www ocr ,;p,islc�.cortr/�0�p/t� /03/s�i�l pia to laosl virt�i�l ior�irt7 oi� al,rc� ovb ; i.;plaC/ 1 on investigators from within the police department."2 The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. 2,,FAQs."National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Accessed October 14,2022. 1:C::!.12..;././...www..����;ca.lc..:. ,j /Ls. 2 Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversi,-ht Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: I. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse(including,but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity,religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including,but not limited to,unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commission must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high- risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly,the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. 3 The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: 1. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses,police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies;weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse,registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees,contractors,officials or representatives of an association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commission. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5)years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. 4 The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. Sincerely, ACLU of Southern California and Chispa CC: V` �anml ie1:.:t:o..(�r>s�atit�a...�ang..or: .PQacerra(�)santa ana..or F a a1a cr>santa...a aa..or: �. Q Penal oza(�>Santa ana..or ➢essuel[.,o )e z 0> [satra ana..o 5 JR antleranden O)santa ana ................. N e idoza( )santa.. ............!".. . )satria�.ana.or�� ..................!....................................... Middleton, Samuel From: Kelly Kraus-Lee <kellyakraus@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:38 AM To: Penaloza, David; eComment Subject: Comment on Item 22 Dear Councilmember Penaloza and Santa Ana City Councilmembers, I am a resident of Santa Ana and live in Ward 6. In regards to item 22, the police oversight commission, a weak salsa commission is worse than no commission at all. I urge you to adopt the ACLU and Chispa's amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. One of these important amendments is the ability of the commission to make disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPID. The commission's independent investigation will only be meaningful if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. Kelly Kraus-Lee Resident, Ward 6 i Middleton, Samuel From: Martha Bejar <bejar.martha@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:39 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments Hola Alcalde Sarmiento y Concejales, Mi nombre es Martha Garcia y soy residente de Santa Ana desde hace 18 anos. La violencia y la mala conducta policial han costado a los residentes de Santa Ana mas de$20 millones en acuerdos judiciales durante la ultima decada. Estoy a favor de una Comision de Supervision de la Policia fuerte y robusta para controlar los abusos de les agentes de policia de Santa Ana y garantizar la rendicion de cuentas y la transparencia para los residentes. Por favor adopten las enmiendas de la ACLU y Chispa Al borrador de la Ordenanza de Supervision de la Policia. Gracias, Enviado desde mi iPhone i Middleton, Samuel From: Drozco Norma Sent: Tuesday, October 18' 2O220:S4AK4 To: e[omment Subject: RE: Fvvd: Goog|eTrans|ate: Hello Mayor Sarmiento and Counci|members, My name is—Araceli Robles I work in Santa Ana and for 21 years I lived in Santa Ana a month ago I was displaced and I currently live in Fullerton_for a long dme | have had very bad experiences vviththe police since | have a son vvitha mental condidonand officersare unprepared to handle these types of calls it's not fair that Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents more than $20 million in court settlements over the past decade. I support a strong and robust Police Oversight Commission to rein in abuses by Santa Ana police officers and ensure accountability and transparency for residents. Please adopt the ACLU and Chispa amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. Thank you, Fromn:Arace|i Rob|es<arace|irob|es714@8mai|zomx Sent:Tuesday, October 18, ZUZZ9:5ZAM To: eComment<ecomment@santa'ana.or8x 8ubject: Fvvd: ----- Forwarded message ----- Dc: Ara«*li Robles Date: mar, 18 oct2022 ul»/sl 09:34 Subject: To: Aoucc|iRohlcs Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments RnhAlcalce SunncntoyConc jalcs, Mioomhrc cs _Aouccli Robles Truh jo co Suz�u��uu�� por2| uosv�/i co Sm�u��ouhuccuon�cs fui dcopluzudu y uc�|ulcucntc vivo co Fullerton_pormuchn ticnqpo yo he vividn nuy cuulus cxpericociu coo la po|cciu yu quctcogouohijo coouuu coodicioo mental y los oficiulcs ooticoc luprcpuruci000cccsuriupuru utcodcr cstcti o de llcuudus no es justo quc L.uviolcociuy la cuulu cooductupoliciul huo costudn ulos rcsidco1cs de Santa Ana cuAs de $20 cuilloocs co ucucrdos judiciulcs duruntc lu�tlticuu d6cudu. Bstny u favor de uou Cocuisi6o de Supervisi6o de luPoliciu fucrLcy rohustupuru controlur los uhusos de lcs ugco1cs dcpoliciu de Santa Ana y guruntizur lurcodici6o de cucntus y lutzuospurcociupuru los rcsidco1cs. Por favor udoptco lus enmiendas de la ACLU y Chispa Al borrador de la Ordenanza de Supervisi6n de la Policia. 1 Gracias, 2 Middleton, Samuel From: Middleton, Samuel Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 11:16 AM To: eComment Subject: Google Translate Hello Mayor Sarmiento and Councillors, My name is Liliana Catalan and I have been a resident of Santa Ana for 19 years. Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents more than $20 million in court settlements over the last decade. I support a strong and robust Police Oversight Commission to rein in abuses by Santa Ana police officers and ensure accountability and transparency for residents. Please adopt the ACLU and Chispa amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. Thank you, -----Original Message----- From: Liliana Catalan <lilianacatalanl@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 18, 2022 10:36 AM To: eComment<ecomment@santa-ana.org> Subject:Agenda item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments Hola Alcalde Sarmiento y Concejales, Mi nombre es Liliana Catalan y soy residente de Santa Ana desde hace 19 anos. La violencia y la mala conducta policial han costado a los residentes de Santa Ana mas de$20 millones en acuerdos judiciales durante la ultima decada. Estoy a favor de una Comisi6n de Supervisi6n de la Policia fuerte y robusta para controlar los abusos de les agentes de policia de Santa Ana y garantizar la rendici6n de cuentas y la transparencia para los residentes. Por favor adopten las enmiendas de la ACLU y Chispa Al borrador de la Ordenanza de Supervisi6n de la Policia. Gracias, 1 Middleton, Samuel From: suvangeer@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 11:04 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments 10/18/22 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecomment@santa-ana.org Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, Church of the Foothills', Faith In Action Ministry's mission is to "pursue justice, peace, equity and the healing of a// creation, to build a better community and world". So we are writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22,"Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion,"and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however,that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board,which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient.The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight.The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein,are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Language As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models. 1 Fails to establish commission independence.The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor.The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission.The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department(SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints.The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model,the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department.The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident.These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe,the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties.The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover,the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress.The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records.To effectuate meaningful oversight,the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws,to all SAPID documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations.The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPID.The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. Lacks disciplinary authority.The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct.The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPID before the statute of limitation expires. Finally,the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written,the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically,the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover,the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members.This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. 2 Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason,we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint.The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPID, including but not limited to: All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury(Category I incidents). Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion,verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion,gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury,false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering,trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commission must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPID Investigations Bureau. Importantly,the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory- model duties to include the following: Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies;weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 3 Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPID. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission,we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPID files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies.The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPID. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions.The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting 4 The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs,training, and annual budget.The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency.The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPID is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPID is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPID is issuing reports to the DOJ,we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct,and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, Faith In Action strongly supports taking into consideration these recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Suvan Geer Co-Chair, Faith In Action Ministry Church of the Foothills 5 Middleton, Samuel From: Karla Navarro <karma_karla@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 12:07 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda #22 As a Santa Ana resident feeling safe in my community is very important to me. Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents over$20 million in lawsuit settlements over the last decade. I'm in full support of a strong and robust Police Oversight Commission to rein in abuses by Santa Ana police officers, and ensure accountability and transparency to residents. I urge you to adopt the ACLU and Chispa's amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. 1 Middleton, Samuel From: Karen Hernandez <karenghernandez@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 12:23 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida; The People's Budget OC Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments Attachments: PBOC_ Police Oversight Letter of Support .pdf October 17, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 cc�.r�.ment c Santa-anasorc� Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, People's Budget Orange County (PBOC) is writing to respond to the October 18, 2022, City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. Every year the County of Orange undertakes the process of defining a supplemental budget for our County. PBOC's mission is to push for an inclusive, community-led process to define equitable budget values. We want a county budget that centers the well-being of our most impacted community members and prioritizes healthy, safe communities, over law enforcement and jails. We believe this work includes responding to and creating community-led police oversight activities and policies throughout all cities in Orange County. PBOC supports investing in an equitable and community-led police oversight commission as outlined below. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported, and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. i Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lanpuape As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.v 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."v The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 2 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover, the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commission must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly, the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: 1. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies; weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commission. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent 4 investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, People's Budget Orange County strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Karen G. Hernandez Lead Organizer People's Budget Orange County CC: VSarmiento(o)santa-ana.org PBacerra(o)santa-ana.org TPhan(o)santa-ana.org DPenaloza(o)santa-ana.org JessieLopez(o)santa-ana.org J Ryan Hernandez(o)santa-ana.org NMendoza(o)santa-ana.org Lil Kpetman, Roxana.(2021,August 3)."Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange County Register.https://www.ocregister.com/2021/08/03/santa-ana-to-host-virtual-forum-on-police-oversight/ 21"FAQs."National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.Accessed October 14,2022.https://www.nacole.org/fags. 5 Middleton, Samuel From: Darrell Neft <dsneft@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 12:47 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments October 18, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecomme t rcr Santa-ana.or g Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, I am writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community- based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lanzuaze i As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models. 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement(NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department." The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather,the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department(SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model,the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe,the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include 2 commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversi,-ht Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: I. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commision must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly, the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: I. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 3 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies; weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management,policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations 4 The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies,practices,procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, I strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Darrell Neft Santa Ana shopper and civic activities participant CC: VSarmientogsanta-ana.or,, PBacerra(6,santa-ana.org TPhan c 7 saute-ana.orb DPenaloza( 7santa-ana.org JessieLopez 4 Santa-ana.org JRyanHernandez��santa-ana.org 5 NMendoza Ld)s�anta-a�na.or Sent from my iPad 11 f e� dbNro S p J ,I• � �i�� N TI 14 Ivy mu October 17, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA.92701 m4o I i�nt.M . t;, , .. ... . !. .............. {q{^ Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, Stop the Musick(STM)Coalition is writing to respond to the October 18,2022,City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission on Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We are a coalition of individuals and organizations committed to decarceration in Orange County, California. Our vision is to reduce the jail population, stop the expansion of the carceral state, increase alternatives to incarceration, and build housing-first and care-first models in Orange County. We believe in a community that invests in public safety and community wellness through care, not cages. STM supports investing an equitable and community-led police oversight commission as outlined below. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations.We are concerned, however,that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Language As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will 1 11 f e� dbNro TI m N,IPI 14 S p J ,I• � �i�� N Ivy mu give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.' 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department.112 The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the ' Kpetman, Roxana. (2021, August 3). "Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange County Re ister. h kkX.2s,://,w,,ww.,,o,,c,re isker.com202'1/03/03/saka-aa.ko-host virk.Aal-fo.u.n on-G.2o,lice over,si ,ell ,,,,, , ,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .......................................................................... ......,,......,, ......,, .............. 2"FAQs." National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.Accessed October 14, 2022. h�kk.�s://www.nacole.or /fa s. 2 11 f e� dbNro S p J ,I• � �i�� N TI 14 Ivy mu commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover, the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whetheror not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 3 11 f e� dbNro S p J ,I• � �i�� N TI 14 Ivy mu 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commission must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high- risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly, the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: 1. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies; weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. 4 11 f e� dbNro S p J ,I• � �i�� N TI 14 Ivy mu Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commission. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited bylaw, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies.The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. 5 11 f e� dbNro S p J ,I• � �i�� N TI 14 Ivy mu Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, Stop the Musick Coalition strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, /V— Mai Tran Communications Strategist Stop the Musick Coalition CC: Irlrr-ii_ rnt-p@santa ana.oir l:::)l[: aceirira,.(. Santa ana.oirq ........................................................... n Il than„( santa ana.oir ....................................... 1'.)....................n!.�n:11. Z.a.( ganta....ana.oir Jessliell.....o ez„ Santa ana.oir :...............................J 2.................� .JII:RY n:.!�.Il:::::w.. Ir.!�. .nd .�..�LD santo....ana.oit .IN. M e rn d o Z .@ Santa ana.oir 6 Middleton, Samuel From: Middleton, Samuel Sent: Tuesday, October 18' 2O221:07PK4 To: e[omment Subject: RE: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments Hello Mayor Sarmiento and Councillors, My name is Rocio Paredes, I have been a resident of Santa Ana for 21 years. Police violence and misconduct have cost Santa Ana residents more than $20 million in court settlements over the last decade. I support a strong and robust Police Oversight Commission to rein in abuses by Santa Ana police officers and ensure accountability and transparency for residents. Please adopt the ACLU and Chispa amendments to the draft Police Oversight Ordinance. Thanks. From: Rodo Paredes<paredesr8.Z4@8mai|zomx Sent:Tuesday, October 18, ZUZZ1:U3PM To: eComment<ecomment@santa'ana.or8x Subject: Re:Agenda Item ZZ: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments f{olu /\lculdc SurmicntoyCooc julcs, Mi oonnhrc es Rocio Paredes, soyrcsidcntc de Santa Ana dcsdc hucc 21 uftos. L.uviolcociuy la mulu cooductu policiul huo costudo u los rcsidcntcs de Santa Ana cuAs de $20 cuilloocs co ucucrdos judiciulcs duruntc lu�ticuu d6cudu. Bstny u favor dcuou Cocuisi6o de Supervisi6o de luPoliciu fucrtcyrohustupuru controlur los uhusos de lcs ugco1cs dcpoliciu de Santa Ana y guruntizur lurcodici6o de cucntus y lutzuospurcociupuru los rcsidcutcs. Por favor udo[tcolusconzicodusdclu ACLU yChispuAlhonrudordclu [}rdcouozudcSupervisi6o de luPoliciu. Grucius. RocioPuredes 657-358-2968 z Latino Health Access p A`( ,NO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 H ALT �y/ " Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACC ,, iii 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org October 18, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 1�1 gjj .)sant�.t...ana o g RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, Latino Health Access works with community residents to support physical, emotional, and social wellbeing. Our goal is to facilitate opportunities for residents to take ownership of their wellbeing, including by participating civically in decisions that affect their health. We believe that residents know the solutions that work best for their community, and have heard the community express these needs to the city, which is why we are concerned with the actions proposed under Item 22 in the city council agenda. Latino Health Access is writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit I Policy Language As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.' 'Kpetman,Roxana. (2021,August 3)."Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange County Register.h�t� ���v�v o�u q,�tcrconi/202I �)8/0/sa�,rnta� a�rna� to host vgrtua L:L. 111 bran q�ogA�� ova u�q�ln 1 PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access p A`( ,NO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 H ALT �y/ " Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACC ,, iii 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."2 The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. FAQs."National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.Accessed October 14,2022. PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access LATINO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACCESS �� �" % 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover, the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commision must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly, the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access LATINO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACCESS �� �" % 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org 1. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies; weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5)years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access LATINO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACCESS �� �" % 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, Latino Health Access strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Nancy Mejia, MPH, MSW Chief Program Officer 11;1.e"ja i) or g PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access LATINO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACCESS 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org CC: VSarm�cnto.(. an.a,..QEg ................................................................................ . .................... EKI., ( ..,5 P.1i.aji..(i)santa anaorg 5�c 0 p ............................... ...j�z.( at i)santa is out Wcndoza(La),santa ana on, .......................................................................... PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION Latino Health Access LATINO 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130 HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701 ACCESS ��' �" % 714-542-7792 www.latinohealthaccess.org PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION As (1,UP", we eehicale, org(tnize, cind mobilize thefitilh i°oriiri unilgJ to a7°i°ori ptiny workers Bind 1heirfitidies in their s ra ggleft)rgoodJobs, elit nily, cind.jaislice. CLUE October 18, 2022 k9a To: Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza fo , �� o dkr�r i,Jsfl e Santa Ana, CA92701 h::'7r E "r 4t K:algr!_ .iil;:1$9�"a"G, ecomment@santa-ana.org il Re: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Rev.Gary Williams Saint Mark United Methcdlist Church Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, l ; Mary Stancavage Meditation CoalWon Clergy&Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) seeks to educate, organize, and mobilize the h,a faith community while we accompany workers and their families in their struggle for good jobs, Derek Smith dignity, and justice. Today we are writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda UFCW 324 item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion,"and Exhibit 1. Rabbi oral Stephan J.Eiinsteiln We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to Congregation°''nai Tzedlek discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to 1 4,r"I er examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based John eager ward Afr; Nietiat�d ist Episcopalorganizations.We are concerned,however,that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs Griselda Mlariiscal from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and SELL)-UHW written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an Melissa McCarthy oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board,which a Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Rabbi Daniel hlehilrman Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and Ternple Ner l'arnid auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to Pastor Rri'die Roberts accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an UNITE HERE tl' effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the Vivian n Rothsothstei Vivian Monicaa l Committeefundamental police oversight provisions,listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the Michael Soto City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight NUHW commission. Ali Tweini' lrearnsters Local2010 Structural Failures of Exhibit I Policy Language As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more Staff detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will Rev.JenniferGutierrea give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct i Rev. r,ri Walter t�b�� re is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Faith-R,00teCOrganiz Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.' Faith-Roated organizer I»ucrrra Garcia 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Senior Faith-Rooted Organizer Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as Matthew Hottt it Faith Rooted Organizer allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely Mara-Rooted on investigators from within the police department."' The Exhibit 1 policy language will HR/A€innin Manager not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will Pastor Cue,tnMarlie Faith•Rooted Organizer Kpetman,Roxana. (2021,August 3)."Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange Adam Overton County Register. Faith-Rooted Organizer �n,�,G&��,//� � 4�4���, g ��r,�,4�,trrn/�f��„�,/f��s/f����a�gnLl um i i'l 11.1.1 al [Qwill Q.0 P,Q.... Q..V Guillermo Torres Dinel7iirectorof grmro�igrati�airn orofWelber z"FAQs."National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.Accessed October 14,2022. JackiDoveioprnent Director ltl,�&��;// � na1�,4pp�,�t�/�;,�i,° • 464 Lucas Ave#202* ➢ os Angeles,CA 90017*213481.3740*www, llue0stlice.o rg*Pirnnted in•Ihouse effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight,the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. 464➢.. caaw Ave#202* ➢ms Airng llu w,CA 90017*213...481.3740*www,duueJuusfice„aairg*Pirnirnted in•Ihouse Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD,including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury(Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commision must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly,the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission.NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: l. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that,if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses,police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies;weigh the evidence and credibility;identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents,unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. 464➢.. caaw Ave#202* ➢ms Airng llu w,CA 90017*213...481... 740*www,duueJuusfice„aairg*Pirnirnted in•Ihouse Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse,registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5)years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law,in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. 464➢.. caaw Ave#202* ➢ins Airng llu w,CA 90017*213...481.3740*www,duueJuusfice„aairg*Pirnirnted in•Ihouse For these reasons, CLUE strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Adam Overton Faith-Rooted Organizer, Orange County Clergy&Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) ................. ... CC: VS,Irl.n. e ii.to�,ii)sarita Zana�or Z' I]'I.I 1 '51 111:.uaa 2M 12.,5 at U It I M e l.0Pez' (.ii)sari[a an ..............I..........;...................M--------0_1 j.RyLatil-lergande/(.i)santaana org MgIlLzaks�lnva a�naor) 464 Lmcas Ave#202* Lms Aingelles,CA 90017 213 481.3740 wwwx1lueJusfice.oirg PiNinted iiirn house Middleton, Samuel From: Diana <diana.terreros17@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 1:56 PM To: eComment Cc: boomer@chispaoc.org Subject: Agenda Item 22: Police Oversight Ordinance Amendments Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, I am writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1.The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation- focused and auditor-focused models. Thanks, Diana i October 18, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ocaullne t same-ana.orb Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, As a long-time resident of Santa Ana, and a CLUE Justice volunteer and community faith leader with various churches across denominations in Orange County, I am writing with respect to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lan,-ua,-e As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models. 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department." The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management,policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover, the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversi,-ht Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse(including,but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity,religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including,but not limited to,unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commision must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high- risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly,the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: l. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies;weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse,registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, I join CLUE Justice, and all the community-based organizations engaged and invested in the above-mentioned work, and strongly support taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Adriana De La Rosa, Inter-Denominational Faith Leader and Community Activist, OC CC: VSarmientoO)santa-ana.org PBacerra( santa-ana.org TPhan c7 saute-ana.orb DPenaloza(6,santa-ana.org Jes sieLopez(�7 santa-ana.org JRyanHernandez�&santa-ana.org NMendoza( santa-ana.org October 18, 2022 Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecom entC s�.tnt�.t....ana o g Via Email RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, Orange County Congregation Community Organization (OCCCO)works to develop transformational leaders within diverse, multicultural, interfaith communities who together have the power to shape equitable public policy throughout Orange County. Orange County Congregation Community Organization (OCCCO) is writing to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based organizations. We are concerned, however, that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight commission. Structural Failures of Exhibit I Policy Lan,-uae As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct 1 is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.' 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."' The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. Kpetman,Roxana. (2021,August 3)."Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange County Register.hiiP� ,�&, ,�p rm m 202➢ 0S 03 �° a ..: ...h u i.�' m.. AA•n... ,�r,A h 2"FAQs."National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.Accessed October 14,2022. 2 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover, the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from being appointed to the commission. Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. Independent Investigatory Authority The commission must have authority to investigate serious incidents, such as use of force whether or not someone has filed a complaint. The commission must have the authority to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action regarding all complaints filed against members of SAPD, including but not limited to: 1. All incidents of in-custody deaths or serious injury (Category I incidents). 2. Use of force, including force involving physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons. 3. Police Department pursuits that result in collision or injury. 4. Misconduct and public complaints including, but not limited to, excessive use of force, dereliction of duty to intercede during a use of force incident, abuse of authority, coercion, verbal abuse (including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability), and discriminatory behavior. 5. Civil rights violations including, but not limited to, unlawful stop or arrest, improper search or seizure of either individuals or property, unlawful denial of access to counsel, and interference with First Amendment assemblies, association, or expression. 6. Conduct that bears on the credibility of officers or demonstrates moral turpitude, including perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 3 7. Criminal conduct involving theft, bribery, racketeering, trafficking, sexual assault, or domestic violence. The commision must also have the authority to regularly review and potentially investigate high-risk police activities such as stops, arrests, and searches, as well as high risk programs including the Major Enforcement Team, Gang Suppression Unit, and other units within the SAPD Investigations Bureau. Importantly, the commission must have access to independent legal counsel to advise on their work and duties. The policy must clearly establish the investigatory responsibilities of the Commission. NACOLE identifies investigatory-model duties to include the following: 1. Identify the relevant police policy or policies that, if supported by evidence, constitute the basis of the complaint and allegations. 2. Conduct interviews of witnesses including civilian witnesses, police witnesses. 3. Gather evidence including photographs, sound and video recordings, receipts, and documents relevant to the complaint. 4. Prepare an investigative report identifying the witnesses interviewed and summaries of their testimonies; weigh the evidence and credibility; identify any gaps in the investigation due to lost or unavailable documents, unavailable or uncooperative witnesses, etc. 5. Make recommendations or findings as to whether the evidence supports the allegation(s). In some oversight systems, the agency has the authority to recommend and/or impose discipline. Police Oversight Commission Qualifications We urge the creation of a commission composed of diverse community leaders with the knowledge and experience to effectuate meaningful oversight of SAPD. We urge the council to support a commission appointed by the city council with the following qualifications: 1. To the extent practicable, appointments to the commission shall be broadly representative of Santa Ana's diversity and shall include members with knowledge and/or experience in the fields of human resources practices, management, policy development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. 2. Appointments to the commission shall be representative of the communities most affected by and with the most frequent contact with the Police Department. 3. Federal immigration status and criminal convictions shall not be considered in the appointment of the commission. Current and former sworn law enforcement officers should be excluded from commission membership. Immediate family members of law enforcement officers: spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent children should also be excluded from commission membership. Finally, current or former employees, contractors, officials or representatives of a association or an employee association representing sworn peace officers, must not be eligible to serve on the commision. If former law enforcement officers are permitted to serve on the commission, we believe the following minimum guardrails must be adopted: 4 1. Former law enforcement officers shall not be eligible to serve until they have been retired for at least five (5) years. 2. Former law enforcement officers must have occupied a managerial rank within their department. 3. Former law enforcement officers must not have been employed by a law enforcement agency in Orange County. 4. Former law enforcement officers must be limited to only one (1) commission membership appointment to ensure the commission is represented by majority civilians. Access to Police Department Documents and Records. The commission must have unfettered access to all relevant SAPD files, documents and records, except as otherwise prohibited by law, in addition to all files and records of other City departments and agencies. The commission must have access to the records necessary for their investigations and audits. Any relevant records held by the police department that can be shared in a discretionary manner must be proactively disclosed to the commission in the discharge of their duties. Power to Issue Disciplinary Recommendations The ordinance passed by the City Council must explicitly authorize the commission to deliver disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD. An independent investigation will be meaningful only if its findings inform the basis for deciding possible disciplinary actions. The commission must play a role in officer discipline. Commission Transparency and Reporting The commission must be required to conduct public meetings on SAPD's policies, practices, procedures, customs, orders, collective bargaining agreements, programs, training, and annual budget. The commission must also be authorized to issue recommendations to the City Council on the aforementioned subjects. Police Department Transparency and Reporting One of the essential functions of police oversight is increased transparency. The commission must have access to police department data to inform their work. Per Assembly Bill 71 (2014) SAPD is mandated by state law to annually submit data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on use of force incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury, death, or discharge of a firearm. Under AB 953 (2015), SAPD is mandated to report a) all vehicle and pedestrian stops and b) citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling to the DOJ. Use of force and racial and identity profiling are matters of great concern for the police commission. Because SAPD is issuing reports to the DOJ, we urge the City Manager and City Council to mandate the Police Department issue an annual written report summarizing use of force and racial and identity profiling data to the commission. It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana build an effective police oversight model to help avert future unjustified use of deadly force against civilians, hold police officers accountable for 5 misconduct, and intervene to resolve systemic problems within the Santa Ana Police Department. For these reasons, OCCCO strongly supports taking into consideration the recommendations and proposed amendments to create meaningful effective oversight in Santa Ana. Sincerely, Maria Valencia Community Organizer 6